Running head: FOREIGN AID 1 Foreign Aid Megan Walters ...
Transcript of Running head: FOREIGN AID 1 Foreign Aid Megan Walters ...
Running head: FOREIGN AID 1
Foreign Aid
Megan Walters
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Professor P.T. Barrett
ECO2013 (339255) Prin. of Economics I
March 20, 2011
FOREIGN AID 2
ABSTRACT
Poverty is an economic disease that must be treated aggressively with a stabilized
economy; the tool for creating such a stable economy is foreign aid. Foreign aid is the sum of all
material and monetary donations given to a developing country. However, after a popular global
effort to use foreign aid as a combatant to poverty, there are few positive results reported. Is
foreign aid a waste of resources, and it the fight against poverty futile? The answers to those
questions lie in the application of resources and an attitude adjustment toward the concept of
foreign aid.
FOREIGN AID 3
An Introduction to Foreign Aid
Poverty is a disease of economies which, left untreated, can create a culture of destitute
people and corrupted governments. Poverty within developing countries often leaves citizens
fighting against harsh physical, social, and economic conditions; such an impoverished
livelihood usually results in large numbers of otherwise unnecessary fatalities. According to
Sachs (2005), poverty itself can be a cause of economic stagnation along with geographical
disadvantages, governance failures, cultural barriers, geopolitics, and an overall lack of
innovation and technology.
The overarching goal of foreign aid is to help such developing countries recover from
poverty with new, stabilized economies. Moyo (2009) defines foreign aid as �the sum total of
both concessional loans and grants.� In other words, foreign aid is the sum of all monetary and
material expenditures of a country that are given to a (developing) country in need. As Moyo
(2009) points out, the history of large scale foreign aid can be dated back as early as the 19 th
century; a time in which foreign aid existed out of the good will of philanthropists around the
world. Currently, there are several more reasons for giving aid, that often include certain
religious precepts and/or an interest in long term economic investment (Sachs, 2005). Past or
present, however, the largest factor of foreign aid deals with the most recognized and global
underlying reasons for a nation or government to do anything: politics. Throughout history, the
people and governments that insist on giving relief to impoverished and torn nations have been
motivated by the possibility of spreading their political beliefs globally.
History of Foreign Aid
Moyo (2009), details a history of post-war (WWII) foreign aid, starting with the 1940s
birth of major structure for the purpose of foreign aid, in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. It was
there that a whopping 700 delegates from 44 countries met to establish a framework for a global
FOREIGN AID 4
system of financial and monetary management. The main agenda was to �restructure
international finance, establish a multilateral trading system and construct a framework for
economic cooperation that would avoid a repeat of the Great Depression� (Moyo, 2009). The true
motivation behind this gathering was the rallying of support that Europe would need in order to
recover economic and political stability out of the ashes of World War II. John Maynard Keynes
and Harry Dexter white pioneered discussions that laid foundations for the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, and also known as the World Bank), the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and the International Trade Organization.
Another great stride for foreign aid efforts began on June 5, 1947, when George C.
Marshal produced a proposal that outlined a plan to make a rescue package available from the
United States to 14 disadvantaged European countries. After approval, the plan proved hugely
successful! The rescue package plan remained active for five more years, utilizing funds in the
amount of about $13 billion. As a result of the Marshal Plan, much of Western Europe was able
to recover their previous economic standings. In return, America gained allies out of those
grateful nations, and more influence on foreign policies. The success of the plan created the
global popular belief that investment is critical for economic growth; that common belief is the
cornerstone of most modern foreign aid philosophies.
