The Foreign Service Journal, December 2010

D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 13 T he horrendous earthquake that struck Haiti this past Jan- uary and the catastrophic flooding that hit Pakistan in the sum- mer are just two examples of natural disasters to which the United States and other powers have once again re- sponded with massive infusions of for- eign assistance and expertise. Such situations, as well as the growing prob- lems of refugee flows, pandemic dis- eases and global climate change — to say nothing of systemic issues like poverty eradication, economic growth, and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law — are increasingly ad- dressed through economic assistance. It is therefore quite unfortunate that views on this subject are often poorly informed. Indeed, there is a whole school of critics who churn out tracts and op-eds, and give lectures, claiming that foreign aid does not “work.” Yes, it is true there are disap- pointments and failures in the foreign assistance record of the U.S. and other public and private donors. But there are also numerous achievements. Success Stories There is a long list of countries in which economic assistance — from the U.S. and a wide range of bilateral, multilateral and private donors — has made a great and lasting positive dif- ference. Take Korea and Taiwan, for exam- ple. I worked with those countries at the beginning of my career with the U.S. Agency for International Devel- opment during the 1960s. Their de- velopment and financial officials would express amazement and have a hearty laugh if I told them today that our assistance over many years had not been effective. Exactly the opposite is true. We fi- nanced technical assistance, machinery and raw materials for private-sector manufacturers; funded infrastructure, such as power plants, roads, ports and telecommunication facilities; helped agriculture with fertilizers and seeds; and vigorously promoted health and education. These types of assistance helped both countries become the prosperous democracies that they are today. And they long ago became aid donors themselves. Other countries in which aid from the U.S. and others has made huge and lasting differences, both econom- ically and politically, include Malaysia, Thailand, India, Mauritius, Botswana, Tunisia, Panama, Costa Rica, Chile, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, the Czech Republic and Hungary. When assessing the results of for- eign assistance, it is essential to look at the resolution of longstanding prob- lems, not just the economic perform- ance of specific countries. A great example is the control and partial elimination of onchocerciasis (river blindness) in much of Africa, a disease that had deprived countless people of their sight over the centuries. The af- fected countries and the international development community, including USAID, teamed up in the 1970s for a major long-term effort to understand and attack this scourge. Because mil- lions of Africans still have their sight who would otherwise have lost it, vi- brant villages exist and crops are grown on once-vacant lands. Or consider world population growth, the topic of a Speaking Out column by Michael Fritz in this past January’s FSJ . Some 25 to 30 years ago, demographers were forecasting that world population would reach in the neighborhood of 16 billion people by 2050. To address this growing problem, the development assistance U.S. Foreign Economic Assistance in Perspective B Y R AYMOND M ALLEY S PEAKING O UT Foreign aid does not always “work.” But there is a long list of countries in which our economic assistance has made a great, lasting difference.