The old US foreign aid debate–luxury or necessity–is revisited in the context of a world in flux, and from hard-headed economists (mostly) is “does it work?” (George Ayittey has argued on “Dead Aid” that it actually is counterproductive.)
Aid has been debated by the likes of Steven Radelet, State Dept v. William Easterly, NYU, among others. Nicholas Kristof has a reading list, in case you’re still interested. Your view?
Given the relatively small foreign aid budget — it accounts for 1 percent of federal spending over all — the effect of the cuts could be disproportional.
The State Department already has scaled back plans to open more consulates in Iraq, for example. The spending trend has also constrained support for Tunisia and Egypt, where autocratic leaders were overthrown in popular uprisings. While many have called for giving aid to these countries on the scale of the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild European democracies after World War II, the administration has been able to propose only relatively modest investments and loans, and even those have stalled in Congress.
“There is a democratic awakening in places that have never dreamed of democracy,” Mrs. Clinton said on Friday. “And it is unfortunate that it’s happening at a historic time when our own government is facing so many serious economic challenges, because there’s no way to have a Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa.”
via Foreign Aid Set to Take Hit in U.S. Budget Crisis – NYTimes.com.
There appears to be a ‘third way’ developing–somewhere between Sachs and Easterly, that Jacqueline Novorgratz and others are exploring.
Informed Chatter