In the 1970�s, leading donor countries began to notice that the loans and grants they were
giving to developing, and often un-creditworthy, nations were merely placing those countries into
greater debt. Foreign aid leaders and economists started believing that short-term financial
investments and infrastructure-targeted funding were not the right kind of investments for
developing countries. People began to believe that growth-oriented strategy was not good enough
to provide a sustainable economy. Instead, they surmised that real sustainable growth was not
possible without materially improving the livelihood of society's poor. As a result of that new-
FOREIGN AID 5
found belief, foreign aid organizers decided that it would be more beneficial to invest in more
long-term relief social projects such as �... agriculture and rural development, social services,
mass inoculation programmes, adult literacy campaigns, as well as food for the malnourished...�
(Moyo, 2009). The goal for aid evolved into creating a system that would provide a country with
the tools necessary to become a sustainable force in the global economy.
The duration of the Cold War created a long foreign aid �battle� between Western
democratic countries (primarily the US) and communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR); developing nations were being aided (bought) by both sides in an attempt to spread
either global democracy or global communism. With a large focus on socio-economic ideologies,
few donor countries sought to reprimand any corrupt governments (particularly in Africa) that
were embezzling foreign aid funds. After the Cold War ended, donor countries soon realized the
horrible situation that the corruption was causing within developing countries. The resulting
effect was a large change in foreign aid policies that would focus on better governance practices
of developing (recipient) nations. This last great common change in most global foreign aid
policies has carried over into the new millennium. In today's global society, it is believe that once
the correct political environments are established, the assistance granted to developing countries
will have greater chances of helping secure a more stable economy (Moyo, 2009).
Types of Foreign Aid:
According to Moyo (2009), there are three basic globally-recognized forms of aid
distributed to nations in need: humanitarian (emergency) aid, charity-based aid, and systematic
aid. Humanitarian aid is disbursed often to public (sometimes private) organizations in response
to catastrophes and calamities. Upon funding, those organizations send relief workers, supplies,
and any other needed things to needy countries. A recognizable example would be the Peace
Corps, which is a publicly funded humanitarian organization that responds to catastrophes.
FOREIGN AID 6
Charity-based aid is disbursed to charitable organizations in the field that use the funds to
directly help people surrounding their location. These charitable groups are called non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and they secure funding through private charitable
donations and government contracts. For example, in Sudan, an NGO called the World Food
Program air drops food to specified areas in order to feed the hungry, malnourished locals. Wind
of Hope, an NGO in Kenya, takes in orphaned children whose parents have died of auto-immune
deficiency syndrome, AIDS (Klein, 2008).
Systematic aid refers to payments made directly by a government to another government
either through bilateral or multilateral aid. Bilateral aid is a government-to-government transfer
of funds and/or materials. However, it is common for countries to fund NGOs through bilateral
aid; funding is given in the form of a paid government contract, and is considered to be bilateral
since the funding is through the government. Multilateral aid is similar, but funds are transferred
through a financial intermediary such as the World Bank (Moyo, 2009).
There are two types of foreign aid involved in the private sector: enterprise funding and
equity funding. Enterprise funding is an effort that includes humanitarian relief, economic
restructuring, assistance in health and education sectors, and also programs to assist in
democracy building. This type of funding can serve as an effective tool for the promotion of
private enterprise in developing and transitioning countries, pending that they have the advantage
of being organized and managed by an experienced staff and board (Lancaster, 2006).
US involvement in private equity funding was introduced with the Congressional
founding of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in 1971 (Strategic Plan 2003-
2008: Refocused on Development and Additionality, 2003). The mission of private equity
funding is to mobilize and smooth the progression of US private capital and abilities investments
in the economic and social development of developing countries. It is also aimed at providing
FOREIGN AID 7
hard-to-find capital for entrepreneurs and businesses in developing countries, and specifically
accomplishing those goals with nations that are transitioning from non-market to market
economies. Just as governments give loans with the expectation of gaining allies, private equity
funding occurs with the expectation of gaining large investment returns.
