WEBVTT

NOTE The History of Foreign Aid Programs

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:30.000
So today we're going to talk about the history of foreign aid programs because as I was saying before we're very flexible in this series we can sort of pick and choose what's sort of interesting or what's of contemporary relevance and there's still a lot of discussion of foreign aid and there's increased debate about how useful it is and the economic consensus on this question has flipped and flopped over the years and I'm going to trace that for you.

2
00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:38.000
The link to foreign aid that appears in my book really starts with the Marshall Plan.

3
00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:42.000
And then I use that as a jumping off point to talk about other foreign aid programs.

4
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:51.000
Now, as we all know, the Marshall Plan, so-called, originated a couple years after World War II,

5
00:00:51.000 --> 00:00:55.000
and the purpose was to assist in the reconstruction of Europe.

6
00:00:55.000 --> 00:01:08.000
Initially, the Marshall Plan was not restricted to Western Europe, any European country could apply for assistance through the Marshall Plan, although Stalin did not permit any of the countries behind the Iron Curtain to do so.

7
00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:21.000
However, Western Europe did get a substantial amount of Marshall aid, and what I want to point out here is that the conventional wisdom with regard to the Marshall Plan

8
00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:26.200
is that it was responsible for jump-starting the West European economy.

9
00:01:26.200 --> 00:01:30.000
Now, it's easy to understand why people would draw that conclusion

10
00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:35.700
because before the Marshall Plan, economic conditions were very poor in Western Europe.

11
00:01:35.700 --> 00:01:38.400
Then you had the Marshall Plan and then economic conditions got better.

12
00:01:38.400 --> 00:01:44.600
So naturally, the easy conclusion to draw is that the Marshall Plan caused the prosperity.

13
00:01:44.600 --> 00:01:46.500
But that can be a logical fallacy.

14
00:01:46.500 --> 00:01:50.800
There may not be any direct relationship between the Marshall Plan and the prosperity.

15
00:01:50.800 --> 00:01:55.280
Prosperity, there may be no connection whatsoever.

16
00:01:55.280 --> 00:01:59.620
Sometimes we get arguments like this that are sort of like saying that umbrellas cause

17
00:01:59.620 --> 00:02:02.500
it to rain or that sort of thing.

18
00:02:02.500 --> 00:02:08.160
We have to make sure we understand correlation, causation, what caused what, what's responsible

19
00:02:08.160 --> 00:02:09.160
for what.

20
00:02:09.160 --> 00:02:12.240
Perhaps the prosperity would have been greater in the absence of the Marshall Plan.

21
00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:16.160
We can't know that on the basis of historical data alone.

22
00:02:16.160 --> 00:02:20.880
We have to think, we have to think through what the incentives of this program were.

23
00:02:20.880 --> 00:02:26.360
It is worth noting though that we do have at least this historical data to consider.

24
00:02:26.360 --> 00:02:32.560
That France, Germany and Italy began their economic recoveries before they started getting

25
00:02:32.560 --> 00:02:33.560
martial aid.

26
00:02:33.560 --> 00:02:37.760
So they were already picking up and by Germany of course I mean West Germany which had an

27
00:02:37.760 --> 00:02:40.760
explosive economic recovery.

28
00:02:40.760 --> 00:02:44.760
Austria and Greece received a lot of martial aid per capita

29
00:02:44.760 --> 00:02:50.760
and yet their recovery really got going only as martial aid was being phased out.

30
00:02:50.760 --> 00:02:54.760
Britain received twice as much martial aid as West Germany did

31
00:02:54.760 --> 00:03:01.760
and yet British economic growth dramatically lagged behind that of the Germans.

32
00:03:01.760 --> 00:03:05.760
So given this, I think it's increasingly plausible to suggest that perhaps

33
00:03:05.760 --> 00:03:08.760
the Marshall Plan was not itself responsible for the recovery.

34
00:03:08.760 --> 00:03:10.760
What was responsible for the recovery?

35
00:03:10.760 --> 00:03:13.760
Well, the return to market economies after the war.

36
00:03:13.760 --> 00:03:18.760
There were tremendous wartime economic controls in all these countries.

37
00:03:18.760 --> 00:03:23.760
And with the end of the war came the end of those controls, gradually, in some cases.

38
00:03:23.760 --> 00:03:25.760
And the result was great prosperity.

39
00:03:25.760 --> 00:03:30.760
And I quote German economic minister Ludwig Erhard, who said,

40
00:03:30.760 --> 00:03:35.960
We decided upon and reintroduced the old rules of a free economy, the rules of laissez-faire.

41
00:03:35.960 --> 00:03:41.760
We abolished practically all controls over allocation, prices and wages, and so on and so forth.

42
00:03:41.760 --> 00:03:50.160
So we just moved away from the controls, and in fact West Germany's economy recovered so dramatically

43
00:03:50.160 --> 00:03:55.360
that it's still one of the great miracles or success stories of the 20th century.

44
00:03:55.360 --> 00:04:15.360
So it does not seem to have borne much relationship to the Marshall Plan and I also point out that the way the Marshall Plan was set up for every dollar that you got in Marshall Plan assistance, the government of the recipient country had to increase its public expenditures by one dollar.

