The journey from there to here
This is part five of my blogs on the Libertarian Party platform. If you have any questions on the Libertarian Party, please feel free to go to: www.lp.org or contact me at: miner432004@yahoo.com

Libertarian foreign policy: Ending welfare for nations -- foreign aid
BY MICHAEL TANNER
Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations -- with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs.

The U.S. currently spends approximately $14 billion per year on foreign aid -- far less than most people believe, but still a substantial sum. Since the end of World War II, the United States has spent more than $400 billion on aid to other countries. But there is little evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic development and created dependence.

Indeed, the U.S. Agency for International Development itself admits, "Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status." In fact, despite massive amounts of international aid, the average annual increase in per capita GNP has declined steadily in developing nations since the 1960s, with many of the Third World's heaviest aid recipients actually suffering negative economic growth.

Tanzania provides a perfect example. Since the early 1970s, Tanzania has received more international aid per capita than any other country. Yet, the country remains the world's third-poorest nation and has had no per capita GNP growth between 1980 and 1992. During the same period, inflation averaged 25% and energy and agricultural production declined dramatically.

A recent study by Peter Boone of the London School of Economics and the Center for Economic Performance confirmed that U.S. economic aid does not promote economic development. Studying more than 100 countries, Boone concluded that "Long-term aid is not a means to create [economic] growth."

There are many reasons for the failure of foreign aid. First, foreign aid has a widespread record of waste, fraud, and abuse. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda, sent sewing machines to areas without electricity, and constructed hospitals in cities where a dozen similar facilities already sat half empty.

Frequently, the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders. The Agency for International Development admitted in 1993 that "much of the investment financed by AID between 1960 and 1980 has disappeared without a trace."

Even when aid reaches its intended beneficiaries, the results are often counterproductive. Just as domestic welfare prevents Americans from becoming self-sufficient, foreign aid keeps entire nations dependent. According to one internal AID audit, "Long-term feeding programs . . . have great potential for creating disincentives for food production."

Specific examples of counterproductive aid policies are easy to come by. For example, following a devastating earthquake in Guatemala, farmers trying to sell their surplus grain found the market flooded by the U.S. Food for Peace program. As a result, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, "food aid stood in the way of development." According to journalist Michael Maren, a long-time volunteer with such groups as the Peace Corps, Catholic Relief Services, and AID, aid to Somalia aggravated the country's famine, disrupted local agriculture, and turned nomadic tribesmen into "relief junkies." Similar results have been documented in countries as diverse as Colombia, Haiti, and India.

Moreover, foreign aid has often been used to prop up failing Socialist economies, preventing countries from moving to free-market economic policies. Yet, an examination of world economies clearly shows that those countries with free markets experience the greatest economic prosperity.

As a result, Alex de Waal, president of the human rights group, Africa Rights, concludes that foreign aid is "structurally bad because it undermines the incentive to take responsibility. The more aid a country receives, the less the government of that country has to answer to the people."

If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, "Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries -- trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like -- generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid."

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 21, 2004
It's true that majority of foreign aid does not actually get to the people who need it, and it is also true that a large portion of it is misused or used for personal use of government officials. It is also true that foreign aid is misspent in areas that are not ready for development, a perfect example, is your example sewing machines being sent to places without electricity.

Since this is widely known that very few countries actually become economically dependent when foreign aid is received. It is also known that there are several benefits for sending economic aid to countries.

The first reason is simply not to look bad to the rest of the world. If The United States of America withheld all of it’s economic budget for foreign aid, The United Nations would cry foul play and especially Americans at home.

The second reason is if we pulled economic aid out of countries that wanted it and if they didn’t receive, there would be a long lasting hatred towards The United States of America. This might in turn development a military or a terrorist organization that would have the ultimate goal of attacking The United States of America or it’s allies.

The third reason is noted by the economical theorist Keynes. He believed that, before it ever happened, that do to the high loans imposed on Germany after WWII, it would lead to social disarray, poverty and which would in turn be a breading ground for Socialism. After Socialists would take power it would lead to war and devastation. Keynes was right on this so I would beg to differ that we shouldn’t stop aid in countries that want it.