The United Nations and the World Bank
An abundance of financial foreign aid and resources are funded by donor countries
through the United Nations (UN) and its diverse organizations. One such section of the U.N.�s
relief systems is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which disburses funds contributed by
donor countries to the developing countries. The purpose of this fund is to ensure stability in the
international monetary system. To accomplish such balance, the IMF group distributes its
assistance in the form of short-term stabilizing initiatives ( Malloch-Brown, 2011).
Another child of the United Nations� relief efforts is the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), a group that toils with governments, NGOs, and the private sector to assist in
reducing the poverty level in developing nations. The UNDP maintains up-to-date information on
the effectiveness of their various programs through ground-representatives that actually work in
the locations that aid is being disbursed. Malloch-Brown (2011) advocates that those
representatives also have a better vantage point to identify any developing problems with
programs, and a residential perspective on potential solutions for the different problems
encountered.
Representatives combine their efforts to help national leaders cultivate economic policies
that can reduce inequality (extreme separation of socio-economic classes), while also promoting
overall growth (increased GDP). The UNDP also assists governments and private sectors reach
economically beneficial business agreements, and helps them generate environmentally
sustainable business solutions. Essentially, the UNDP serves as a mediator for governments,
FOREIGN AID 8
NGOs, and the private sector, and helps prevent counterproductive funding and resource
competition among those three groups. Malloch-Brown (2011) believes the UNDP is doing very
well in revolutionizing the course of development for developing countries.
Another giant in the foreign aid environment is the World Bank. According to Malloch-
Brown (2011), the World Bank is comprised of two main groups: The International Bank for
Reconstruction (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Those two groups
work together, within the World Bank, to generate funds for relief. The IBRD issues bonds and
sells them in the international market. Next, it shifts money made from those sales to the IDA,
which uses the money to grant loans (with interest) to developing nations. Finally, the recipient
countries pay back the loans with added interest, and the bank (and its members) create a profit.
The World Bank structures its loaning policies with a focus on long-term growth
initiatives. One major criticism of the World Bank�s efforts is that there is little to no assistance
focused on the inequality within developing nations. While the Bank is sympathetic toward those
trapped in poverty, they believe that focusing on a reduction in inequality will slow the total
growth of the country (measured by GDP). For this reason, Malloch-Brown (2011) believes that
the IMF and the World Bank should be working together in their relief efforts. He proposes that
the IMF should focus its efforts on short-term development and reduction of inequality, while the
World Bank targets its efforts on long-term growth. The resulting cooperation between the two
institutions would create a more balanced approach to foreign aid policies, and would prove
more efficient.
Benefits of Giving Aid
Lancaster (2006) points out that there are economic benefits associated with foreign aid.
Loans are granted with the expectation that those recipient nations' economies will develop well
enough to be able to repay the loans with interest. That very concept is evidenced through the
FOREIGN AID 9
aforementioned equity and enterprise funding through the private sector. Furthermore, in granting
assistance to developing nations, donor countries also look to build market economies and
businesses with which they can trade in the future. Ultimately, giving aid is truly one nation�s
investment in another for financial gain. Even when countries grant funds (rather than loaning
with interest), they are investing with a hope of positive development that will eventually open
up new trade markets to the benefit of the donor. In other words, the marginal costs associated
with aid are expected to be less than the expected marginal benefits, which makes the act of
giving aid favorable to the donor.
As for the social benefits of aid, Malloch-Brown (2011), stated that the spread of
democracy and free market economies is a major goal of relief organizations and governments.
Such nations provide an amazing model of how a democratic free market economy can be
successful, and they truly want more successful democratic nations developed that will positively
contribute to the global economy. With the example they set, donor countries wish to convey to
developing countries that a civil community can exist in their countries as well. Countries like
Rwanda have historically struggled with civil unrest: their history is tormented with violence,
corruption and genocide, and other human atrocities. The goal of relief efforts in Rwanda, and
similar countries, is to give short-term relief to the poor, oppressed citizens, while utilizing long-
term aid projects to rid the nation of corruption through the establishment of democracy and
healthy business incentives (Sachs, 2005).
