Running head: FOREIGN AID 1

Foreign Aid

Megan Walters

Florida State College at Jacksonville

Professor P.T. Barrett

ECO2013 (339255) Prin. of Economics I

March 20, 2011

FOREIGN AID 2

ABSTRACT

Poverty is an economic disease that must be treated aggressively with a stabilized

economy; the tool for creating such a stable economy is foreign aid. Foreign aid is the sum of all

material and monetary donations given to a developing country. However, after a popular global

effort to use foreign aid as a combatant to poverty, there are few positive results reported. Is

foreign aid a waste of resources, and it the fight against poverty futile? The answers to those

questions lie in the application of resources and an attitude adjustment toward the concept of

foreign aid.

FOREIGN AID 3

An Introduction to Foreign Aid

Poverty is a disease of economies which, left untreated, can create a culture of destitute

people and corrupted governments. Poverty within developing countries often leaves citizens

fighting against harsh physical, social, and economic conditions; such an impoverished

livelihood usually results in large numbers of otherwise unnecessary fatalities. According to

Sachs (2005), poverty itself can be a cause of economic stagnation along with geographical

disadvantages, governance failures, cultural barriers, geopolitics, and an overall lack of

innovation and technology.

The overarching goal of foreign aid is to help such developing countries recover from

poverty with new, stabilized economies. Moyo (2009) defines foreign aid as �the sum total of

both concessional loans and grants.� In other words, foreign aid is the sum of all monetary and

material expenditures of a country that are given to a (developing) country in need. As Moyo

(2009) points out, the history of large scale foreign aid can be dated back as early as the 19 th

century; a time in which foreign aid existed out of the good will of philanthropists around the

world. Currently, there are several more reasons for giving aid, that often include certain

religious precepts and/or an interest in long term economic investment (Sachs, 2005). Past or

present, however, the largest factor of foreign aid deals with the most recognized and global

underlying reasons for a nation or government to do anything: politics. Throughout history, the

people and governments that insist on giving relief to impoverished and torn nations have been

motivated by the possibility of spreading their political beliefs globally.

History of Foreign Aid

Moyo (2009), details a history of post-war (WWII) foreign aid, starting with the 1940s

birth of major structure for the purpose of foreign aid, in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. It was

there that a whopping 700 delegates from 44 countries met to establish a framework for a global

FOREIGN AID 4

system of financial and monetary management. The main agenda was to �restructure

international finance, establish a multilateral trading system and construct a framework for

economic cooperation that would avoid a repeat of the Great Depression� (Moyo, 2009). The true

motivation behind this gathering was the rallying of support that Europe would need in order to

recover economic and political stability out of the ashes of World War II. John Maynard Keynes

and Harry Dexter white pioneered discussions that laid foundations for the International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, and also known as the World Bank), the International

Monetary Fund (IMF), and the International Trade Organization.

Another great stride for foreign aid efforts began on June 5, 1947, when George C.

Marshal produced a proposal that outlined a plan to make a rescue package available from the

United States to 14 disadvantaged European countries. After approval, the plan proved hugely

successful! The rescue package plan remained active for five more years, utilizing funds in the

amount of about $13 billion. As a result of the Marshal Plan, much of Western Europe was able

to recover their previous economic standings. In return, America gained allies out of those

grateful nations, and more influence on foreign policies. The success of the plan created the

global popular belief that investment is critical for economic growth; that common belief is the

cornerstone of most modern foreign aid philosophies.

In the 1970�s, leading donor countries began to notice that the loans and grants they were

giving to developing, and often un-creditworthy, nations were merely placing those countries into

greater debt. Foreign aid leaders and economists started believing that short-term financial

investments and infrastructure-targeted funding were not the right kind of investments for

developing countries. People began to believe that growth-oriented strategy was not good enough

to provide a sustainable economy. Instead, they surmised that real sustainable growth was not

possible without materially improving the livelihood of society's poor. As a result of that new-

FOREIGN AID 5

found belief, foreign aid organizers decided that it would be more beneficial to invest in more

long-term relief social projects such as �... agriculture and rural development, social services,

mass inoculation programmes, adult literacy campaigns, as well as food for the malnourished...�

(Moyo, 2009). The goal for aid evolved into creating a system that would provide a country with

the tools necessary to become a sustainable force in the global economy.