So what is my solution?…

Instead of giving a check to a government that is need of economical aid, The United States of America (among all countries), should do the aid developing of that country and then government that is in need of economical aid can’t spend it frivolous ways.

For instance, a country asks for $1,000,000 USD to build schools in their underdeveloped country. Instead of writing the check, we would send a team with a budget of $1,000,000 USD and actually build the schools that are needed or partially hire local people to help out. Then there would be less problems, although there would still be problems.

It may seem a like large some of money ($14 Billion USD) but it’s actually not, especially to make sure there is temporary security in undeveloped countries and to keep the image The United States of America wishes to have.

True, there should be private sectors expanding into underdeveloped countries but it is hard to do that if the country is almost in total chaos. Such as the Coca Cola factory in Africa, it was attack repeatedly, bombed, shot at, etc… But private enterprise made it literally bomb proof and production continued.

Also about private sectors. Private sectors are continually focusing on stable countries that have the appearance of being underdeveloped. Such as China, Mexico, Taiwan and among others. They are somewhat secure and yet they are extremely cheap to produce products, then why move your manufacturing plant somewhere else?

Americans should do more building than just giving a check to underdeveloped countries to make sure it gets where it is needed. But its also a small price to pay to have the appearance of doing good.

American policy just needs to shift into the direction I described above, instead completely leaving these countries to fend for themselves and producing more problems which might end up costing us more money, time and things other than money, like lives in the long run.
on Aug 21, 2004
Thanks for your reply.

It is my position that such overtures need to come from the private sector or not at all. We are moving towards an increasingly socialist mindset, and such a mindset ignores the rights and responsibilities of the individual. We must remember that forced compassion is not compassion at all.

That being said, I think your idea of sending teams over with a budget to do what needs to be done is an excellent one. If a country will not allow our workers in, perhaps they don't need our help after all.
on Aug 21, 2004
I should correct myself, Wwen I posted about Keynes theory about Germany.

It was not after WWII it was rather WWI.

It was WWII that he prodicted would happend after after WWI do to the high economical stress put on by The United States of America and its allies.
on Aug 21, 2004
Amen to the original post, I especially love the part about how food relief floods the local market, putting local farmers out of business.

IRT Samuel, I completely understand where you are coming from, but I don't really think that countries besides wealthy european ones would really care if we stopped giving aid. Countries that currently "receive" aid wouldn't care because its all being stolen by warlords anyway, or otherwise ruining the local economies. What Muslim extremists think really doesn't matter imo, because they if we stopped foreign aid they would say we were infidels because we were hogging all the worlds wealth, if we doubled foreign aid they would say that we're infidels because imposing our western society onto their traditions.

Also, I like what you said about how we should look more closely at how our money is spent and would like to add this: private foreign aid organizations almost all already do that. Unlike the united states, where the bueracrats only care that they can say that they have given X billion dollars to foreign aid regardless of the fact that 90% of it might have been stolen, and that the rest has been crippling the developing economies and breeding dependence, private organizations actually care about where the money and resources go. For example, I did some fundraising a couple years ago for an organization that directly built and runs 2 schools in afghanistan. They are there for every step of the process, as are most private organizations, because otherwise nobody would donate. The US government doesnt need to be bothered by such accountability because they can just steal the money out of the taxpayers wallets.
on Aug 21, 2004
True, that forced compassion is not really compassion at all. But I don't see what that has to do with anything pertaining to this topic or how you can force compassion on someone, compassion is a mutual feeling in this instance.

If The United States of America or any country sends aid, how can the be forced compassion? It may always be turned down by the recipient and its not like you must accept it.

I do believe that we are moving towards a Socialist like government but that is besides the point. Socialist ways are a dangerous game and should be taken with serious thought.

But who wouldn’t think that couple million dollars isn’t compassion?

Although the money doesn’t have conditions of spreading Socialism it does create Socialism in these countries by having them become dependent and not self sufficient and going to who actually needs it.

