On CNN.com today, I read an interview with Jimmy Carter:
People around the world perceive the United States as “too arrogant” and “too self-centered” because the country doesn’t do enough to alleviate poverty and other social ills in the developing world, former President Jimmy Carter said in an interview to air Friday.
The Nobel Peace Prize laureate was asked by CNN’s Larry King why he believes so many people in the rest of the world hate the country he once led.
The United States is in an interesting situation. We have to solve two problems at the same time.
On one hand, we live in a world full of people who are pissed off at us. Many of them have made their hatred the center of their lives, and they have demonstrated their willingness to act on that hate.
On the other hand, the things which we can and probably should do to defend ourselves may defend us in the short run
and very possibly create more people who are pissed off at us.
But if we dont do them, we will continue to be attacked in ways that we will find it very hard to defend against.
So whats the answer? Carter believes that we need to give more away:
Carter, who will receive a the Nobel prize on December 10 in Oslo, Norway, also noted that the United States gives only one one-thousandth of its gross national product for international assistance, while the average European country gives four times as much.
“For every time an American gives a dollar, a citizen of Norway gives $17,” he said. “Foreign aid in this country has a bad name, but in other countries, it’s a right thing for the government to do. And that’s where we at the Carter Center quite often have to turn.”
In the intermediate and long run, something has to be done to help the rest of the world out of the downward spiral. But first, we have to find a way to give aid that isnt recycled into Swiss bank accounts, or sold in Europe, like discount AIDS drugs.
And we have to find a way to combine helping the rest of the world with defending ourselves.
I have to cast a doubtful eye on Carters numbers. Since the end of WW2 America has dumps over 400 billion dollars into the world at large. I’d be greatly surprised to see Norway with a larger number.
I don’t like the implication that the way we help the rest of the world is by giving away our stuff. It is a fact of human nature that people tend to (a) resent charity and (b) value things at about what they paid for them (if most people get something for nothing, they treat it like its worth nothing). Aid is inherently corrupting on a number of levels; the best way to help benighted countries is with trade and the establishment of good old-fashioned Anglo-American institutions.
I’m not so sure the rest of the world is in a downward spiral, either. Sure, the Euros have flat-lined, but they brought that on themselves and deserve nothing from us. The developing world seems to be on a gradual (or not so gradual) upward trend. Africa excepted, of course.
Actually, there are ways to do it better. While I was in England last year I saw a report of a group that supplies small loans to women in rural villages all over the Third World. The women use the loans to start small businesses; then the money they repay is used to loan to other women. It’s like a small bank; they even had footage of the banks’s “shareholder meeting” where the women met to decide on the next loans.
I was impressed. I’ve been looking for information on it ever since because that is one damn group I will contribute to!
p.s. not only does the money help to get these women out of poverty but it also raises their social status because they become earners..
Yea for small capitalism!
In his recent book, “The Mystery of Capital” H. DeSoto, a Peruvian economist. has pointed out that the real key to third world development is clear and strong property rights. If people do not know who owns what and have no clear way to pass what they own on to the next generation or if the government owns most of the land, then economic development is slow at best. So it really doesn’t matter how much money the US pours into the Third World. Under current conditions most of it will end up in Swiss banks anyway. Think of all the small businesses that were started with home equity loans in the US over the past two generations. And think of the effect of all of those small businesses on the economic growth of this country. In my mind DeSoto is right on the money and Carter is somewhere off in liberal la-la land. Maybe he just wants to help all his friends who are in governing positions in the Third World with their exit strategies.
Here is an old article about micro loans:http://www.grameen-info.org/mcredit/nytimes.html
Here is a link to an international group that does micro loans: http://www.accion.org/
And here is their branch in the USA:http://www.accionusa.org/default.asp
[I work with humanitarian and development agencies.]
‘The Mystery of Capital’ is an excellent book on the subject of development, as is ‘The Elusive Quest for Growth’ by William Easterly. Easterly’s mantra is that people respond to incentives. I can’t recommend either of these books highly enough.
What should development assistance look like? I dislike the idea of “giving” money away–because that doesn’t work. I really like the idea of spending money to make money–whether I benefit directly from the growth or not. I will surely benefit indirectly from a richer world. So the question becomes “give for what?” I have quite a few thoughts on this and am preparing a blogcomment for early next week.
Carter actually knows that just giving money away is a bad plan. He’s dumbing down the issue into soundbites for publicity purposes. His rhetoric could definitely use some work.
Emma: Several NGOs and some banks run micro-credit programmes along the lines you mention. One of the first and most successful is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. They don’t need your money or time, but other organizations could use them. I’ve worked with some people I like a lot who do micro-credit for MercyCorps.
Yes!! I loved ‘Mystery of Capital’…hmmm…how can we promote that book??
Note the new post above for some other examples.
A.L.
De Soto has begun a project in Ghana in collaboration with the government there and UNDP. Bill Clinton helped to kick it off in September.
People who matter are aware of De Soto’s work, but it hasn’t yet made it into the public consciousness where the debate about how to do development and promote growth takes place.
How to promote the book? Throw it at people! I leave a copy behind every time I visit the poor world. I understand that that is not an option for most people…
Maybe we can put together a book review blogburst? Except that there is only so much you can say about ‘Mystery of Capital’ before you start yelling “read it! live by it!” at people.
You can find some links to critical reviews (always important to gain perspective) of De Soto’s work, as well as links to interviews with him, as well as a host of other interesting stuff at PolicyLibrary.
Thanks for the info. Looks promising!