« Intelligence Is As Intelligence Does | Main | The War Of The Imagination »
November 27, 2006
Sach Up
Jeffrey Sachs writes:
When we overlook the success that is possible, we become our own worst enemies. We stand by as millions die each year because they are too poor to stay alive. The inattention and neglect of our policy leaders lull us to believe casually that nothing more can be done. Meanwhile we spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year on military interventions doomed to fail, overlooking the fact that a small fraction of that money, if it were directed at development approaches, could save millions of lives and set entire regions on a path of economic growth. It is no wonder that global attitudes toward America have reached the lowest ebb in history. It is time for a new approach.
Were I the Gates Foundation, I'd spend a few hundred million aligning national perceptions of our foreign aid spending with what we actually spend. Remember this survey?
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, Americans spend a bit over $24 billion on food stamps, about $20 billion on foreign aid, and around $700 billion on defense (including ongoing wars). And that yet overstates the foreign aid budget, whose single largest recipient is the Israeli Defense Forces. Ever wonder if we'd be so hated, and anti-American organizations would have so much traction, if our military spending wasn't more than 35 times our humanitarian spending? Meanwhile, surveys show that Americans think our total foreign aid budget should be much higher than it is. Problem is, they also think it's much higher than it is. Which is why the Gates Foundation should spend a few bucks on public education.
November 27, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Seriously? I'm much more interested in Gates spending money on direct benefit stuff than PR.
Posted by: Roxanne | Nov 27, 2006 10:26:44 AM
Not me. The Gates foundation has assets of a couple dozen billion. If they could change the domestic politics such that foreign aid went up by an annual, say, $15 billion, it would lead to more money donated within a couple years than the Gates Foundation will be able to give over its lifetime. You can't have a robust foreign aid program in the private sector -- it simply lacks the appropriate resources. And, meanwhile, a few hundred million spent on this would cost just about nothing for the Gates folks, but pay off in many, many multiples. Twould be sweet.
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 27, 2006 10:37:58 AM
I cannot count the number of times I have pointed this out to people: the American people generally ask for a 60% cut in the foreign aid budget (from a perceived 25% to a desired 10%) when they should actually be asking for a 2000% increase (from consistently less than .5%). Politicians consistently cite a lack of public support as a reason for not doing more internationally. That's because the American people have no idea how little we actually do.
In other words, I think Ezra is right (and by extension, Roxanne is wrong). Those few million in PR can go a remarkably long way to building a long-term constituency for foreign aid. (I don't think it should be 10%, but it could be quite a bit higher than it is.)
Posted by: jhupp | Nov 27, 2006 10:42:32 AM
Why would Gates spend on PR to influence the giving of the government when direct benefit would be more efficient? No politics, little waste.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 27, 2006 10:46:54 AM
I believe I've seen a figure somewheres that puts our charitable donations to Israel since the 40's at around $99 Billion...
Posted by: Fred | Nov 27, 2006 10:54:44 AM
Ezra contends that America is cheap on foreign aid. He may be right, and he may not. Cheap is a relative term, relative to what other countries give annually.
I am having trouble finding figures from reliable sources that compare foreign aid from each of the industrialized countries. Anyone have a link?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 27, 2006 10:59:21 AM
HERE we go!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 27, 2006 11:02:16 AM
Fred, I don't have an actual link or cite to such data, but I saw some once, and I think I remember what it said. As I recall, the US is below average on foreign aid (especially non-military foreign aid) for wealthy countries, but they are not last and are within the same rough ballpark as most other wealthy countries. The Scandinavians lead the way, as I recall.
Posted by: djw | Nov 27, 2006 11:03:00 AM
The Scandinavians lead the way, as I recall.
Perhaps as a percentage of GDP, but let's face it, a large percentage of a small economy will not help as much as a large amount of money, and the US gives far, FAR more than any other country. And as Ezra once told me, "You're welcome to think charity matters most, but I don't buy it."
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 27, 2006 11:09:49 AM
Huh, I recall a few more countries being below the US. According to Fred's data, we're last every year so far this century except 2004, where Italy falls below us.
As to the topic at hand--I'm curious, Ezra, does the gates foundation have a track record of public opinion shifts of this magnitude? This erroneous view on foreign aid has been stable for quite some time, and I believe it's generally acknowledged that beliefs that are long held tend to be sticky in the face of information to the contrary. I'm not opposed to a PR campaign by Gates, but I wonder if the calculation being done here isn't a bit optimistic. If Gates were able to singlehandedly change this long held bit of public opinion through PR alone, that would be quite a feat. Furthermore, even if they did cause this change, would it actually result in political pressure to change aid policy? If the public holds 'correct' views, they might afford this a low priority, and it might not result in much political pressure.
Posted by: djw | Nov 27, 2006 11:14:53 AM
Not going to work.
People believe what they want to believe, and they will forget or ignore data that doesn't fit their preconceived biases. It took over three years to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein wasn't behind 9/11.
It is much easier for Americans to think of the Third World as corrupt welfare bums living off of Uncle Sam's handouts than the terrifying reality of people actually living on $400 a year. And it makes their patriotic juices feel good to think of America as the "most generous nation in the world" and they won't give this up easily.
And despite the belief that foreign aid is so high, I don't remember pressure to cut it actually becoming an election issue. At most, there have been demands to cut aid to countries that don't vote our way in the UN General Assembly.
Posted by: tyronen | Nov 27, 2006 11:19:21 AM
Fred's certainly right that the world as a whole does poorly on foreign aid. As a percentage of the economy, we do worse than many, but even if we did the best, we're not giving nearly enough -- either to satisfy ethical obligations or the national interest. A lot of aid can go a long way in winning friends. That's why we gave so much after WWII and during the Cold War.