45
00:04:15.360 --> 00:04:23.360
So obviously you're expanding the size of the public sector which is not necessarily the path to recovery.

46
00:04:23.360 --> 00:04:29.360
Well, whatever the truth of the Marshall Plan situation,

47
00:04:29.360 --> 00:04:35.360
what's worth remembering is that people thought the Marshall Plan had been successful.

48
00:04:35.360 --> 00:04:38.360
That's the important thing. People thought it had been successful.

49
00:04:38.360 --> 00:04:43.360
They thought that this was how you take a depressed economy and you revive it again.

50
00:04:43.360 --> 00:04:47.360
You just infuse it with money. You just throw money at it.

51
00:04:47.360 --> 00:04:57.360
The point is that this conclusion, which I think is an erroneous conclusion was then applied to the third world, the less developed nations if they're sometimes called.

52
00:04:57.360 --> 00:05:08.360
And the thinking was that we need to infuse them with capital the same way we did in Western Europe and they'll have wonderful results to show for it as well.

53
00:05:08.360 --> 00:05:14.080
It's not so clear that that really is such a good idea and so this is what I really want

54
00:05:14.080 --> 00:05:18.040
to spend time talking about here.

55
00:05:18.040 --> 00:05:24.040
I'm sure you all remember a few years ago when the Asian tsunamis hit and when that terrible

56
00:05:24.040 --> 00:05:32.520
tragedy occurred, some people took the opportunity to lecture the US government for its supposedly

57
00:05:32.520 --> 00:05:37.980
inadequate commitment to development aid to the third world, that not only was the US government

58
00:05:37.980 --> 00:06:07.980
was very un-stingy when it came to disaster relief, such as for the tsunamis, but that in general the United States had, it was argued, a very poor record in general over the years, leading up to the tsunami, not just disaster relief, but development aid to the third world in general was not forthcoming from the United States in substantial amounts, and some conservatives immediately rushed to the defense of the US government and said that, well, there was $108.5 billion

59
00:06:07.980 --> 00:06:13.260
was given in foreign aid by the nations of the world in 2003, the year before the tsunamis,

60
00:06:13.260 --> 00:06:20.260
and the US alone had contributed nearly 38 billion, which was over a third of the total.

61
00:06:20.260 --> 00:06:25.100
Now this argument is certainly true, but it misses the point, because this argument takes

62
00:06:25.100 --> 00:06:30.700
for granted that development aid is a good program in the first place. But in fact, development

63
00:06:30.700 --> 00:06:36.020
aid from the West to the less developed nations was one of the more expensive failures of

64
00:06:36.020 --> 00:06:48.020
by the end of the Cold War, over $2 trillion, that's inflation adjusted dollars, had been given to less developed countries, sometimes just called LDCs.

65
00:06:48.020 --> 00:06:51.020
Well, what did they have to show for it? Not much.

66
00:06:51.020 --> 00:06:59.020
The U.S. Agency for International Development in a 1989 report acknowledged, and I'm quoting the report,

67
00:06:59.020 --> 00:07:05.020
It should be noted that only a handful of countries that started receiving US assistance in the 1950s and 1960s

68
00:07:05.020 --> 00:07:08.020
has ever graduated from dependent status.

69
00:07:08.020 --> 00:07:16.020
A Clinton administration task force later on into the 1990s conceded that,

70
00:07:16.020 --> 00:07:19.020
and this is again quoting a Clinton administration,

71
00:07:19.020 --> 00:07:25.020
despite decades of foreign assistance, most of Africa and parts of Latin America, Asia and the Middle East

72
00:07:25.020 --> 00:07:30.020
have become economically worse off today than they were 20 years ago.

73
00:07:30.020 --> 00:07:37.020
In 1997, a World Bank report that looked back on the world's experience with foreign aid concluded as follows.

74
00:07:37.020 --> 00:07:42.020
Governments, that is, recipient governments, embarked on fanciful schemes.

75
00:07:42.020 --> 00:07:49.020
Private investors lacking confidence in public policies or in the steadfastness of leaders held back.

76
00:07:49.020 --> 00:07:53.020
Powerful rulers acted arbitrarily. Corruption became endemic.

77
00:07:53.020 --> 00:08:16.020
Well, the economic arbitrariness encouraged by foreign aid was to be expected because governments don't have to pass a profit and loss test, the way private investors do, so governments can get away with allocating money toward economically dubious projects that may yield high-profile jobs and therefore support for the regime in the short run.

78
00:08:16.020 --> 00:08:23.020
Well, individual examples of economic retrogression among recipient governments are everywhere.

79
00:08:23.020 --> 00:08:32.020
Over the past decade, for example, Egypt's percentage of people in extreme poverty has remained unchanged despite the billions that country has received.

80
00:08:32.020 --> 00:08:36.020
Egypt, as you may know, is the second largest beneficiary of USA.

81
00:08:36.020 --> 00:08:44.020
When Zambia became independent in 1964, its people's annual income per capita was $540.