The duration of the Cold War created a long foreign aid �battle� between Western

democratic countries (primarily the US) and communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

(USSR); developing nations were being aided (bought) by both sides in an attempt to spread

either global democracy or global communism. With a large focus on socio-economic ideologies,

few donor countries sought to reprimand any corrupt governments (particularly in Africa) that

were embezzling foreign aid funds. After the Cold War ended, donor countries soon realized the

horrible situation that the corruption was causing within developing countries. The resulting

effect was a large change in foreign aid policies that would focus on better governance practices

of developing (recipient) nations. This last great common change in most global foreign aid

policies has carried over into the new millennium. In today's global society, it is believe that once

the correct political environments are established, the assistance granted to developing countries

will have greater chances of helping secure a more stable economy (Moyo, 2009).

Types of Foreign Aid:

According to Moyo (2009), there are three basic globally-recognized forms of aid

distributed to nations in need: humanitarian (emergency) aid, charity-based aid, and systematic

aid. Humanitarian aid is disbursed often to public (sometimes private) organizations in response

to catastrophes and calamities. Upon funding, those organizations send relief workers, supplies,

and any other needed things to needy countries. A recognizable example would be the Peace

Corps, which is a publicly funded humanitarian organization that responds to catastrophes.

FOREIGN AID 6

Charity-based aid is disbursed to charitable organizations in the field that use the funds to

directly help people surrounding their location. These charitable groups are called non-

governmental organizations (NGOs), and they secure funding through private charitable

donations and government contracts. For example, in Sudan, an NGO called the World Food

Program air drops food to specified areas in order to feed the hungry, malnourished locals. Wind

of Hope, an NGO in Kenya, takes in orphaned children whose parents have died of auto-immune

deficiency syndrome, AIDS (Klein, 2008).

Systematic aid refers to payments made directly by a government to another government

either through bilateral or multilateral aid. Bilateral aid is a government-to-government transfer

of funds and/or materials. However, it is common for countries to fund NGOs through bilateral

aid; funding is given in the form of a paid government contract, and is considered to be bilateral

since the funding is through the government. Multilateral aid is similar, but funds are transferred

through a financial intermediary such as the World Bank (Moyo, 2009).

There are two types of foreign aid involved in the private sector: enterprise funding and

equity funding. Enterprise funding is an effort that includes humanitarian relief, economic

restructuring, assistance in health and education sectors, and also programs to assist in

democracy building. This type of funding can serve as an effective tool for the promotion of

private enterprise in developing and transitioning countries, pending that they have the advantage

of being organized and managed by an experienced staff and board (Lancaster, 2006).

US involvement in private equity funding was introduced with the Congressional

founding of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in 1971 (Strategic Plan 2003-

2008: Refocused on Development and Additionality, 2003). The mission of private equity

funding is to mobilize and smooth the progression of US private capital and abilities investments

in the economic and social development of developing countries. It is also aimed at providing

FOREIGN AID 7

hard-to-find capital for entrepreneurs and businesses in developing countries, and specifically

accomplishing those goals with nations that are transitioning from non-market to market

economies. Just as governments give loans with the expectation of gaining allies, private equity

funding occurs with the expectation of gaining large investment returns.

The United Nations and the World Bank

An abundance of financial foreign aid and resources are funded by donor countries

through the United Nations (UN) and its diverse organizations. One such section of the U.N.�s

relief systems is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which disburses funds contributed by

donor countries to the developing countries. The purpose of this fund is to ensure stability in the

international monetary system. To accomplish such balance, the IMF group distributes its

assistance in the form of short-term stabilizing initiatives ( Malloch-Brown, 2011).