Socially, it is difficult for many people to know that there are places in the world where
people, without the opportunity to survive (let alone thrive), die every day. Moyo (2009)
concludes that humanitarian aid primarily creates social benefits. There are humanitarian relief
efforts continuously employed globally by non-profit organizations whose only purpose for
existence is to give assistance to people in need. For example, in cases of disasters, such as
FOREIGN AID 10
recent earthquakes and tsunamis, major relief efforts are quickly put into action by several non-
profit organizations, like the Red Cross. When citizens of affected nations are able to gain
needed food or medicine through such charitable contributions, people involved reap
psychological benefits the fulfill their moral and/or religious precepts (Sachs, 2005).
Foreign Aid in the United States
The U.S. has historically been the largest donor of foreign aid, except for a short period of
time in the 1990s. Foreign Aid as a part of US foreign policy began in World War II (1941) in the
form of lend-lease (White, 1974). Tarnoff and Knowles (2004), note that from the 1950s to the
1990s, most U.S. foreign aid was given primarily in an effort to eliminate communism from the
world. While there always have been several goals that the U.S. hoped to accomplish through
foreign aid, fighting communism was always in the foreground until the early to mid-1990s.
Currently, U.S. foreign aid is granted to a diverse number of recipients that typically fall
into one of three categories: developing nations, nations of strategic value to the U.S., and
countries recovering from wars. About half of U.S. foreign economic assistance is distributed
through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The U.S. foreign aid
is given in many different forms (e.g., economic, military, financial and technical assistance).
The U.S. gives most of its aid as grants, which requires no obligatory repayments. However,
loans are occasionally given bilaterally, and the U.S. does sponsor multilateral aid-loans through
the World Bank; loans granted are expected to be re-payed with interest, and loan contracts are
often given with certain conditions. Some foreign aid determinants consist of strategic
considerations (e.g., Egypt, Jordan and Iraq), former colonial status (includes several African
countries), political alignment, and drug policy (e.g., Columbia) (Tarnoff and Knowles).
FOREIGN AID 11
According to Tarnoff and Knowles (2004), there are five major categories of foreign
assistance for the U.S.:
1. Bilateral development aid: �designed chiefly to foster sustainable broad-based
economic progress and social stability in developing countries.� This type of relief
is procured by the poorest nations, many of them in Africa. Many of these funds
are managed by USAID, and are focused on long-term growth. Examples of such
aid organizations would be: Peace Corps, the Inter-American Development
Foundation, the African Development Foundation, the Trade and Development
Agency and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
2. Economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals: funds are
divided between five main programs whose purpose is to meet U.S. special
economic, political and/or security interests. Examples of these are the Economic
Support Fund (which receives the majority of funding), and the SEED (Support
for East European Democracy Act).
3. Humanitarian aid: disbursed in response to catastrophes and calamities. Examples
would be refugee programs and feed-the-hungry programs.
4. Multilateral economic contributions: funds are commingled with donations from
other contributors to finance multilateral development projects, which are
implemented by international organizations such as United Nations Children�s
Fund (UNICEF)
5. Military aid: there are three main programs: Foreign Military Financing (FMF),
International Military Education and Training program (IMET), and peacekeeping
funds.
FOREIGN AID 12
The U.S. is the largest international aid donor in terms of the actual dollar; however, when aid is
calculated as a percentage of Gross National Product, the U.S. is actually one of the smallest of
the main donor nations. There are three main foreign assistance goals for the U.S.: to combat
terrorism, to promote economic growth and reduce poverty levels, and to combat the HIV/AIDS
pandemic (Tarnoff, 2004).
