By Magdalene Chan - Hong Kong SAR
Introduction
“As 2024 looms, Biden unveils $106 billion foreign aid package” (Bogage and Stein, 2023) and “U.K. Pledges $1.2 Billion to Fight Diseases in Poor Countries” (Mandavilli, 2022): big numbers make headlines every year, showing off the nation’s philanthropic nature. The wealthiest countries trip and stumble in their frenzied pursuit to outdo their statistics from the previous year. Indeed, with their financial support, less developed countries can address health disparities and combat infectious diseases, moving one step closer to fulfilling the third Sustainable Development Goal of reducing avoidable mortality rates. Six of the top ten causes of death in low-income countries are communicable diseases (World Health Organisation, 2020) that are easily preventable, should the corresponding vaccination schemes and education exist. Yet, this is often undermined by the prevalent corruption that exists among the aid recipients. This article aims to explore the extent of how valuable humanitarian aid is in the face of kleptocracy and poor governance and what donor nations should do instead of hiding behind a facade of strategic benevolence.
Success
Foreign aid has always been underscored as essential in achieving a more equitable world. To LICs with infrastructure and sanitation challenges or limited access to healthcare services, foreign aid is their saving grace: invaluable to them in providing a better standard of healthcare to their citizens. So far, through both bilateral and multilateral efforts, 146 of 200 countries are on track or have already met the under-five mortality goal of 25 per 1000, and AIDS-related deaths have fallen by 52% since 2010 (United Nations, 2023). Taking a closer look at Afghanistan, one of the primary recipients of US health-directed aid, from 2010 to 2018, the number of under-five deaths fell from 97 to 50 per 1000 live births, and there was a 20% increase in immunisation coverage (USAID, 2023). These impacts made possible through foreign aid, have alleviated the suffering of millions, if not billions of people - transforming their lives for the better.
Limitations
As with other things, a dissenting perspective exists regarding the efficacy of foreign assistance. “International aid is one of the most powerful weapons in the war against poverty. Today, that weapon is underused and badly targeted. There is too little aid, and too much of what is provided is weakly linked to human development.” (United Nations, 2005) A statement published in the United Nations Development Programme in 2005, but still rings true today, pertinent after 18 years. Nearly 46% of our world survives on less than 6 dollars a day. (World Bank, 2018) That’s just enough for a Big Mac in America.
When the constructive nature of aid is brought into question, our gaze subconsciously shifts to the corruption in the recipient states. And we are not wrong to do so: over 7 trillion USD is spent on health services globally, with 10 to 25% of that lost directly due to corruption (García, 2019). It is argued that targeted aid serves no real purpose, since instead of combining foreign aid with the state budget, corrupt leaders pocket extra funding for personal use. This misallocation of resources explains the stagnated state of multiple developing economies. Consequently, the same standard of infrastructure and services remains with minimal improvement. General Gro Harlem Brundtland, WHO Director General, said, “ultimate responsibility for the performance of a country's health care system lies with the government.” (Adelman and Norris, 2001) Surely there’s nothing to be done in the eyes of the donor state?
The debate
While corruption is undeniably a major factor in minimising the efficacy of global aid, our blame cannot be only focused on the recipients. It takes two to tango: it’s time we turned our heads to the so-called altruistic donors. The donor is responsible for disciplining the recipients by encouraging the right incentives and helping to monitor implementation. There is a weak degree of enforcement by aid donors, and a positive correlation between corruption and the amount of aid received has manifested as a result (de la Croix and Delavallade, 2014), as they usually tend to be the poorest nations and secure the most economic assistance.
Imperative change to this has to be brought about with a focus on the performance of the recipients when distributing aid. The allocation of aid should be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the unique context and challenges of recipient states. Where duplicity and fraud are prevalent, multilateral efforts should be incorporated. Moreover, only by rewarding and advocating for responsible governance does it incentivise nations to eradicate any misconduct. Some awareness has already crept in, with the International Development Association monitoring performance as a condition for the distribution of aid (The World Bank Group, 2023). However, attention to this still needs to be more widespread.
