top of page
  • Writer's pictureStephanie Hernandez

Foreign Aid: Not Enough

Updated: Jan 3, 2019


Vol. 6, Issue 6, March 7, 2014.


In times of fiscal austerity, there are those who argue that the United States contributes too much to programmes fighting global poverty. How much of our annual budget is used towards foreign aid? 10 % ? 12%? Very few students would be able to successfully guess a correct estimate: 0.5% of our total annual budget for the 2012 Fiscal Year was used for foreign aid. In 1984, that number was 4.8%, and in 2002, 2%, of our annual budget. Yet even with the continual decrease, progress has been made in the fight against global poverty. In the 2014 Annual Bill Gates Letter on Foreign Aid, he addresses the myths on foreign aid, by breaking down numbers and explaining each program’s purpose. According to the most recent fiscal year budgets, that 0.5% of foreign aid amounted to $30 billion a year, to be dispersed around the world to both military and humanitarian aid. This amounts to approximately $30 per American, in tax dollars. How much do you spend at Starbucks every month? Possibly more than $30. And contrary to the often-cited myth, the majority of foreign assistance monies does not go towards military aid. Since 1990, there has been a steady decrease in money allocations for military aid, with only 12% of the 2010 fiscal year used for military purposes; in 1984, that number was 42%, according to the the 2011 Congressional Research Office on Foreign Assistance Report.


A popular argument for decreasing US aid is that it will simply go into the hands of corrupt governments, or somehow funnel into terrorist groups. While those statements are debatable,it must also be acknowledged that past US aid has directly contributed to a decrease in a number of poverty variables: infant mortality polio, maternal deaths, and has also contributed to an increase of women’s equality, girls education, and other women’s issues. Various organizations within the USAID office are charged with overseeing these programs, and the disbursement of funds, to ensure that money intended for humanitarian purposes is used for that.

It is important to understand the different types of programmes to which our taxes fund. According to a Congressional Research report on Foreign Assistance, the main programmes are humanitarian assistance , in which the money goes towards emergency situations (Haiti, Typhoon Haiyan, etc) , and food aid organizations; USAID administers grants to the World Food Program, Food For Peace Program, among other. Then there is multilateral development assistance, of which funds go to organizations such as UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, which is an international financial institution which gives loans to developing countries for capital programs, such as microcredit enterprises. Bilateral development assistance deals with programmes focusing on women’s issues, such as reproductive and maternal health; environmental issues, such as sanitation of water, health programmes (to deal with polio and HIV), educational programmes, and democratizations and stability measures. The money is aimed at investing in people, with 83% going towards health programs, to fight malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS, in addition to programs to decrease maternal deaths, infant mortality rates, and family planning programmes. Key programs that receive this funding include the Global Fund, the Gavi Alliance, and the Global Eradication Initiative, all programs aimed at eliminating these crippling health problems that debilitate the people of a country.


A case study for success of these programs is a combination of African states, where these health problems have been prevalent: According to numbers by the Bill Gates Annual Letter on Foreign Aid, polio has been decreased 350,000 annually since 1988, close to 300 million children will have been immunized by 2015. These programs have made the difference between life and death for many people in these countries. Another percentage of these funds goes towards

By looking at how US aid has directly impacted in decreasing these numbers, the answer cannot be to decrease or eliminate the forms of aid that do exist. True, we are in fiscally tough times right now, but that is why legislation such as the 2014 Food Aid Reform are of such critical importance, because the reforms will use American taxpayer dollars more effectively, by purchasing the food from local farmers closer to the areas that need the food. CARE is one of the oldest poverty alleviation organizations in the world, and they both implements microcredit and educational programmes to help women, in addition to advocating for poverty-fighting legislation. Their report on the current Food Aid Reform states that current system requires the purchase and shipping US food to areas that need it, with half federal aid monies going towards shipping costs, instead of going where its needed the most. The proposed reforms for the 2014 fiscal year will not increase funding, but instead enable the money used for food aid to two reach two million more people each year. It will contributing to the economies of developing countries, thus enabling farmers - particularly women- to rebuild their agriculturally based economies. Food Aid reform is a step in that direction, and is an example of how restructuring will, over time, reduce the necessity of foreign assistance

Pope Francis has shaken up the usual discourse of the Church doctrine, when in November 2013 he criticized trickle down economics and drew attention to the widening wealth gap between the very rich and very poor. We only need to look at the economic disparities that currently exist, to know that US aid is not doing enough: the Davos economic forum focused part of their discussion on how this disparity has grown. In a study by Oxfam, titled Working for the Few, the report found that $110 trillion wealth of the 1% richest people on the planet is approximately 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the rest of the world’s population. Though there has been success in decreasing


In light of these revelations of global inequality, and the prevalent poverty that continues to plague countries - even countries whose economies are growing, such as Brazil and Mexico - it is evident that the US has made progress with foreign aid, but it is not enough. The goal should be to restructure, such as with food aid reform, not reduce funding anymore than it has been.


14 views0 comments
bottom of page