82
00:08:44.020 --> 00:08:51.020
Peter Boone is an economist who has done some work in this area, and he compiled data for 97 countries receiving aid over a 20 year period, and found no significant correlation between the two countries.

83
00:09:14.020 --> 00:09:16.500
between Aid and Poverty Reduction.

84
00:09:16.500 --> 00:09:20.860
He likewise found nothing to indicate that aid increases life expectancy figures

85
00:09:20.860 --> 00:09:25.260
or primary school enrollment in countries receiving it.

86
00:09:25.260 --> 00:09:30.180
Foreign aid, if anything, has likely slowed the process of economic reform.

87
00:09:30.180 --> 00:09:34.580
Even the World Bank, which is largely, or at least partly responsible for this,

88
00:09:34.580 --> 00:09:38.140
admits that governments are more likely to pursue economic reforms

89
00:09:38.140 --> 00:09:40.180
when they are feeling economic pressures.

90
00:09:40.180 --> 00:09:44.180
And of course, when you receive foreign aid, that takes economic pressure off you.

91
00:09:44.180 --> 00:09:47.180
In a separate study, the World Bank concluded that, quote,

92
00:09:47.180 --> 00:09:54.180
reform is more likely to be preceded by a decline in aid than by an increase in aid.

93
00:09:54.180 --> 00:09:59.180
South Korea, Taiwan and Chile, for example, when faced with a cut-off in U.S. aid,

94
00:09:59.180 --> 00:10:03.180
finally embraced the free market and prospered.

95
00:10:03.180 --> 00:10:07.180
Tom Bethel, who's written a book on the history of private property basically,

96
00:10:07.180 --> 00:10:10.680
suggests that foreign aid has retarded economic development

97
00:10:10.680 --> 00:10:16.180
by masking the destructive consequences of these government's economic policies.

98
00:10:16.180 --> 00:10:22.180
Well, in some cases even basic humanitarian assistance has severely disrupted third world economies.

99
00:10:22.180 --> 00:10:29.180
Sending free goods to these countries has devastated local producers who cannot compete against a price of zero

100
00:10:29.180 --> 00:10:33.680
and has therefore all but destroyed local incentives to produce.

101
00:10:33.680 --> 00:10:39.120
A study of the UN World Food Programme's response to 84 emergencies found

102
00:10:39.240 --> 00:10:44.840
that it took that world body an average of 196 days to respond to a crisis

103
00:10:44.960 --> 00:10:49.040
and that the European Economic Community took over twice as long.

104
00:10:49.160 --> 00:10:54.280
Denis Avery, an agricultural expert, contends that aid was too late to relieve hunger

105
00:10:54.400 --> 00:11:00.040
but just in time to depress prices for local farmers who tried their best to respond.

106
00:11:00.040 --> 00:11:06.440
Governments who receive such assistance oftentimes use the food not to feed the hungry,

107
00:11:06.440 --> 00:11:12.440
but to build support for their regimes by making food available to groups whose political support they need.

108
00:11:12.440 --> 00:11:15.940
So, for instance, Peter Bauer, who is a great economist of this, says,

109
00:11:15.940 --> 00:11:23.440
the poor, particularly the rural poor, who are the great majority, are politically ineffective and thus of little interest to the rulers.

110
00:11:23.440 --> 00:11:28.440
The Wall Street Journal published this interesting report,

111
00:11:28.440 --> 00:11:33.440
No wonder the effectiveness of food aid around the world is under suspicion in the United States.

112
00:11:33.440 --> 00:11:39.440
Some critics have concluded that this low-cost food is merely a device for keeping elites in power

113
00:11:39.440 --> 00:11:44.440
by propping up foreign government budgets and feeding influential middle classes.

114
00:11:44.440 --> 00:11:48.440
Food aid has discouraged food production, these analysts say,

115
00:11:48.440 --> 00:11:53.440
and has failed to address the basic challenge of helping the poor earn enough to buy the food already available.

116
00:11:53.440 --> 00:11:55.440
That was from the Wall Street Journal.

117
00:11:55.440 --> 00:12:04.440
In Bangladesh, the food never reaches the hungry, because it is distributed by the regime according to calculations of political gain, and back to the journal here.

118
00:12:04.440 --> 00:12:13.440
It comes as a surprise to the layman, but not at all to the experts, that food aid arriving in Bangladesh and many other places isn't used to feed the poor.

119
00:12:13.440 --> 00:12:18.440
Governments typically sell the food on local markets and use the proceeds however they choose.

120
00:12:18.440 --> 00:12:23.440
Here the government chooses to sell the food in cut-rate ration shops to members of the middle class.

121
00:12:23.440 --> 00:12:30.440
And incidentally somebody buying food in a cut rate ration shop needs a ration card. The poor have no way to get one.

122
00:12:30.440 --> 00:12:39.440
Now Americans who have grown cynical about foreign aid because it seems correlated with corruption are actually onto something according to the latest research.

123
00:12:39.440 --> 00:12:46.440
In particular an article that appeared a few years ago in the American Economic Review argued that, and this is from their words,

124
00:12:46.440 --> 00:12:52.440
The fact that increases in aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption

125
00:12:52.440 --> 00:12:58.440
and that corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States.

