

What countries are ‘pulling their weight’ for Haiti? - agconway
http://www.drewconway.com/zia/?p=1826

======
cwan
Seems like it may be an incomplete comparison as it underweights/excludes
private contributions though it's difficult to tell. I suspect once you add
remittances + private charitable contributions, you would see the US punch
significantly higher than even its current outlier position.

Private contributions almost certainly bias towards the US where when it comes
to foreign aid/charities, the majority comes from private individuals versus
almost every other country where the bulk of funds go through official
government aid channels.

I have to also imagine that this doesn't include the contributions through the
US military (which Michael Moore's site has also cited in its ability to
provide enough water purification to a mid sized city through the air craft
carrier now stationed there) which cannot be cheap.

~~~
felixmar
The absence of private contributions makes the chart rather meaningless. Take
for example The Netherlands: a pledge of 4.3 million dollars according to the
data. This was an initial pledge by the government shortly after the disaster.
In the mean time over 42 million euros in private contributions have been
donated to relief organizations and the Dutch government will double that
amount.

~~~
ajross
But it's a log plot. Adding a factor of 20 just moves the Netherlands up by
1.3 units on the graph, which means it's still landing below the median even
_without_ including the private contributions of the other nations.

Sorry, but the Dutch dropped the ball on this one, at least relative to other
EU governments. As other folks have pointed out, simple proximity makes the
much higher US contribution sensible and sane. But really, the Netherlands,
Italy and (especially) Germany need to be up near the UK and France.

~~~
roc
Why? So they can have a 'score' that's on par with other nations?

Isn't it entirely possible that the actual aid physically deliverable in the
short term has been maximized?

That is, that the Dutch might be better off waiting and raising/sending
targeted expertise and funds during the inevitable, but not starting any time
soon, reconstruction phase? (Where much of their expertise is something that
very few other nations could even _offer_ )

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to pledge that they'll do that _now_ , but any
amounts tied to unspecified quantities of work would be fiction anyway. So the
number would only be moved for the sake of making it move.

~~~
anamax
> That is, that the Dutch might be better off waiting and raising/sending
> targeted expertise and funds during the inevitable, but not starting any
> time soon, reconstruction phase? (Where much of their expertise is something
> that very few other nations could even offer)

Please tell us more about this reconstruction expertise that few countries
have. (The Dutch have unique expertise in reclaiming land from the sea, but
that's not relevant to Haiti.)

~~~
roc
You don't think erosion is an issue in Haiti?

~~~
anamax
Huh? Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. That's their unique
expertise. Erosion from above sea level stuff is an issue almost everywhere.

And, it's not clear that erosion is high on Haiti's list of significant
problems.

------
ErrantX
I cant help but feel the point is somewhat disingenuous.

~~~
stavrianos
Definitely. if we're going to talk about weight, anything that any country
(except haiti, obviously) pulls is above and beyond "their" weight

------
hyperbovine
I'm surprised Cuba isn't mentioned. Cuba had several hundred doctors on the
ground in Port au Prince while the rest of the developed world was still
trying to locate Haiti on a map:
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1229192...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122919202)

If you counted in-kind donations, rather than just currency (which is actually
less effective in this case), I'm guessing Cuba would beat every other country
on that list.

~~~
pavs
Why are you surprised? He said it right on the first para in bold letters:

"Again, this is by no means a complete, or even partially complete analysis,
simply a quick exploration of the data."

To bo honest this posts shouldn't be even taken mildly seriously. It would
have been interesting to look at the data if the data had some substance to
it. In summary: "I woke up today, grabbed some numbers the threw it in to a
plot." Thats basically what it is.

------
djb_hackernews
I also did some rough estimations based on 2B in aid, which the data actually
corroborates which is amusing. Anyway, It comes out to about 28% of GDP, and
would be the equivalent to giving every man, woman, and child a one lump
payment of 12k.

No conclusions drawn. But there is always the problem of dropping that much
liquidity in to any economy, no matter developing or rebuilding or both.

~~~
dschobel
This is a classic problem of international aid.

In a nutshell, any indicators of progress revert completely when the aid stops
flowing in with no lasting infrastructure/education/anything actually getting
developed.

In short, the countries don't make any lasting progress, but are temporarily
propped up and become entirely dependent on the aid.

Look at Africa for numerous examples of this phenomenon.

Of course, that's only a long term issue, in the short term you should
absolutely send in as much food, shelter and medicine as possible.

~~~
stan_rogers
And that long-term foundation is the core of the international aide plan. If
there can ever be said to be a silver lining in a cloud such as this, it is
this: almost the entirety of the existing infrastructure was destroyed in the
quake, and Haiti gets to do it right this time -- buildings that "meet code",
city planning that makes some kind of sense, distribution of services that has
some correlation to demographic distribution, and so on, all under the eye of
international observers who must be present while Haiti, once again, tries to
build a police and law enforcement system from scratch. It will cost a mint in
foreign generosity to give Haiti the leg up it needs, but it will, at the same
time, reduce the need for continual infusions of aide over the long term.
(Haiti has certainly never been off of the aide map in Canada; money,
material, medical, police and military contributions have been going there
pretty much since Baby Doc bit the big one.)

~~~
anamax
> Haiti gets to do it right this time

What are the odds that it will?

> all under the eye of international observers who must be present

This isn't the first time that "international observers" have been present.
What has happened in the past when they were around? If this time will be
different, why?

> Haiti has certainly never been off of the aide map in Canada; money,
> material, medical, police and military contributions have been going there
> pretty much since Baby Doc bit the big one.

That is not encouraging. Canada is pretty good at this stuff and pre-quake
Haiti suggests that it wasn't enough.

