
Trump Is Right to End Foreign Aid - k2xl
https://qz.com/959416/time-to-end-foreign-aid-but-for-the-right-reasons/
======
wahern
Chile was never third world. At the turn of the 19th century they had one of
the largest navies in the world, and along with Argentina were two of the most
prosperous and civil societies. For various reasons, by the mid-1900s the
Chilean economy fell far behind the rest of the world. But their political
culture was still strong. It's possible to be poor but still have a society
largely structured like a rich one.

The author's thesis appears to be that the big success stories of the past
half century have been countries that never saw much aid. The author overlooks
one possibility: that these countries, whilst poor, had always had a strong
political culture, and it was just a matter of time before they were able to
get back on a strong economic footing.

Whereas the countries that receive the most foreign aid typically have had no
strong political culture, at least not in the modern era. Remove the aid and
you're likely to see millions suffer even more into the indefinite future.
Scholars will debate forever about the origins of political culture. But
perhaps it's just random and spontaneous, and it'll happen with or without
aid. Until then, you can either watch people suffer (like in Haiti) or try to
minimize some of the worst suffering.

All his other points are well known in the foreign aid community, as well as
in the political science and economics fields. It's the dominant narrative
today. It's just that everybody thinks _they're_ bucking the trend whilst
everybody else "doesn't get it". Everybody has read Freakonomics at this
point, and everybody is familiar with unintended consequences.

Anyhow, from a realpolitik perspective foreign aid was never about helping the
poor. It was always about soft power. With the end of the Cold War people
forgot about that, but it still serves the same function. And in this age of
terrorism that function is perhaps even more important today than it was 40
years ago.

~~~
valuearb
I think you mean "rule of law" when you say political culture. People will
pull themselves by their bootstraps amazingly well if they know they can keep
what they make.

------
Veedrac
Given the controversial nature of the title, I was at least hoping the article
would have some evidence to support its claims. I didn't spot any.

The arguments within are sketchy at best. Yes, _some_ aid is misguided. Yes, a
few $bn isn't enough to completely overturn the fate of humanity. But jumping
from that to the conclusion that aid is a mistake and _less_ money is somehow
better than the pennies we're currently sending is not a rigorous argument!

A lot of this article paints progress as dismal and exists basically to put
supporters in a bad light. Gates' 2014 annual letter would disagree[1], and
points out that for all the lack of funding, important progress has been made.
If you want to argue to cut off vital life support for millions of people, I'd
like to see a little more than hearsay for your beliefs.

[1] [http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-
Medi...](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-
Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014)

------
fpoling
"The Tyranny of Experts" [1] book makes similar points with a lot more
examples. People need respect, not aid, that typically empower local crooks
without improving life of the poorest.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Experts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Experts)

------
aaron695
It's an interesting premise but very badly put.

It starts with a bad cliche and doesn't really improve.

It bags giving 'sitting' money but how is that different to just giving money
directly, something that seems to improve lives.

Sex workers make good money, yes, and they make even more from the aid
workers.

Aid workers at least bring money to the country through drinking beer and
consuming local products.

They do improve peoples lives. The people re-digging wells have a job.

Even if it's not long term that doesn't matter and it's not really proven in
the article it is not long term change.