126
00:12:58.440 --> 00:13:05.440
Parade Magazine, not long ago, published a ranking of the 20 worst dictators currently in power.

127
00:13:05.440 --> 00:13:09.440
The US government, it turns out, has contributed aid to all but one of them.

128
00:13:09.440 --> 00:13:13.440
That's Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. You're keeping score here.

129
00:13:13.440 --> 00:13:17.920
According to a Brookings Institution report, the history of US assistance is littered with

130
00:13:17.920 --> 00:13:23.240
tales of corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own pockets, support military

131
00:13:23.240 --> 00:13:29.040
buildups and pursue vanity projects. It is no wonder that few studies show clear correlations

132
00:13:29.040 --> 00:13:32.060
between aid flows and growth.

133
00:13:32.060 --> 00:13:36.560
The situation, as I think we all know, is especially serious in Africa. African government

134
00:13:36.560 --> 00:13:42.080
officials have become so well known for their attachment to fancy automobiles that Swahili

135
00:13:42.080 --> 00:13:48.080
The Theory now has a word, wabensi, that means men of the Mercedes-Benz.

136
00:13:48.080 --> 00:13:54.080
A Kenyan human rights activist reports that since independence in Africa,

137
00:13:54.080 --> 00:14:01.080
government has been seen as the personal fiefdom a leader uses to accumulate wealth for himself, his family, his clan.

138
00:14:01.080 --> 00:14:07.080
He cannot be subjected to criticism by anyone and everything he says is final.

139
00:14:07.080 --> 00:14:11.080
It has been said that what Africa needs is its own Marshall Plan.

140
00:14:11.080 --> 00:14:24.080
Now, as I said, I've already suggested the Marshall Plan itself may not have been responsible for Western Europe's recovery, but let's assume that the Marshall Plan was a wonderful thing, even if we assume that it was appropriate and wise.

141
00:14:24.080 --> 00:14:37.080
The fact is that Africa has already received the equivalent of five Marshall Plans and continues to receive annual aid packages comparable to what Western Europe received in each of the four years of the original Marshall Plan.

142
00:14:37.080 --> 00:14:40.080
The results are, I think, obvious enough.

143
00:14:40.080 --> 00:14:58.080
Even the New York Times, which always takes three decades longer to recognize a truth than anybody else, admitted during the 1990s that three decades of foreign development assistance in the third world has failed to lift the poorest of the poor in Africa and Asia much beyond where they have always been.

144
00:14:58.080 --> 00:15:01.080
It had simply fattened political elites.

145
00:15:01.080 --> 00:15:07.080
Well, that came as a big surprise to the New York Times, but not to anyone who knew anything about the subject.

146
00:15:07.080 --> 00:15:17.080
The Times gave its readers the impression that no one could have known the dismal results that third world development programs funded by the West would have.

147
00:15:17.080 --> 00:15:23.080
Well, somebody did know and tried for decades to warn people of the effects that these policies would have.

148
00:15:23.080 --> 00:15:26.080
And that man in particular was Peter Bauer.

149
00:15:26.080 --> 00:15:36.080
Peter Bauer is one of these people who spent decades of his career as that lone voice in the wilderness, crying out and being ignored by everybody.

150
00:15:36.080 --> 00:15:41.080
by everybody. However, because there is occasionally some justice in this world,

151
00:15:41.080 --> 00:15:47.080
he lived to see his own vindication. By the time of his death not long ago,

152
00:15:47.080 --> 00:15:54.080
just a matter of a few years ago, Bauer was recognized as a prophet for the things he had said

153
00:15:54.080 --> 00:15:59.080
that were ignored in the 60s when all the fashionable economists were arguing to the contrary.

154
00:15:59.080 --> 00:16:04.080
Bauer actually shortly before he died was honored with something called the Milton Friedman Prize

155
00:16:04.080 --> 00:16:11.080
Achievement Prize, which is a lifetime achievement award that carries a monetary prize of $500,000.

156
00:16:11.080 --> 00:16:16.080
So, you know, he suffered for a while, but then he turned out he did okay.

157
00:16:16.080 --> 00:16:21.080
Well, Bauer taught economics at Cambridge University and later at the London School of Economics,

158
00:16:21.080 --> 00:16:24.080
which is really where he spent the bulk of his career.

159
00:16:24.080 --> 00:16:33.080
For years, Bauer once said, the field of development economics had remained immune to inconvenient evidence.

160
00:16:33.080 --> 00:16:41.080
Well, by the last two decades of Bauer's life, that had finally begun to change by the 1980s, thanks in no small part to his own work.

161
00:16:41.080 --> 00:16:51.080
The fact is, foreign aid has served to prop up brutal and corrupt regimes and shelter them from the economic consequences of their own destructive policies.

162
00:16:51.080 --> 00:16:59.080
It has subsidized programs, such as, for example, import substitution, we'll talk about that later, that have destroyed developing countries' export sectors.