As for whether the Gates Foundation has changed public opinion, they haven't. I don't even think they've tried. But as argued above, the American people think we give 25% of our budget, and in fact we give 0.5%. Given how many people are dying needlessly, and how much good American can do, I genuinely believe the American people can be convinced in a more generous direction.
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 27, 2006 11:19:51 AM
Perhaps as a percentage of GDP, but let's face it, a large percentage of a small economy will not help as much as a large amount of money, and the US gives far, FAR more than any other country.
Oh, for christ's sake. By your logic we lead the world in virtually any statistic you care to pick by virtue of having 300 million people. Go team! What if took the wealthy half of the EU and added up their charitable donations? We'd probably come off looking pretty bad. But whatever, Fred. Keep on moving the goalposts. Someday it'll work.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Nov 27, 2006 11:21:43 AM
to add to tyro's point- 30 percent or so of the population still believes that Saddam was behind 9/11. You aren't going to convince them of theis because its willful ignorance that disregards inconvient data
Posted by: akaison | Nov 27, 2006 11:35:46 AM
The US could do a great deal to improve its worldly reputation by easing down on its huge financial support for the international arms business. Arms manufacturers/developers soak up US tax dollars like super sponges, and our government never refuses whenever they ask for more. What little regulation is in place to restrict the circulation of these weapons is easily circumvented and there are plenty of corrupt governments around to spend huge chunks of their GDP to get more. These armaments and their decendents are all over the world in every rogue government and every rebel conflict, resulting in more violence and more unrest, and plenty of US tax dollars are always there to keep the business thriving.
Posted by: sprocket | Nov 27, 2006 12:25:22 PM
If people are looking for more than GDP per capita or % of GDP numbers check out the Commitment to Development Index. It has the US in the middle of the pack largely because of trade and the generosity of individual Americans (which is a much studied topic - basically the govt doesn't give much but private citizens give much mor ethan in any other country). Personally I think CGD finessed the indicators a little to push the US up a little more than where it should be, but it is a transparent resource so you can decide for yourself.
Also, the Rockefeller Foundation has been trying to do what you propose for quite some time now, with only marginal success.
Posted by: DMA | Nov 27, 2006 12:36:40 PM
"The US could do a great deal to improve its worldly reputation by easing down on its huge financial support for the international arms business."
It could also do a great deal by giving more of its existing overseas aid directly to people overseas (with appropriate controls/monitoring). At present something like 80% of US aid is spent on US products/services which are then given to the recipient countries. It has become a very effective way of dumping, for example, surplus US grain.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Nov 27, 2006 12:44:42 PM
30 percent or so of the population still believes that Saddam was behind 9/11.
But that's down a great deal from where it was a couple years ago. Education does help.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 27, 2006 1:04:33 PM
Between the trillion dollars (at least) that we'll end up pissing away in Mesopotamia, and the half- to three-quarter trillion that we piss away on "defense" programs, the opportunity costs are staggering, beyond comprehension. Imagine what we could do, at home and in the world, if we devoted half these sums (and the associated technical talent) to solving real problems, instead of chasing bogeymen.
Posted by: sglover | Nov 27, 2006 1:09:27 PM
Jeffrey Sachs, oh please. Dude is filthy rich and only talks about how much other people should help the poor. Yawn.
Posted by: Tony | Nov 27, 2006 1:47:49 PM
In all the arguments for reducing military spending, "so maybe anti-american groups might like us & want to be friends" ranks very very low.
As for foreign aid, except for the evangelist himself (Sachs) before we commit to more foreign aid, shouldn't we be considering whether or not it's useful or doing any good, or even doing more good than bad. Some people never consider these things. They consider foreign aid to just be the alms we toss in the bucket to pay for respect.
Posted by: DRR | Nov 27, 2006 2:10:02 PM
So consider them. The Sachs piece is actually about the good that aid does.
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 27, 2006 2:17:09 PM
The Gates foundation has assets of a couple dozen billion. If they could change the domestic politics such that foreign aid went up by an annual, say, $15 billion, it would lead to more money donated within a couple years than the Gates Foundation will be able to give over its lifetime.
Thank you.
I am having trouble finding figures from reliable sources that compare foreign aid from each of the industrialized countries. Anyone have a link?
Every human development report has a table of aid donors and recipients. The latest one says that among the 22 donor countries, the US ranks 21st in aid as a percentage of GDP and 18th in aid per capita. Although the US spends more than any other country in absolute terms, it spends somewhat less than the combination of France, Germany, and Britain, which has two thirds its population and half its GDP.
Posted by: Alon Levy | Nov 27, 2006 2:21:21 PM
Of course some of our military spending probably should be considered foreign aid. I'm not talking about controversial subjects like Iraq or even Afghanistan, but the important job the U.S. Navy does in keeping the worlds oceans free for commerce. Obviously that benefits us, but it benefits the rest of the world as well.
This is pretty much a job our Navy does on its own. No other country has naval power anywhere near ours or is capable of doing it. If we ceased to do it, to give more direct aid to nations, then either world commerce would be greatly endangered (with disasterous results) or others would have to step up, dramatically increasing their defense budgets and undoubtely lowering their foreign aid as a result.
I don't know that the idea that higher aid to a country corresponds with us being less hated in that country either. America is not particularly popular in Egypt, for example, but we do send considerable aid there.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Nov 27, 2006 3:02:43 PM
sure- it helps, but its not the cure all
Posted by: akaison | Nov 27, 2006 5:21:24 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
