|
Jump to Chapter 6 Sections:
>> Objectives, Outcomes and amounts of foreign aid >> Sources and amounts of private investment and lending >> Sources and amounts of private aid >> Taking the full measure of U.S. International assistance >> Notes >> Background paper >> References
Among international donors, the United States gives the largest amount of official aid to developing
countries, contributing more than 20 percent of total DAC assistance. As a percentage of gross national income, however, this aid is the smallest among government foreign assistance programs. But as this chapter has made clear, the true measure of U.S. generosity and sustainable development is not just government aid-it is total U.S. international resource flows, including private capital and philanthropy.
When all these private flows are added to official development assistance, the United States moves
into first place for total resource flows. Table 6.4 summarizes and compares U.S. government and
private international assistance for 2000, 2005, and 2010. The table also includes estimates for the
Millennium Challenge Account, projected to increase U.S. government aid by $5 billion a year
in 2006. For private international giving, poorly documented and therefore underestimated in all
categories, the table provides a range from the lowest estimates supported by research to reasonable
higher estimates suggested by known gaps in research. This range of numbers provides a much-needed starting point for estimating private international giving.
The table provides a different perspective on the common criticism that the United States is not
generous in its overseas contributions. Although official development assistance is a smaller percentage of gross national income in the United States than in other countries, it is also a smaller percentage of total giving. According to the DAC standard of 0.7 percent of gross national income, total U.S. international giving in 2000 should have been $69.5 billion. The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income-well within the average range for DAC donors.
When other official government and private assistance are added to this $44.5 billion, the United
States moves far ahead in the total amount of resources provided to developing countries. So
Americans have not given up on foreign aid. They have simply found new channels through which
they can express their compassion for less fortunate people abroad. Official government aid has
been displaced by a rising tide of private giving with significantly lower transaction costs, more
client-directed services, and more willingness to cede ownership to recipients.
The recognition by the U.S. government of nonofficial development assistance and its importance to
economic and political development has an enabling quality for global development assistance.
It could encourage other donors to improve their national climate for private giving, such as
through laws allowing tax-deductible contributions. Governments could work to ease the flow of
immigrants’ remittances to their hometowns abroad and could study new ways of working at the grassroots level with workers in these towns, supported by immigrants. Citizens of industrial
countries everywhere no longer expect their governments to do it all. They want to participate in
giving as volunteers-and in ways that ensure accountability and transparency in their giving.
From America’s earliest assistance to international refugees in Santo Domingo (in today’s
Dominican Republic) and food shipments for famine-struck Ireland, to the work of the
Rockefeller and Ford foundations, to today’s "mega donors"-Ted Turner and Bill and
Melinda Gates-Americans have consistently given time, money, and in-kind contributions to
international causes, preferring to channel these donations through private organizations. This
vast assistance should be better documented. As the United States defines its assistance role in the
21st century, it must understand and work more closely with providers of private resources. The
future calls for a new approach that recognizes and incorporates private giving, focusing on grassroots support, local ownership, sustainability, accountability, and-notleast-passion and
commitment.
Notes
|