163
00:16:59.080 --> 00:17:08.080
It has politicized life in these countries as hostile groups struggle with each other to seize control of the increasingly lucrative coffers of the state apparatus.

164
00:17:08.080 --> 00:17:17.080
It has delayed or derailed essential economic reforms, and after five decades of such assistance, the results are essentially all bad.

165
00:17:17.080 --> 00:17:20.080
Now, it wasn't supposed to happen this way, of course.

166
00:17:20.080 --> 00:17:25.880
Of course, in the decades following World War II, foreign aid was sold to Western taxpayers

167
00:17:25.880 --> 00:17:30.680
as a profound moral obligation that no person of goodwill could oppose.

168
00:17:30.680 --> 00:17:33.380
What are you, some kind of extremist?

169
00:17:33.380 --> 00:17:37.880
Outside aid, according to the conventional wisdom, was absolutely essential to the prosperity

170
00:17:37.880 --> 00:17:40.480
of the world's less developed countries.

171
00:17:40.480 --> 00:17:45.880
These countries, it was said, were trapped in a vicious circle of poverty.

172
00:17:45.880 --> 00:17:48.080
What does vicious circle of poverty mean?

173
00:17:48.080 --> 00:17:59.080
It means that a high savings rate is necessary in order to fund the capital investment that would increase these countries' productive capacities and lift them out of poverty.

174
00:17:59.080 --> 00:18:07.080
But since they were so poor, they could not produce adequate savings in the first place and therefore couldn't get this process started.

175
00:18:07.080 --> 00:18:11.080
Foreign aid programs were intended to provide this capital.

176
00:18:11.080 --> 00:18:19.880
Hauer insisted from the beginning that this argument, that outside infusions of capital were essential in order for countries to escape the vicious circle of poverty,

177
00:18:19.880 --> 00:18:23.480
he argued that this was invalid, even laughable.

178
00:18:23.480 --> 00:18:30.080
He said, if it were really true that infusions of outside capital were necessary to spur economic development,

179
00:18:30.080 --> 00:18:35.280
then how did the first countries to develop manage to do so?

180
00:18:35.280 --> 00:18:39.080
Imagine a world in which everybody is basically living at the level of the Stone Age.

181
00:18:39.080 --> 00:18:45.080
If it's true that you need outside infusions of aid to get started developing, nobody could have developed, where would the aid have come from?

182
00:18:45.080 --> 00:18:49.080
There were no, by definition in the Stone Age, there were no developed countries.

183
00:18:49.080 --> 00:18:54.080
Did Martians come and give development aid? Well then how did the Martians become prosperous?

184
00:18:54.080 --> 00:18:56.080
There's no way to answer this question.

185
00:18:56.080 --> 00:19:04.080
So at a time when there were no developed countries to aid them, the first country to develop managed to develop anyway.

186
00:19:04.080 --> 00:19:08.160
So, again, Bauer himself said it would have been impossible for any country to develop

187
00:19:08.160 --> 00:19:11.900
and everyone would still be living in the Stone Age if this vicious circle of poverty

188
00:19:11.900 --> 00:19:13.440
thesis were correct.

189
00:19:13.440 --> 00:19:14.440
He said,

190
00:19:14.440 --> 00:19:19.120
There is not a single instance in history when external donations were required for

191
00:19:19.120 --> 00:19:21.880
the economic development of a country.

192
00:19:21.880 --> 00:19:27.000
Economic prosperity depends on people's attributes, attitudes, motivations, mores and political

193
00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:28.500
arrangements.

194
00:19:28.500 --> 00:19:33.440
If the conditions for development other than capital are present, the capital required

195
00:19:33.440 --> 00:19:39.440
will either be generated locally or be available commercially from abroad to governments or to businesses.

196
00:19:39.440 --> 00:19:44.440
If the required conditions are not present, then aid will be ineffective and wasted.

197
00:19:44.440 --> 00:19:47.440
Well, over the course of his many books and articles,

198
00:19:47.440 --> 00:19:52.440
Bauer showed that cultural attitudes and institutional arrangements have played a critical role

199
00:19:52.440 --> 00:19:56.440
in determining the economic performance of a nation.

200
00:19:56.440 --> 00:20:00.440
So, for example, the people who believe in fatalism or collectivism,

201
00:20:00.440 --> 00:20:06.440
rather than in personal responsibility, will be less likely to undertake the risks associated with entrepreneurship.

202
00:20:06.440 --> 00:20:14.440
Hernando de Soto demonstrated the importance of institutions when he investigated the poor economic performance of his native Peru.

203
00:20:14.440 --> 00:20:20.440
He found that insecure or poorly defined property rights were at the root of much of what ailed his country.

204
00:20:20.440 --> 00:20:28.440
He also showed that the suffocating effects of regulation, a factor almost entirely neglected in the economic development literature,

205
00:20:28.440 --> 00:20:31.280
had played a substantial role in Peru's woes.

206
00:20:31.280 --> 00:20:36.440
So he found, for instance, that it took the equivalent of 289 workdays,

207
00:20:36.440 --> 00:20:43.600
81 meters of forms, and 8 overt bribes to legally establish a small clothing factory in Peru.