That aside, I do agree with you that if a country asks for aid and we wish to send direct aid to them (a team) and build, fix, teach something or someone and the country then refuses, something isn’t right and therefore aid shouldn’t be given but not denied.

I believe that private organizations have done more than The United States government but if The United States government were to cut foreign aid completely, the media would have a field day. Also, The United Nations would condemn The United States actions although it hasn’t been the first time, for example The United Nations has The United States of America for not providing a house to everyone in the country because it is considered a right. And there are several organizations in The United States of America that do more than the federal government does.

But there are SEVERAL organizations, in the hundreds, that have the specific intent of making profit for the owners and I know of such organizations that pay the owners with ninety-nine percent of the donations.

So it wouldn’t be fare to say private organizations are better that the federal government.

I do realize that ninety percent of the money doesn’t actually go anywhere but warlords, but that ten percent does go somewhere and if it may be a few hundred thousand dollars, the dollar can go a long why in underdeveloped countries.

I think its more of a dog and pony show for everyone.

Giving economic aid is actually a good idea if you look from this perspective, if it is going to most of the powerful officials and warlords, that means you have a strong amount of say in how they run their government.

The side effect of that is that they may use it to develop illegal activities, such as President Aristide did in Mogadishu, producing drugs and selling it to The United States of America. And eventually that country becomes self sufficient and if you withdrawal the economic aid, it will either turn out that the country will capitulate or completely ignore the demands, such as President Aristide did in Mogadishu.

In the middle east, it is tough to say how they would react because several citizens dislike The United States of America no matter what Americans do or do not do. But if you look at what happened recently in Iran, there may be some leeway.

Basically there needs to be a transition period instead of direct sudden action because this is a tip toe like subject and any sudden action may stir up relations with allies and The United Nations. Plus if there is a transitional period, no country can say that it isn’t fare and not having substantial proof to back it up.
on Aug 21, 2004
Yeah. I really don't think that there could be a lot of negative backlash form UN countries, after all America dontates more in foreign aid than any other country and donates more to private charitable organizations per capita then any other country. I just believe that the government needs to get out of the aid game except in cases where aid might be part of a peace or trade agreement and leave it to private organizations.
on Aug 21, 2004
There could be a lot of negative feedback because The United States America gives the most in foreign aid.
Especially from the United Nations and not from countries that are make up The United Nations, those are two different things.

If The United States of America were to pull all foriegn aid, it's not like The United Nations could do anything.

What are they going to do, sancation The United States with their Army?
"Uh oh, you don't have an Army." - Black Bush (Dave Chappell)

The donations should be given in a grant form to orginazations that take direct action such as The Peace Corps and among other organizations, especially the ones that use a large portion of volunteers. Then allow them, and somewhat limit them, to build only infrastructure with the grants that were giving which in turn, will allow that country to be productive.

Such as school and roads would be an example of infrastructure.

This again goes back to Keynes' Economical Theory that it is better to spend money that will enable people to be more productive then just to spend it.

Countries would ask for help to private organizations and then would be examined by the organizations if it would be worth the investment, if the country refuses help with set conditions, so be it. No help will be given.

This it would make level the playing field and insure the money goes where it should.
on Aug 22, 2004
One of the best ways the US could relieve the aid problem would be to pay off or cancel some of the 3rd world debt. Many countries have to devote the majority of their income to paying off the interest on loans, money that could be better spent improving infrastructure, public health or education. The island nation of Nauru will be bankrupt soon due to an inability to pay back the loans it was given as part of aid arrangements - if it does, that will prove a significant challenge for the international finance system. Mexico faced the same situation a few years back, and it was only through drastic action that the US and others were able to avoid the problems associated with a state simply refusing to pay its debts.

Personally I think the only really effective means of aid has proven to be microcredit groups, such as that started in India which has since spread across the Third World. If the US felt it had to give aid itself, it could do worse than to support programs like these.
on Aug 22, 2004
Actually I don't think thats necessarily a good idea to pay off the loans of a third world government, debt is a good thing for a country, but with every rule there is an exception.

The exception here is if the value of the currency will be worth nothing and the fear of immigration to stabalized highly economically developed countries occurs.

