Stingy Americans Redux
The New York Times reports that the UN official who reportedly said the U.S. and other countries were being “stingy” in their giving to the victims of the tsunami says that he’s been misquoted, and that he was really referring to the giving of the West over the past few years for general development funds.
However, let’s not forget that the aid that the U.S. and other countries have thus far announced is really pretty trivial compared with the scope of the disaster. This article estimates that the island nation of the Maldives may have sustained damages greater than 100% of its gross national product. And as the death toll across the region seems set to grow to more than 100,000, the rebuilding cost is certain to run into the billions of dollars.
Update: At the Becker-Posner blog, Posner argues most aid is unproductive because the source of poverty isn’t lack of capital but poor governance. This may be, but the goal of development policy isn’t just to make people richer, but to make them richer than they otherwise would be. And limiting the discussion of health’s effects on economic wellbeing to a single disease (HIV/AIDS) is an unrealistic and improper model that overlooks how endemic diseases can affect productivity.
Update 2: Christian Science Monitor writes that India’s government is so far refusing international aid.
2 Responses to “Stingy Americans Redux”
Another thing to remember about donations is bureaucracy. Be sure to donate to legitimate groups like World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse, and Salvation Army which have low “management” expenses. The board members of United Way and Red Cross make hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing “charity.”
When we all donated $500 million for the survivors of 9/11, the Red Cross distributed $100 million and “kept” $400 million for “other” projects.
The Red Cross and Oxfam (the former for disasters, the latter for poverty) are both fine charities, I think, and I have never understood why it was that the 9/11 donations to the Red Cross were so controversial. How else is the organization supposed to maintain its disaster-response abilities?