208
00:20:43.600 --> 00:20:47.480
And then people scratched their heads, why is Peru not doing well? I wonder.

209
00:20:47.480 --> 00:20:50.120
In spite of all this scholarly work,

210
00:20:50.120 --> 00:20:53.480
and the second thoughts that so many former supporters of foreign aid

211
00:20:53.480 --> 00:20:58.560
had begun to have as the last century, the 20th century came to a close.

212
00:20:58.560 --> 00:21:01.440
By the early years of the 21st century though,

213
00:21:01.440 --> 00:21:06.760
the old long-exploded platitudes of foreign aid advocates were back in force once again,

214
00:21:06.760 --> 00:21:09.120
almost as if Bauer had never existed.

215
00:21:09.120 --> 00:21:12.320
Even the vicious circle of poverty made a comeback.

216
00:21:12.320 --> 00:21:15.240
According to the United Nations Millennium Project,

217
00:21:15.240 --> 00:21:19.040
many reasonably well-governed countries are too poor to make the investments to

218
00:21:19.040 --> 00:21:22.100
climb the first steps of the ladder. There it is again.

219
00:21:22.100 --> 00:21:27.700
Jeffrey Sachs, supposedly one of the world's greatest experts on the subject of international development,

220
00:21:27.700 --> 00:21:38.800
likewise contended that outside aid was necessary to fund what he called a big push in public investments essential to overcoming African poverty.

221
00:21:38.800 --> 00:21:49.000
And he said, the claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand practical experience or serious scrutiny.

222
00:21:49.000 --> 00:21:54.100
Well, one of the most effective critics of this suddenly renewed confidence in foreign aid

223
00:21:54.100 --> 00:21:57.600
is a man named William Easterly, Bill Easterly.

224
00:21:57.600 --> 00:22:02.360
Easterly left the World Bank following the controversy surrounding his 2002 book,

225
00:22:02.360 --> 00:22:04.440
The Elusive Quest for Growth,

226
00:22:04.440 --> 00:22:07.640
which criticized traditional foreign aid programs.

227
00:22:07.640 --> 00:22:10.640
Now a professor at New York University,

228
00:22:10.640 --> 00:22:14.680
Easterly consistently throws cold water on this propaganda.

229
00:22:14.680 --> 00:22:17.160
Here's an excerpt from Easterly's work.

230
00:22:17.160 --> 00:22:20.920
Easterly, by the way, found he had to leave the World Bank

231
00:22:20.920 --> 00:22:22.840
in effect because here he had just written this book,

232
00:22:22.840 --> 00:22:24.960
Condemning the World Bank's Programs.

233
00:22:24.960 --> 00:22:27.960
It suddenly became uncomfortable for him to work there any longer.

234
00:22:27.960 --> 00:22:31.600
So he's a professor at NYU now, but here's what he says,

235
00:22:31.600 --> 00:22:37.160
Jeffrey Sachs says that large aid increases would finance a big push in public investments

236
00:22:37.160 --> 00:22:43.680
to produce a rapid step increase in Africa's underlying productivity, both rural and urban.

237
00:22:43.680 --> 00:22:49.760
Over 1970 to 1994, there is good data on public investment for 22 African countries.

238
00:22:49.760 --> 00:22:54.600
These countries' governments spent $342 billion on public investment.

239
00:22:54.600 --> 00:23:00.040
The donors gave these same countries' governments $187 billion in aid over this period.

240
00:23:00.040 --> 00:23:05.720
Unfortunately, the corresponding step increase in productivity, measured as per capita growth

241
00:23:05.720 --> 00:23:08.960
over this period, was zero.

242
00:23:08.960 --> 00:23:20.960
Still, proponents of what has been called the new economics of foreign aid remain confident that aid can work wonders so long as it is directed at countries with good policy environments.

243
00:23:20.960 --> 00:23:28.960
Greater selectivity by donors can ensure that only trustworthy and responsible regimes are rewarded with loans or grant money.

244
00:23:28.960 --> 00:23:34.960
Those regimes in turn will direct the aid money to fruitful and worthwhile enterprises.

245
00:23:34.960 --> 00:23:41.960
Well, there are problems with what we call this new economics of foreign aid that has all this confidence in foreign aid and what it can accomplish.

246
00:23:41.960 --> 00:23:50.960
Now one of these difficulties is that this new confidence is based entirely on a very small number of studies conducted by the World Bank

247
00:23:50.960 --> 00:23:54.960
whose conclusions have proven either impossible to verify by outside researchers

248
00:23:54.960 --> 00:24:00.960
or when the bank's data can be independently evaluated are flatly contradicted by other scholars.

249
00:24:00.960 --> 00:24:10.960
For example, much research suggests that even when aid is directed toward countries with relatively sound economic policies, the overall result is still negative.

250
00:24:10.960 --> 00:24:19.960
A recent International Monetary Fund study concluded that there is no evidence that aid works better in better policy or geographical environments,

251
00:24:19.960 --> 00:24:24.960
and that no subcategories of aid have any significant impact on growth.