Beginning early in his presidential campaign, President Barrack Obama placed much
emphasis on foreign aid, and has followed through with many of his goals throughout his term of
service. While campaigning, President Obama pledged to as much as double the amount of U.S.
foreign aid to $50 billion by 2010. Obama put the majority of his foreign assistance focus on the
development of agriculture in malnourished nations, committing $3.5 billion to a new $20 billion
global fund for the increasing of agriculture in developing nations over the next three years. The
president has also chosen to inflate the government�s primary development fund, established by
the Bush administration, called the Millennium Challenge Corp. The U.S. President�s Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was initiated by the Bush administration in 2003, and is still the
largest administration commitment to combat a single disease. Congress has authorized the
spending of up to $48 billion for the relief of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria . Privately,
Americans donate at least $34 billion annually to overseas relief efforts.
Controversies and Alternatives
Some general controversies surround the institution of foreign aid. As evidenced by
Klein's documentary (2008), a problem is that aid is too often thrown away on conditions where
the recipient is required to utilize overpriced goods and services from their donor countries.
Another criticism is that the majority of aid is not actually given to the poorest countries, though
the majority of the public believe that should be the largest factor in aid distribution. Joseph
Stiglitz commented that assistance amounts are stunted by the blockading of imports from
FOREIGN AID 13
developing nations by donor countries, and notes that its counterproductive to the goals of
opening market access to such developing nations. He further commented that donor nations
crush any hope of growth as they export more to the developing countries while simultaneously
blocking imports from those countries (Palast, 2003). As with many political and economic
institutions, government corruption is a cause for great concern and happens too often. Often,
funding corrupt governments is the largest criticism of foreign aid.
It is easier to seek out the problems and issues that are leading to an entire nation�s
oppression than it is to find efficient, effective solutions. It is of popular opinion that much of the
bureaucratic process through which funds must often travel should be eliminated (Klein, 2008).
Malloch-Brown (2011) suggests that the disbursement of funds for assistance should include the
opinions of affected community members (in conjunction with the government) and the
organization through which the funds are filtered. He also believes that the funds given should
allow room for developing nations (and their citizens) to create their own solutions with creative
innovations, instead of being so strictly allocated for specific purposes by uninvolved donor
countries. In conclusion, funds, resources, and services should be less congested in the areas of a
poor nation, and should be spread in a way that offers both short-term and long-term
development. The UN has the simplest suggestion of all: increase foreign aid (Klein, 2008).
Case Studies
Egypt (Africa):
In the 1970s, Egypt began receiving large foreign aid donations from the United States.
According to Sullivan (2011), Egypt made peace with Israel, allied with the United States, and
became a strategic point of interest for the US. Egypt has been the second largest recipient of US
foreign aid since the 1970s (trailing behind Israel), and currently receives an average of two
billion dollars worth of US aid each year (Rieff, 2011). About $1.3 billion of its average foreign
FOREIGN AID 14
aid is used for military development, and the remaining millions are dedicated to economic
development. Most of Egypt's foreign aid takes the form of either cash grants or credits that may
be used to purchase equipment from US contractors (Sullivan, 2011).
According to Rieff (2011), the US continues to fund Egypt due to its strategic
importance, and its allied commitment to protect Israel and oppose Iran's interests in nuclear
missiles. While the socio-political benefits of funding are enjoyed by the US, Egypt's economy
has failed to graduate from the need for foreign aid. Sullivan (2011) records that Egypt's GDP
grew at an average rate of 8.4 percent from 1970-1982, then cooled a bit to only 5 percent
average growth from 1984-1987, and finally began to flounder at 2 percent in the 1990s. Rieff
(2011) says that US foreign aid has been very successful in military development, but it has done
little to support economic growth; that oversight has lead to greater economic inequalities, high
unemployment, and the more recent protests within the country.
