Posts

,

Where Could Your Foreign Aid Dollars Go?

Foreign Aid: What Could Your One Percent Do?In a recent poll, 81 percent of Americans said they believe that the U.S. has “a moral responsibility to work and reduce hunger and severe poverty in poor countries.” However, Americans also think that America is already spending a significant portion of its annual budget on foreign aid; when polled, some Americans thought the U.S. spent as much as 30 percent, more than is actually spent on Social Security or Medicare, when in reality only about 1 percent of the budget is allocated to foreign aid.

And while 1 percent of the American budget is a large sum in absolute dollars, even compared to other developed nation’s foreign aid spending, America does not rank in the top 15 industrialized countries when compared to the percent of its gross national income. Britain, who does make the top 15, spent about 6 percent of its gross national income in 2012, so while they are spending less money in actual dollars, they are willing to allocate a higher percentage of their budget toward assisting economically struggling countries.

As the American foreign assistance budget stands now, citizens pay pennies on the dollar toward saving and improving the lives of people living in poverty. The average median income for residents of Washington State in 2013 was $58,405. Households making the median annual income would have paid roughly $10,000 in income taxes. Of their tax money, about $100 would have been put toward foreign aid.

Foreign aid dollars are worked in a variety of ways. In 2012, the economic assistance budget of about $31 billion was split among spending on development assistance, migration and refugee assistance, international narcotics control and law enforcement, and global health and child survival. According to a tax calculator created by the nonprofit ONE.org, that family’s $100 could have been used to provide someone with 268 days of HIV treatments, 61 life-saving vaccines or 11 bed nets that save lives.

Tax season is understandably not everyone’s favorite time of year, but it is good to know not only where our dollars are being spent, but also the amount of good they can do. Even with only a small percentage of our taxes being spent on foreign aid, they are managed through effective programs that make real differences.

– Brittney Dimond

Sources: Gates Notes, One, OFM, National Priorities, OXFAMAmerica
Photo:  Flickr

Extreme Poverty: Five Unique Facts Around the World

Five Unique Facts about Extreme Poverty around the World
1. More than 1 billion people around the world live on the price of a vending machine candy bar.

Many people have only a $1.25 per day for food, medicine and shelter. Although there are 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty, the number of people living on this amount has drastically decreased over the last three decades.

2. Poverty in India is different than poverty in China–and still different from poverty in other countries, too.

India has 179.6 million people living in poverty. India has a greater share of the world’s poor than it did 30 years ago. In the 1970s and 80s, India had about one-fifth of its people living in poverty. Now, that number has increased to one-third.

When living in poverty in India, families have to deal with many harsh conditions. Due to poor weather conditions, lack of water and misuse of insecticides, many families can’t grow the crops needed to live a sustainable lifestyle. Families suffering from these poor conditions may move to the slums of Mumbai to get away, where they face other harsh conditions like overcrowded communal bathroom facilities and the lack of proper sewage systems, meaning much of the water they consume is contaminated.

Many residents in India living in poorer conditions have put off things like health and education to keep on basic survival necessities. According to the World Bank, more than 70 percent of the 22 million people living in Mumbai live in the slums.

China, however, has 137.6 million people living in impoverished conditions. Poverty in China differs from poverty in India in that, as of August 2015, it had wiped out the majority of its poverty, but there are still people living in poverty in China’s rural regions. Between 50 and 55 percent of its people live in rural areas.

Over the last decade, the number of females has drastically increased as much of the male population has left to urban areas to find work. This has caused a decrease in farming knowledge among the general population. Farmers are also victims of devastating natural disasters that result in unpaved roads, decreased farm sizes and depleted resources.

3. There are people in the United States living in extreme poverty.

In 2012, a legislator in North Carolina stated there was no such thing as extreme poverty in the state. However, North Carolina is home to three of the top 10 poorest areas in the United States. Other areas include Nacogdoches, Texas; Dalton, Georgia and Gallup, New Mexico.

Over the last few years, the number of women living in extreme poverty in the United States increased from 5.9 percent to 6.3 percent from 2009 to 2010, meaning there are 42 million — about one in three — women living in or on the brink of poverty. One of every six of these women is elderly. In 2010 alone, more than 7.2 million women fell into extreme poverty.

4. More than enough food is produced in the world to keep everyone healthy.

Enough food in the world is produced to keep everyone on an adequate diet, but nearly 854 million people, or one in seven people, go hungry. About 2.8 million people still rely on wood, crop waste and other biomass to heat and cook their food, which can also lead to malnutrition. Luckily, there are many organizations, like Stop Hunger Now and World Hunger Organization, fighting hunger.

5. Poverty in Africa is caused by different effects than poverty in Latin America.
One of the major causes of poverty in Africa is unsustainable agriculture. Poverty in Africa takes place primarily in Africa’s rural regions, where citizens rely heavily on agriculture for sustenance and income. When the weather is harsh on crops, poor agricultural techniques are practiced or soil erosion prevents hearty crops, and many families suffer because of it.

In Latin America, one of the major causes is the inequality of wealth distribution. While poverty in Africa is mostly in rural areas, poverty in Latin America plagues both rural and urban regions. Other causes of poverty in Latin and South America are internal conflicts and issues with structural adjustments.

– Julia Hettiger

Sources: Mic, Gabriel Project Mumbai, The Guardian, Yahoo
Photo: Flickr

,

Special Interests and the Food Aid Program

food aid program
In terms of volume, the United States is the largest international humanitarian donor. The U.S. contributed approximately $8 billion in emergency aid in the last five years. Yet, how efficiently is this funding being allocated, and are taxpayers getting their money’s worth?

According to Jared Pincin and Brian Brenberg, both professors at The King’s College, U.S. foreign aid works to benefit special interests and its full extent does not reach those who need it the most.

In their recent USA Today article, Pincin and Brenberg explain the relation between food aid and politically connected businesses. In their words, the reason for this is that food aid is “tied, which means that it must be sourced from U.S. producers and transported on U.S. ships.”

“Even though reforming such tied aid programs would help the needy and save money for U.S. taxpayers, Congress is unlikely to change the system. Foreign aid is a lucrative business for interest groups, which aggressively lobby political leaders for pieces of the foreign aid pie, i.e. contracts. Elected officials often reward these powerful industries or companies in exchange for help with re-election, sometimes even lobbying on their behalf.”

While this sounds like the works of shady operation, in Washington D.C. this practice is perfectly legal. Allocating funds in a way that benefits special interests ensures that the fundraising machine continues to operate without problems.

Through the food aid program, the U.S. buys produce and other farm commodities from U.S. farms. Then all this foodstuff is shipped to villages in poor countries in U.S. ships. While this practice greatly benefits U.S. corporations, indeed it has a negative impact on local farmers across the globe.

Since foodstuff can be obtained for free from an outside source, the market and therefore the incentive for local farmers to produce is nullified. This means that not only farmers in developing countries are loosing demand for their product, but they are not able to hire locals and expand their business, which curtails economic growth.

As Pincin and Brenberg conclude, foreign aid’s primary goal is to help those in need and not to pad the pockets of special interests. This is not to say that benefiting U.S. farmers and corporations is an entirely bad thing. But when foreign assistance funding is allocated based on who provides better fundraising, than the real needs of each program, it is not only a waste of taxpayer’s money, but it is a waste of world resources.

– Sahar Abi Hassan

Sources: Capitol Hill Daily, USA Today
Photo: Food for the Hungry