The exception example would be Mexico, as you stated, during the 1990's when President Clinton was in office.
Basically Mexico would become bankrupt within a month if something extremely drastic step wasn't tanken.

Obviously Mexico didn't want to do anything and the currency was going to be worthless, this would cause mass panic among the people of Mexico.

What would be the problem with this situation?... Basically a flood of illegal immigrants coming into The United States of America and taking jobs away on a massive scale, wich would in turn destablize the economy.

That is why President Clinton sent an enormous aid package to Mexico, to ensure the well being of American Citizens.

The only countries The United States Government should have concern for destablizing The United States with immigrants is countries like Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, South America and in the unlikely event Canada.

So to compare neighboring countries of The United States to ones across the globe is an unfare comparization.

Also, I do have to say that the public and private sector is seperated.
So the federal government can loan or give to private organizations, like the Peace Corps, money through grants and loans.
So you can't say its a giving "...aid itself..." and "...it could do worse..."

But that being said, I also find the idea of microcredits very promising and hope to see more of them.
on Aug 22, 2004
OMG... now were going to go around the globe paying aoff everyone's debt while the federal government still has $7T of it....

I don't know. My personal opinions is that if you stopped all welfare, including all types of foreign aid and corporate welfare, then you would be able to cute taxes, empowering the american people to give more to charitable organizations if they so wished. Private organizations are going to be more efficient then the federal government in getting aid to people (whether it be the poor in america or the poor in uganda).

Also, like the original article said, the best way to help these coutries would be to improve the american economy and remove/ prevent any barrierds for american companies to set up shop overseas. You can dump all the food and medicine you want on a poor country, but realistically speaking, the countries can only improve if people from developed companies set up shop and start employing the people. For example, India and China would never have emerged from their decrepid states of poverty had western nations not satrted outsourceing jobs there. Their standards of living have skyrocketed in the past couple decades.
on Aug 22, 2004
I don't know. My personal opinions is that if you stopped all welfare, including all types of foreign aid and corporate welfare, then you would be able to cute taxes


You want to cut taxes while we have a 500 billion dollar deficit and 7 trillion dollar debt? I think everyone who balances their checkbook that having $22,000 in additional debt is not what we want. The thing is, each citizen's share of the debt is that much.
on Aug 22, 2004
i agree- and in order to pay back our debts, our government has to downsize. If we were to cut the federal budget from $2T to $1T and then lowered total taxes to $1.3T, we would be on the road to fiscal responsibility.
on Aug 22, 2004
The problem with cutting our budget to 1 trillion is that between social security and medicare, more than 1 trillion dollars is spent. Further, an additional 400 billion is spent on paying our interest on our loans. The rest of the budget is pretty much defense spending, with everything else combined taking up another 500 billion dollars (including salleries for the 2 million federal employees).
on Aug 22, 2004
to see the exact numbers of our budget, not including the war in Iraq which Bush has left out of the budget, click here

on Aug 22, 2004
We could end medicare if we made some reforms that would drastically cut the cost of recieving medical treatment, including changing intellectual property laws, having tort reform so that doctors, hospitals, and drug companies would be less liable if something unfortunate were to occur, and changing FDA regulations making it easier and cheaper for drug companies to get drugs authorized. I realize that the FDA does what it does in the name of safety, but when new drugs are go through 4 or 5 years of government testing its ridiculous. Besides making the drug R&D stage more expensive for drug companies, it means that if a competitor wants to release a competing drug in response to a drug released by someone else, their drug is going to have to go through its own 4 or 5 years. You change these things and the cost of medicine drops drastically, and we no longer need medicare.

As far as Social Security... I believe that you have to give to people what they were promised, but as it stands the current system is a disastrous pyramid scheme that just furthers the deficit. While I'm not totally against some form of forced savings because in the long term its better for the country, the system definately needs to be privatized. You get practically nothing from the money you give to social security, and a lot of times you're dead before you can collect all that you put in. We need to stop the viscous cycle- every year the government pays out more in SS then it takes in, and it is only going to get worse as the remaining baby boomers hit retirement age.
2 Pages1 2