The failing economy can be blamed on both Egypt and the United States. The United
States does not attach any formal conditions to its aid, and Rieff (2011) says that they won't in
the future. Egypt understands its strategic importance to the United States, and frequently uses its
advantage to influence US foreign policies and ensure that the US turns a blind-eye to the
inequality and lack of human development within the country. Sullivan (2011) confirms such a
belief by detailing Egypt's requests for the US to only give NGO contracts to those NGOs that
were pre-approved by the its own government. Essentially, the US is using foreign aid to �bribe�
Egypt to remain an ally; this practice gives the US no advantage to enforce good governance
principles, and leaves poor and unemployed Egyptians resentful toward the US.
Of course, Sullivan (2011) points out that some good has come out of US foreign aid.
Less children now die from diarrheal disease, Egypt has one of the world's largest immunization
rates, the water quality has improved, and agriculture has seen some overall growth. The problem
FOREIGN AID 15
is that the positive results are limited compared to actual investments; the marginal costs of
aiding the economy (not military) seem to outweigh the marginal benefits, which is economically
unfavorable.
Sullivan (2011) points out that the Egyptian government hurts itself by being overly
bureaucratic in function. Egypt has little privatization, and most efforts to privatize are heavily
funded through unsustainable government loans and subsidies. Beyond the need for less
government and more privatization, the government itself needs to have smoother functioning
procedures. No one agency is in charge of a single sector; the Ministry of Agriculture cannot
regulate cotton, but it must compete with the ministries of Industry, Economy, Finance, Supply
and Foreign Trade. With so much inter-ministerial competition, the government cannot
successfully unify and create policies that benefit the country and people as a whole over an
individual ministry and its employees. In the end, the citizens suffer as the political elite continue
to gain wealth through their lobbying efforts that seek to benefit themselves (Sullivan, 2011).
Botswana (Africa):
Botswana achieved its independence from Britain in 1966, and began its independent life
stricken with poverty. At the time of its independence, Botswana only had 12 kilometers of
paved road in the country, and only 22 Botswana citizens had graduated from a university
(Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007). Moyo (2009) notes that in the 1960s, Botswana's aid
assistance was nearly 20 percent of its national income. Between 1965 and 1998, however,
Botswana's economy grew at an average rate of 7.7 percent. By 2000, the country's aid share of
national income stood at 1.6 percent. The growth of Botswana makes it one of only 22 global
countries to become an International Development Association (IDA) graduate; it is one of only
FOREIGN AID 16
three African countries to achieve that recognition, and is hailed as a perfect example of the
effectiveness of foreign aid programs (Moyo, 2009).
How did Botswana achieve so much economic success? The answer lies in a combination
of socio-political and socio-economic conditions, and its overall success is frequently deemed as
�accidental� (Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007). The easiest answer is that good governance and
fiscal policies created an environment conducive to economic growth; the governmental
institution created an atmosphere where both constituents and the political elite respected
property rights.
Prior to British colonization, Botswana was a peculiar tribal nation. Unlike most African
tribes, the Tswana (dominant tribe) had a fairly democratic social system. The chief had
constraints on arbitrary rule, because authority was shared by a hierarchy of officials.
Furthermore, the tribe had public forums for adult males to gather and discuss issues of interest
for the tribe. This entire system was not exactly democratic, but it instilled a social acceptance of
limited powers and checks and balances. That sociological condition was a key factor in
Botswana's success, because it meant that the culture of the country did not experience a shock or
misunderstanding of the political systems that the British created. Once it gained its
independence, Botswana did not (and hasn't since) experience any great political wars, and they
were much less susceptible to extreme government corruption; the people of Botswana had a
long-time history of respecting property rights of its people (Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007).
Botswana was also fortunate to have natural resources as a source of capital. The country
is rich in minerals and diamonds, and those industries account for about 40 percent of its output
(Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007). The culture has a healthy respect for its natural environment,
and has been careful to create sustainable usage policies for its mining industries. This is a far
FOREIGN AID 17
contrast to most other Sub-Saharan African countries, whose mining industries are used for
political and economically corrupt extortion (Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007).