Another child of the United Nations� relief efforts is the United Nations Development

Program (UNDP), a group that toils with governments, NGOs, and the private sector to assist in

reducing the poverty level in developing nations. The UNDP maintains up-to-date information on

the effectiveness of their various programs through ground-representatives that actually work in

the locations that aid is being disbursed. Malloch-Brown (2011) advocates that those

representatives also have a better vantage point to identify any developing problems with

programs, and a residential perspective on potential solutions for the different problems

encountered.

Representatives combine their efforts to help national leaders cultivate economic policies

that can reduce inequality (extreme separation of socio-economic classes), while also promoting

overall growth (increased GDP). The UNDP also assists governments and private sectors reach

economically beneficial business agreements, and helps them generate environmentally

sustainable business solutions. Essentially, the UNDP serves as a mediator for governments,

FOREIGN AID 8

NGOs, and the private sector, and helps prevent counterproductive funding and resource

competition among those three groups. Malloch-Brown (2011) believes the UNDP is doing very

well in revolutionizing the course of development for developing countries.

Another giant in the foreign aid environment is the World Bank. According to Malloch-

Brown (2011), the World Bank is comprised of two main groups: The International Bank for

Reconstruction (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Those two groups

work together, within the World Bank, to generate funds for relief. The IBRD issues bonds and

sells them in the international market. Next, it shifts money made from those sales to the IDA,

which uses the money to grant loans (with interest) to developing nations. Finally, the recipient

countries pay back the loans with added interest, and the bank (and its members) create a profit.

The World Bank structures its loaning policies with a focus on long-term growth

initiatives. One major criticism of the World Bank�s efforts is that there is little to no assistance

focused on the inequality within developing nations. While the Bank is sympathetic toward those

trapped in poverty, they believe that focusing on a reduction in inequality will slow the total

growth of the country (measured by GDP). For this reason, Malloch-Brown (2011) believes that

the IMF and the World Bank should be working together in their relief efforts. He proposes that

the IMF should focus its efforts on short-term development and reduction of inequality, while the

World Bank targets its efforts on long-term growth. The resulting cooperation between the two

institutions would create a more balanced approach to foreign aid policies, and would prove

more efficient.

Benefits of Giving Aid

Lancaster (2006) points out that there are economic benefits associated with foreign aid.

Loans are granted with the expectation that those recipient nations' economies will develop well

enough to be able to repay the loans with interest. That very concept is evidenced through the

FOREIGN AID 9

aforementioned equity and enterprise funding through the private sector. Furthermore, in granting

assistance to developing nations, donor countries also look to build market economies and

businesses with which they can trade in the future. Ultimately, giving aid is truly one nation�s

investment in another for financial gain. Even when countries grant funds (rather than loaning

with interest), they are investing with a hope of positive development that will eventually open

up new trade markets to the benefit of the donor. In other words, the marginal costs associated

with aid are expected to be less than the expected marginal benefits, which makes the act of

giving aid favorable to the donor.

As for the social benefits of aid, Malloch-Brown (2011), stated that the spread of

democracy and free market economies is a major goal of relief organizations and governments.

Such nations provide an amazing model of how a democratic free market economy can be

successful, and they truly want more successful democratic nations developed that will positively

contribute to the global economy. With the example they set, donor countries wish to convey to

developing countries that a civil community can exist in their countries as well. Countries like

Rwanda have historically struggled with civil unrest: their history is tormented with violence,

corruption and genocide, and other human atrocities. The goal of relief efforts in Rwanda, and

similar countries, is to give short-term relief to the poor, oppressed citizens, while utilizing long-

term aid projects to rid the nation of corruption through the establishment of democracy and

healthy business incentives (Sachs, 2005).

