Selfish generosity

THE PARADOX OF U.S. FOREIGN AID is that most Americans believe their nation is both too generous and too stingy. The confusion stems from an infamous 2000 survey that lends support to both views. Those opposed to more foreign aid cite its finding that a majority of Americans think the U.S. should spend less on it. When respondents were asked how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, the median figure was 20%. When asked how much should be spent, the median was 10%. Those in favor of more foreign aid point out that the U.S. actually spends about 1% -- meaning that most Americans think the U.S. should increase aid by a factor of 10.

Another report on foreign aid -- one less prone to misuse -- was issued last week. In its annual report, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found a healthy increase in U.S. contributions in 2005. But much of the gain came in the form of debt relief and reconstruction aid in Iraq and Afghanistan. While rebuilding those countries is a necessary component of the war on terror, it’s only tangentially related to the war on poverty.

There’s good but mixed news on the poverty front as well. In the region of the world most desperately in need of foreign assistance -- sub-Saharan Africa -- the U.S. spent $4.1 billion in 2005, up from $3.5 billion in 2004. Yet the vast majority of the funding went to emergency aid and “technical support” (meaning money paid to U.S.-based consultants), with only a small slice going to on-the-ground initiatives such as drugs for malaria and AIDS or infrastructure such as water storage and transportation projects.

In 2002, the world’s industrialized nations agreed to make efforts to boost their foreign aid to 0.7% of national income by 2015. The U.S. made strides toward that goal last year but is still off the mark; aid jumped from 0.17% of national income in 2004 to 0.22% in 2005. The U.S. ranks 21st among the 22 nations tracked by the OECD (Portugal is last).

There are plenty of self-serving reasons to increase foreign aid. Poor nations tend to be more politically unstable -- hotbeds of war, revolution and terrorism that can have an effect on the U.S. They also tend to be breeding grounds for diseases that can easily migrate and infect the Western world. More important, rehabilitating economically backward states would create new markets for U.S. products and services and could make them self-sufficient. In this context, foreign aid can be seen as an investment in the future.

Still, the more compelling rationale for foreign aid may be moral. The United States has the good fortune to be in a position to help reduce misery and unnecessary death in the world. If only the U.S. were as generous as most Americans think it is.