The country's general respect for property rights and its nonrenewable natural resources
has affected the policies of the independent government. Since most of the political elite had an
agricultural background, the government quickly made heavy investments in agricultural
development (using their aid assistance). The country also understood the importance of
education and technology, and made long-term investments in educating its people from the
profits it earned in its diamond and mineral mining industries (Grabowski, Self, & Shields,
2007). Moyo (2009) also attributed Botswana's success to its open trade policies that encouraged
competition, and its stable monetary policy that was maintained through rigorous fiscal
discipline.
Botswana's success is a product of appropriate usages and attitudes toward foreign aid.
Moyo (2009) states that the country made a conscious effort to decrease its need for aid. This
desire for self-sufficiency spawned a judicious application of aid assistance, and can be attributed
to the rooted tribal sociological culture that had been in place since the 18 th century. Botswana is
a textbook example of effective foreign aid, because the country employed good governance,
focused on long-term agricultural and educational investments, and pursued beneficial market
economy options. Botswana used its assistance as a tool for its long-term benefit, rather than
living �hand-to-mouth,� as a strategic and political benefit to other donor countries (Moyo,
2009).
Conclusion
Fighting poverty with foreign aid is a difficult concept to understand and address. Unlike
factual, logical principles of economics, foreign aid has a heavy socio-political influence.
Decisions are not made based on marginal benefits and costs, but they can be motivated by
FOREIGN AID 18
religious, moral, and political factors. It is evident that if the goal of foreign aid is truly to end
poverty, the system is failing immensely. A new approach must be taken to eliminate the disease
of poverty. This new approach must enforce stricter regulations for loaning policies of
multilateral financial intermediaries, and it must focus on more long-term developments. Donor
countries must research the political and social circumstances of each country in which they
invest, and they must mentor their recipient countries in a customizable fashion. It is evident that
there is no clear formula for success, but that the most efficient uses of foreign aid are often
related to customized applications that are created by people immersed in the culture of each
recipient country. Foreign aid will never succeed as a solution to poverty, but it will remain
effective when its donors and recipients understand that it is a tool for crafting the solution. What
is the solution to poverty? An economy that is stable and capable enough to fight the disease in
the same way that radiation combats cancer.
FOREIGN AID 19
RESOURCES
Grabowski, R., Self, S., & Shields, M. P. (2007). Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic development a
regional, institutional, and historical approach (pp. 145-149). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.
Sharpe.
Klein, B. (Director). (2008). What Are We Doing Here? A Documentary [Motion Picture].
Lancaster, C. (n.d.). Foriegn Aide and Private Sector Development. Watson Institution for I
nternational Studies , 4-6.
Malloch-Brown, M. (2011). The Unfinished Global Revolution: The Pursuit of a New
International Politics. New York: Penguin Press.
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There Is A Better Way for Africa.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Rieff, D. (2011, February 4). The New Republic: The Failure Of US Aid In Egypt : NPR. NPR :
National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Retrieved
March 21, 2011, from http://www.npr.org/2011/02/07/133492143/the-new-republic-the-
failure-of-us-aid-in-egypt
Sachs, J. (2005). Why We SHould Do It. In The End of Poverty: Economic Policies for Our
Time. New York: Penguin Books.
Strategic Plan 2003-2008: Refocused on Development and Additionality. (2003). Overseas
Private Investment Corporation. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Sullivan, D. (1996, October 1). Middle East Policy Council | American Aid to Egypt, 1975-96:
Peace Without Development. Middle East Policy Council. Retrieved March 21, 2011,
from http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/american-aid-egypt-
1975-96-peace-without-development?print
FOREIGN AID 20
RESOURCES
U.S. Congressional Research Service. (2004). An introductory overview of U.S. programs and
policy (code 98-916). Washington, DC: Tarnoff, C. and Nowels, L. Retrieved from
f pc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf
White, J. (1974). The Politics of Foriegn Aid. New York: St. Martin's Press.