Socially, it is difficult for many people to know that there are places in the world where

people, without the opportunity to survive (let alone thrive), die every day. Moyo (2009)

concludes that humanitarian aid primarily creates social benefits. There are humanitarian relief

efforts continuously employed globally by non-profit organizations whose only purpose for

existence is to give assistance to people in need. For example, in cases of disasters, such as

FOREIGN AID 10

recent earthquakes and tsunamis, major relief efforts are quickly put into action by several non-

profit organizations, like the Red Cross. When citizens of affected nations are able to gain

needed food or medicine through such charitable contributions, people involved reap

psychological benefits the fulfill their moral and/or religious precepts (Sachs, 2005).

Foreign Aid in the United States

The U.S. has historically been the largest donor of foreign aid, except for a short period of

time in the 1990s. Foreign Aid as a part of US foreign policy began in World War II (1941) in the

form of lend-lease (White, 1974). Tarnoff and Knowles (2004), note that from the 1950s to the

1990s, most U.S. foreign aid was given primarily in an effort to eliminate communism from the

world. While there always have been several goals that the U.S. hoped to accomplish through

foreign aid, fighting communism was always in the foreground until the early to mid-1990s.

Currently, U.S. foreign aid is granted to a diverse number of recipients that typically fall

into one of three categories: developing nations, nations of strategic value to the U.S., and

countries recovering from wars. About half of U.S. foreign economic assistance is distributed

through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The U.S. foreign aid

is given in many different forms (e.g., economic, military, financial and technical assistance).

The U.S. gives most of its aid as grants, which requires no obligatory repayments. However,

loans are occasionally given bilaterally, and the U.S. does sponsor multilateral aid-loans through

the World Bank; loans granted are expected to be re-payed with interest, and loan contracts are

often given with certain conditions. Some foreign aid determinants consist of strategic

considerations (e.g., Egypt, Jordan and Iraq), former colonial status (includes several African

countries), political alignment, and drug policy (e.g., Columbia) (Tarnoff and Knowles).

FOREIGN AID 11

According to Tarnoff and Knowles (2004), there are five major categories of foreign

assistance for the U.S.:

1. Bilateral development aid: �designed chiefly to foster sustainable broad-based

economic progress and social stability in developing countries.� This type of relief

is procured by the poorest nations, many of them in Africa. Many of these funds

are managed by USAID, and are focused on long-term growth. Examples of such

aid organizations would be: Peace Corps, the Inter-American Development

Foundation, the African Development Foundation, the Trade and Development

Agency and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

2. Economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals: funds are

divided between five main programs whose purpose is to meet U.S. special

economic, political and/or security interests. Examples of these are the Economic

Support Fund (which receives the majority of funding), and the SEED (Support

for East European Democracy Act).

3. Humanitarian aid: disbursed in response to catastrophes and calamities. Examples

would be refugee programs and feed-the-hungry programs.

4. Multilateral economic contributions: funds are commingled with donations from

other contributors to finance multilateral development projects, which are

implemented by international organizations such as United Nations Children�s

Fund (UNICEF)

5. Military aid: there are three main programs: Foreign Military Financing (FMF),

International Military Education and Training program (IMET), and peacekeeping

funds.

FOREIGN AID 12

The U.S. is the largest international aid donor in terms of the actual dollar; however, when aid is

calculated as a percentage of Gross National Product, the U.S. is actually one of the smallest of

the main donor nations. There are three main foreign assistance goals for the U.S.: to combat

terrorism, to promote economic growth and reduce poverty levels, and to combat the HIV/AIDS

pandemic (Tarnoff, 2004).