252
00:24:24.960 --> 00:24:35.960
But even if, after over a half century of missteps, aid could somehow be channeled only to the best behaved and least predatory regimes,

253
00:24:35.960 --> 00:24:39.960
the problem is that the aid, per se, is nevertheless harmful.

254
00:24:39.960 --> 00:24:45.960
It consistently results in the expansion of the public sector, because governments, after all, administer the aid,

255
00:24:45.960 --> 00:24:52.960
at the expense of the productive private economy, and it contributes to the politicization of economic life.

256
00:24:52.960 --> 00:24:59.960
By which I mean, it tends to direct entrepreneurial energies toward political agitation so that you can get a share of the grant money

257
00:24:59.960 --> 00:25:04.960
instead of toward productive efforts aimed at satisfying consumers.

258
00:25:04.960 --> 00:25:08.960
Frederick Erickson, writing in the Journal of Economic Affairs, writes,

259
00:25:08.960 --> 00:25:16.960
Aid dependency alters incentives and strategies, creating a political economy entrenched in every fiber of society

260
00:25:16.960 --> 00:25:23.460
where additional wealth is easiest created by more aid, not by reforms or producing more efficiently.

261
00:25:23.460 --> 00:25:27.960
Aid dependency dilutes the very same process that makes societies affluent.

262
00:25:27.960 --> 00:25:33.460
It hampers the true source of wealth creation, namely behavioral change.

263
00:25:33.460 --> 00:25:37.460
Unsurprisingly, ethnic and other tensions have sometimes risen

264
00:25:37.460 --> 00:25:44.460
as competition for control of the state apparatus and its foreign largesse has intensified.

265
00:25:44.460 --> 00:25:50.960
The results have at times been violent, particularly in the cases of such Western aid recipients as Burundi,

266
00:25:50.960 --> 00:25:58.460
Kampuchea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zaire.

267
00:25:58.460 --> 00:26:03.460
The politicization of economic life for which aid serves as an important catalyst

268
00:26:03.460 --> 00:26:10.460
has even led to large-scale expulsion and even massacre tolerated, encouraged or perpetrated by the rulers.

269
00:26:10.460 --> 00:26:13.960
And by the way, the reason, of course, that all this happens, you have all this tension,

270
00:26:13.960 --> 00:26:17.160
is that you've got tension to begin with between competing groups,

271
00:26:17.160 --> 00:26:22.360
then you throw all this free money into the picture, and now they're all at each other's throats to get a portion of it.

272
00:26:22.360 --> 00:26:27.060
That's how you get rich in these countries, not by producing more, but by getting your hands on the aid money.

273
00:26:27.060 --> 00:26:30.860
So aid programs and these types of incentives that they have introduced

274
00:26:30.860 --> 00:26:35.360
have to share some of the responsibility for these terrible outcomes.

275
00:26:35.360 --> 00:26:40.360
So, it is not a question of taking a good program and applying it to deserving countries.

276
00:26:40.360 --> 00:26:43.360
Foreign aid is not a good program in the first place.

277
00:26:43.360 --> 00:26:47.360
The former chief economist for USAID, which is the Agency for International Development,

278
00:26:47.360 --> 00:26:49.360
Alan Waters, once wrote,

279
00:27:05.360 --> 00:27:09.360
and the financial capital into non-productive and administrative activities.

280
00:27:09.360 --> 00:27:14.360
It creates a moral ethical tone which denies the hard task of wealth creation.

281
00:27:14.360 --> 00:27:20.360
Foreign aid makes it possible for societies to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

282
00:27:20.360 --> 00:27:27.360
But as of 2002, the administration of President Bush began to adopt this new selectivity approach.

283
00:27:27.360 --> 00:27:33.360
In March 2002, President Bush agreed to attend the United Nations Summit on Global Poverty

284
00:27:33.360 --> 00:27:39.360
Perhaps to disarm some of his detractors, because Bush had spoken against foreign aid numerous times in the past.

285
00:27:39.360 --> 00:27:47.360
Shortly before leaving for Monterrey, the president announced his intention to increase foreign aid by $5 billion over the next three years.

286
00:27:47.360 --> 00:27:53.360
But instead of the global huzzahs they expected, the White House heard only crickets.

287
00:27:53.360 --> 00:27:56.360
James Bovard tells what happened next.

288
00:27:56.360 --> 00:27:59.360
James Bovard tells what happened next.

289
00:27:59.360 --> 00:28:03.360
The White House was chagrined when Bush's proposal for five billion more dollars in foreign aid

290
00:28:03.360 --> 00:28:07.360
did not generate massive international applause.

291
00:28:07.360 --> 00:28:10.360
So on the day before he left for Mexico, White House officials revealed

292
00:28:10.360 --> 00:28:13.360
that there had been a glitch in the original announcement

293
00:28:13.360 --> 00:28:18.360
and that Bush actually planned to give away more than twice as much money under the new program.

294
00:28:18.360 --> 00:28:24.360
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the mistake was simply a result of confusing math.

295
00:28:24.360 --> 00:28:28.360
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice explained,

296
00:28:28.360 --> 00:28:32.360
we didn't want to go out there with essentially false or phony numbers.

