Trump Is Right to End Foreign Aid

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.

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...

"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

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.