Beginning early in his presidential campaign, President Barrack Obama placed much

emphasis on foreign aid, and has followed through with many of his goals throughout his term of

service. While campaigning, President Obama pledged to as much as double the amount of U.S.

foreign aid to $50 billion by 2010. Obama put the majority of his foreign assistance focus on the

development of agriculture in malnourished nations, committing $3.5 billion to a new $20 billion

global fund for the increasing of agriculture in developing nations over the next three years. The

president has also chosen to inflate the government�s primary development fund, established by

the Bush administration, called the Millennium Challenge Corp. The U.S. President�s Emergency

Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was initiated by the Bush administration in 2003, and is still the

largest administration commitment to combat a single disease. Congress has authorized the

spending of up to $48 billion for the relief of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria . Privately,

Americans donate at least $34 billion annually to overseas relief efforts.

Controversies and Alternatives

Some general controversies surround the institution of foreign aid. As evidenced by

Klein's documentary (2008), a problem is that aid is too often thrown away on conditions where

the recipient is required to utilize overpriced goods and services from their donor countries.

Another criticism is that the majority of aid is not actually given to the poorest countries, though

the majority of the public believe that should be the largest factor in aid distribution. Joseph

Stiglitz commented that assistance amounts are stunted by the blockading of imports from

FOREIGN AID 13

developing nations by donor countries, and notes that its counterproductive to the goals of

opening market access to such developing nations. He further commented that donor nations

crush any hope of growth as they export more to the developing countries while simultaneously

blocking imports from those countries (Palast, 2003). As with many political and economic

institutions, government corruption is a cause for great concern and happens too often. Often,

funding corrupt governments is the largest criticism of foreign aid.

It is easier to seek out the problems and issues that are leading to an entire nation�s

oppression than it is to find efficient, effective solutions. It is of popular opinion that much of the

bureaucratic process through which funds must often travel should be eliminated (Klein, 2008).

Malloch-Brown (2011) suggests that the disbursement of funds for assistance should include the

opinions of affected community members (in conjunction with the government) and the

organization through which the funds are filtered. He also believes that the funds given should

allow room for developing nations (and their citizens) to create their own solutions with creative

innovations, instead of being so strictly allocated for specific purposes by uninvolved donor

countries. In conclusion, funds, resources, and services should be less congested in the areas of a

poor nation, and should be spread in a way that offers both short-term and long-term

development. The UN has the simplest suggestion of all: increase foreign aid (Klein, 2008).

Case Studies

Egypt (Africa):

In the 1970s, Egypt began receiving large foreign aid donations from the United States.

According to Sullivan (2011), Egypt made peace with Israel, allied with the United States, and

became a strategic point of interest for the US. Egypt has been the second largest recipient of US

foreign aid since the 1970s (trailing behind Israel), and currently receives an average of two

billion dollars worth of US aid each year (Rieff, 2011). About $1.3 billion of its average foreign

FOREIGN AID 14

aid is used for military development, and the remaining millions are dedicated to economic

development. Most of Egypt's foreign aid takes the form of either cash grants or credits that may

be used to purchase equipment from US contractors (Sullivan, 2011).

According to Rieff (2011), the US continues to fund Egypt due to its strategic

importance, and its allied commitment to protect Israel and oppose Iran's interests in nuclear

missiles. While the socio-political benefits of funding are enjoyed by the US, Egypt's economy

has failed to graduate from the need for foreign aid. Sullivan (2011) records that Egypt's GDP

grew at an average rate of 8.4 percent from 1970-1982, then cooled a bit to only 5 percent

average growth from 1984-1987, and finally began to flounder at 2 percent in the 1990s. Rieff

(2011) says that US foreign aid has been very successful in military development, but it has done

little to support economic growth; that oversight has lead to greater economic inequalities, high

unemployment, and the more recent protests within the country.