Aside from this, I have a strong urge to believe that many nations are practising the paradox of ‘selfish generosity’. Of course, no better example of this exists than the wealthiest of all - the United States of America. Just like the debate of whether a billionaire can be ethical or even philanthropic, we must consider the same of countries. In 2022, the amount the US donated was four times higher than that of the following country, amounting to over 12 billion (Dyvik, 2023). However, this is disproportionate when comparing the US’s gross national income (GNI), of which the United Nations has a target for them to spend 0.7% on official development assistance. Shockingly, the US ranks in the bottom half with a mere 0.2%, around 1% of its government budget. (Ingram, 2019) What’s even more startling is that, on average, Americans seem to believe that 20% of the budget is going towards this - if only this were true: world hunger would be solved!
Conclusion
In essence, mere benevolence serves as a fragile vessel, easily tossed by the storms of corruption. While this article is researched with a specific focus on the healthcare sector, the challenge with foreign aid remains pertinent amongst other development factors, equally important, and worthy of our attention. Alone, it is insufficient in addressing systemic issues surrounding governance. Donor countries must steer away from symbolic gestures that will only land them the latest headline and actually engage in aiding recipient countries to promote accountability and transparency. Going forward, donor countries must acknowledge the socioeconomic factors rooted within each recipient country before they can transcend the challenges posed by kleptocratic regimes. By increasing awareness of the deliberate philanthropy of donor countries, humanitarian aid can become a catalyst for lasting change instead of a temporary remedy.
Bibliography
Bogage, Jacob, and Jeff Stein. "As 2024 Looms, Biden Unveils $106 Billion Foreign Aid Package." Washington Post, 20 Oct. 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/20/ukraine-israel-funding-politics/
Mandavilli, Apoorva. "U.K. Pledges $1.2 Billion to Fight Diseases in Poor Countries." New York Times, 15 Nov. 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/health/britain-global-fund.html
"The Top 10 Causes of Death`." World Health Oragnization, 9 Dec. 2020, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. Accessed 19 Dec. 2023.
"The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special Edition." United Nations, 10 Jul. 2023, unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2023/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2023.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec. 2023.
"International Aid Saves 700 Mln Lives but Gains at Risk -report." Thomson Reuters Foundation News, 15 Oct. 2018, news.trust.org/item/20181014220016-epenu/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2023.
“Health | Afghanistan.” U.S. Agency for International Development, 26 May 2023, www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/our-work/health#:~:text=With%20substantial%20support%20from%20USAID. Accessed 20 Dec. 2023.
Lardieri, Alexa. “World Bank: Half the World Lives on Less than $5.50 a Day.” US News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 2018, www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2018-10-17/world-bank-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day#:~:text=About%20half%20of%20the%20world.
Adelman, Carol C, and Jeremiah Norris. “Usefulness of Foreign Aid for Health Care in Less-Developed Countries.” The Lancet, vol. 358, no. 9299, Dec. 2001, p. 2174, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(01)07212-9.
de la Croix, David, and Clara Delavallade. “Why Corrupt Governments May Receive More Foreign Aid.” Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 66, no. 1, 2014, pp. 51–66, www.jstor.org/stable/43772854. Accessed 20 Dec. 2023.
Dyvik, Einar. “Largest Donors of Humanitarian Aid Worldwide 2020.” Statista, 5 Jan. 2023, www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/.
García, Patricia J. “Corruption in Global Health: The Open Secret.” The Lancet, vol. 394, no. 10214, 7 Dec. 2019, pp. 2119–2124, www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32527-9/fulltext, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32527-9. Accessed 20 Dec. 2023.
Howton, Elizabeth . “Nearly Half the World Lives on Less than $5.50 a Day.” World Bank, 17 Oct. 2018, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day. Accessed 22 Dec. 2023.
“Human Development Report 2005 | United Nations Development Programme.” UNDP, 3 Jan. 2005, www.undp.org/publications/human-development-report-2005.
Ingram, George. “What Every American Should Know about U.S. Foreign Aid.” The Ripon Society, 17 Sept. 2019, riponsociety.org/article/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/.
The World Bank Group. “How Does IDA Work? | What Is IDA | International Development Association - World Bank.” Ida.worldbank.org, 10 Aug. 2023, ida.worldbank.org/en/about/how-does-ida-work.
Comments