297
00:28:32.360 --> 00:28:37.360
You know how conscientious they are about getting their facts straight.

298
00:28:37.360 --> 00:28:42.360
The New York Times noted that skeptics said that the White House was just adding on billions

299
00:28:42.360 --> 00:28:46.360
to make sure that the President was a hit in Monterey.

300
00:28:46.360 --> 00:28:51.360
In his speech in Monterey, Bush echoed the familiar refrain of the new economics of foreign aid,

301
00:28:51.360 --> 00:28:57.860
that greater selectivity and identifying recipients of aid would set the developing world on the road to prosperity.

302
00:28:57.860 --> 00:29:02.360
This new program in which foreign aid would be more selectively dispersed than in the past

303
00:29:02.360 --> 00:29:06.360
would be known as the Millennium Challenge Account, MCA.

304
00:29:06.360 --> 00:29:09.360
Now, naturally Congress had been consulted about none of this

305
00:29:09.360 --> 00:29:14.360
and legislation establishing the new program didn't reach Congress till the next year.

306
00:29:14.360 --> 00:29:18.360
Now, Americans are supposed to believe that this new commitment to greater selectivity

307
00:29:18.360 --> 00:29:25.360
Selectivity and determining worthy recipients of foreign aid will overcome the problems that have plagued these programs for decades.

308
00:29:25.360 --> 00:29:31.360
Well, we've already seen that there's plenty of evidence that foreign aid is inherently bad, no matter how selectively it's awarded.

309
00:29:31.360 --> 00:29:36.360
But beyond that, the fact is we've heard all this before, again and again.

310
00:29:36.360 --> 00:29:40.360
In 1963, John F. Kennedy outlined, quote,

311
00:29:40.360 --> 00:29:48.360
and, quote, objective number one, to apply stricter standards of selectivity in aiding developing countries.

312
00:29:48.360 --> 00:29:52.360
The Pearson Commission called for the same thing six years later.

313
00:29:52.360 --> 00:29:55.360
In 1985, a special task force on foreign aid declared,

314
00:29:55.360 --> 00:30:01.360
the relief of poverty depends both on aid and on the policies of the recipient countries.

315
00:30:01.360 --> 00:30:06.360
Another major government report, nearly 30 years after the original statement by Kennedy,

316
00:30:06.360 --> 00:30:12.560
was still noting, even very well designed projects cannot succeed in a poor policy environment.

317
00:30:12.560 --> 00:30:15.260
We've been hearing this again and again and again.

318
00:30:15.260 --> 00:30:20.760
So if programs that have entrenched human misery and consistently failed for five decades

319
00:30:20.760 --> 00:30:23.760
cannot be called failures, then nothing can.

320
00:30:23.760 --> 00:30:30.060
If history is any guide, no one should place his hopes in yet another new and improved foreign aid program.

321
00:30:30.060 --> 00:30:35.260
But there are some things Westerners can do for their brethren in the developing world.

322
00:30:35.260 --> 00:30:40.260
for example, give sound economic advice, showcase success stories like Hong Kong

323
00:30:40.260 --> 00:30:43.260
which has prospered fantastically without foreign aid

324
00:30:43.260 --> 00:30:46.260
even though it seems like a natural candidate for foreign aid

325
00:30:46.260 --> 00:30:50.260
no local energy sources, shortages of water, shortages of everything

326
00:30:50.260 --> 00:30:56.260
and yet it adopted the free market, it exploded with prosperity

327
00:30:56.260 --> 00:30:58.260
it's got very secure property rights there

328
00:30:58.260 --> 00:31:01.260
and what do you know, as I point out in my book

329
00:31:01.260 --> 00:31:07.260
As time went on, Hong Kong became so productive, so successful,

330
00:31:07.260 --> 00:31:12.260
that Britain and the United States began asking it not to export so many wonderful products to them,

331
00:31:12.260 --> 00:31:14.260
because they couldn't cope with it all.

332
00:31:14.260 --> 00:31:19.260
They could repeal agricultural subsidies and some of their tariff restrictions,

333
00:31:19.260 --> 00:31:23.260
which would help the developing world more than all these foreign aid programs put together.

334
00:31:23.260 --> 00:31:25.260
This is not brain surgery.

335
00:31:25.260 --> 00:31:39.260
Economist Mankir Olson said very simply in 1993 that the world's economically successful countries all possessed relatively secure property and contract rights, while all the unsuccessful ones did not.

336
00:31:39.260 --> 00:31:45.260
And by the way, even with all this talk about this new approach to foreign aid, the old review is still very much present.

337
00:31:45.260 --> 00:31:52.260
Even in this age of the millennium challenge account, the US government is still set to disperse about the same amount of standard foreign aid

338
00:31:52.260 --> 00:31:57.260
and we'll continue to ship about 10 billion abroad annually even with this new program in effect.

339
00:31:57.260 --> 00:32:00.260
So that'll just be on top of the standard aid.

340
00:32:00.260 --> 00:32:06.260
So there, in case anyone needed it, is more evidence that the only thing we learn from history is that nobody learns from history.