The failing economy can be blamed on both Egypt and the United States. The United

States does not attach any formal conditions to its aid, and Rieff (2011) says that they won't in

the future. Egypt understands its strategic importance to the United States, and frequently uses its

advantage to influence US foreign policies and ensure that the US turns a blind-eye to the

inequality and lack of human development within the country. Sullivan (2011) confirms such a

belief by detailing Egypt's requests for the US to only give NGO contracts to those NGOs that

were pre-approved by the its own government. Essentially, the US is using foreign aid to �bribe�

Egypt to remain an ally; this practice gives the US no advantage to enforce good governance

principles, and leaves poor and unemployed Egyptians resentful toward the US.

Of course, Sullivan (2011) points out that some good has come out of US foreign aid.

Less children now die from diarrheal disease, Egypt has one of the world's largest immunization

rates, the water quality has improved, and agriculture has seen some overall growth. The problem

FOREIGN AID 15

is that the positive results are limited compared to actual investments; the marginal costs of

aiding the economy (not military) seem to outweigh the marginal benefits, which is economically

unfavorable.

Sullivan (2011) points out that the Egyptian government hurts itself by being overly

bureaucratic in function. Egypt has little privatization, and most efforts to privatize are heavily

funded through unsustainable government loans and subsidies. Beyond the need for less

government and more privatization, the government itself needs to have smoother functioning

procedures. No one agency is in charge of a single sector; the Ministry of Agriculture cannot

regulate cotton, but it must compete with the ministries of Industry, Economy, Finance, Supply

and Foreign Trade. With so much inter-ministerial competition, the government cannot

successfully unify and create policies that benefit the country and people as a whole over an

individual ministry and its employees. In the end, the citizens suffer as the political elite continue

to gain wealth through their lobbying efforts that seek to benefit themselves (Sullivan, 2011).

Botswana (Africa):

Botswana achieved its independence from Britain in 1966, and began its independent life

stricken with poverty. At the time of its independence, Botswana only had 12 kilometers of

paved road in the country, and only 22 Botswana citizens had graduated from a university

(Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007). Moyo (2009) notes that in the 1960s, Botswana's aid

assistance was nearly 20 percent of its national income. Between 1965 and 1998, however,

Botswana's economy grew at an average rate of 7.7 percent. By 2000, the country's aid share of

national income stood at 1.6 percent. The growth of Botswana makes it one of only 22 global

countries to become an International Development Association (IDA) graduate; it is one of only

FOREIGN AID 16

three African countries to achieve that recognition, and is hailed as a perfect example of the

effectiveness of foreign aid programs (Moyo, 2009).

How did Botswana achieve so much economic success? The answer lies in a combination

of socio-political and socio-economic conditions, and its overall success is frequently deemed as

�accidental� (Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007). The easiest answer is that good governance and

fiscal policies created an environment conducive to economic growth; the governmental

institution created an atmosphere where both constituents and the political elite respected

property rights.

Prior to British colonization, Botswana was a peculiar tribal nation. Unlike most African

tribes, the Tswana (dominant tribe) had a fairly democratic social system. The chief had

constraints on arbitrary rule, because authority was shared by a hierarchy of officials.

Furthermore, the tribe had public forums for adult males to gather and discuss issues of interest

for the tribe. This entire system was not exactly democratic, but it instilled a social acceptance of

limited powers and checks and balances. That sociological condition was a key factor in

Botswana's success, because it meant that the culture of the country did not experience a shock or

misunderstanding of the political systems that the British created. Once it gained its

independence, Botswana did not (and hasn't since) experience any great political wars, and they

were much less susceptible to extreme government corruption; the people of Botswana had a

long-time history of respecting property rights of its people (Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007).

Botswana was also fortunate to have natural resources as a source of capital. The country

is rich in minerals and diamonds, and those industries account for about 40 percent of its output

(Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007). The culture has a healthy respect for its natural environment,

and has been careful to create sustainable usage policies for its mining industries. This is a far

FOREIGN AID 17

contrast to most other Sub-Saharan African countries, whose mining industries are used for

political and economically corrupt extortion (Grabowski, Self, & Shields, 2007).

The country's general respect for property rights and its nonrenewable natural resources

has affected the policies of the independent government. Since most of the political elite had an

agricultural background, the government quickly made heavy investments in agricultural

development (using their aid assistance). The country also understood the importance of

education and technology, and made long-term investments in educating its people from the

profits it earned in its diamond and mineral mining industries (Grabowski, Self, & Shields,

2007). Moyo (2009) also attributed Botswana's success to its open trade policies that encouraged

competition, and its stable monetary policy that was maintained through rigorous fiscal

discipline.

Botswana's success is a product of appropriate usages and attitudes toward foreign aid.

Moyo (2009) states that the country made a conscious effort to decrease its need for aid. This

desire for self-sufficiency spawned a judicious application of aid assistance, and can be attributed

to the rooted tribal sociological culture that had been in place since the 18 th century. Botswana is

a textbook example of effective foreign aid, because the country employed good governance,

focused on long-term agricultural and educational investments, and pursued beneficial market

economy options. Botswana used its assistance as a tool for its long-term benefit, rather than

living �hand-to-mouth,� as a strategic and political benefit to other donor countries (Moyo,

2009).

Conclusion

Fighting poverty with foreign aid is a difficult concept to understand and address. Unlike

factual, logical principles of economics, foreign aid has a heavy socio-political influence.

Decisions are not made based on marginal benefits and costs, but they can be motivated by

FOREIGN AID 18

religious, moral, and political factors. It is evident that if the goal of foreign aid is truly to end

poverty, the system is failing immensely. A new approach must be taken to eliminate the disease

of poverty. This new approach must enforce stricter regulations for loaning policies of

multilateral financial intermediaries, and it must focus on more long-term developments. Donor

countries must research the political and social circumstances of each country in which they

invest, and they must mentor their recipient countries in a customizable fashion. It is evident that

there is no clear formula for success, but that the most efficient uses of foreign aid are often

related to customized applications that are created by people immersed in the culture of each

recipient country. Foreign aid will never succeed as a solution to poverty, but it will remain

effective when its donors and recipients understand that it is a tool for crafting the solution. What

is the solution to poverty? An economy that is stable and capable enough to fight the disease in

the same way that radiation combats cancer.

FOREIGN AID 19

RESOURCES

Grabowski, R., Self, S., & Shields, M. P. (2007). Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic development a

regional, institutional, and historical approach (pp. 145-149). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.

Sharpe.

Klein, B. (Director). (2008). What Are We Doing Here? A Documentary [Motion Picture].

Lancaster, C. (n.d.). Foriegn Aide and Private Sector Development. Watson Institution for I

nternational Studies , 4-6.

Malloch-Brown, M. (2011). The Unfinished Global Revolution: The Pursuit of a New

International Politics. New York: Penguin Press.

Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There Is A Better Way for Africa.

New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Rieff, D. (2011, February 4). The New Republic: The Failure Of US Aid In Egypt : NPR. NPR :

National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Retrieved

March 21, 2011, from http://www.npr.org/2011/02/07/133492143/the-new-republic-the-

failure-of-us-aid-in-egypt

Sachs, J. (2005). Why We SHould Do It. In The End of Poverty: Economic Policies for Our

Time. New York: Penguin Books.

Strategic Plan 2003-2008: Refocused on Development and Additionality. (2003). Overseas

Private Investment Corporation. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Sullivan, D. (1996, October 1). Middle East Policy Council | American Aid to Egypt, 1975-96:

Peace Without Development. Middle East Policy Council. Retrieved March 21, 2011,

from http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/american-aid-egypt-

1975-96-peace-without-development?print

FOREIGN AID 20

RESOURCES

U.S. Congressional Research Service. (2004). An introductory overview of U.S. programs and

policy (code 98-916). Washington, DC: Tarnoff, C. and Nowels, L. Retrieved from

f pc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

White, J. (1974). The Politics of Foriegn Aid. New York: St. Martin's Press.