|
Report Sections
1) Belief US Spends Too Much
2) Overestimation
3) How Much is Appropriate?
4) Response to Correct Information
5) Spending Relative to Other Industrialized Countries
1) Belief US Spends Too
Much Back to top
Although a strong majority of Americans support foreign aid
in principle, and only a very small minority wants to eliminate
it, many also seem to have reservations about the US foreign aid
program. Polls that simply ask respondents for their feelings about
foreign aid elicit a lukewarm or divided response. Most recently,
the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations poll in November 1998 found
47% in favor of "our giving economic aid to other nations,"
with 45% opposed. The combination of strong support in principle
mixed with lukewarm support in practice suggests that they have
reservations about some aspects of the foreign aid program.
Apparently, a major source of these reservations is the perceived
amount the US spends on foreign aid. In a July 2000 PIPA poll 55%
of respondents said that the US spends too much on foreign aid.
The General Social Survey (June 1998) found 60% who thought that
"we are spending too much on foreign aid" (about right:
27%; too little: 7%). The CCFR poll found that 48% wanted to cut
back "economic aid to other nations," while 36% wanted
to keep it the same and 13% wanted to increase it. And in April
1998 49% said they wanted to decrease "federal spending on
foreign aid," while 38% wanted to maintain and 7% wanted to
increase it (New York Times).
2) Overestimation
Back to top
However, the feeling that the US spends too much on foreign aid
seems to rest on an extreme overestimation of how much the US government
spends on foreign aid. PIPA's July 2000 poll asked respondents to
estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. They
were told that they could answer in fractions of a percent as well
as whole percentage points, thus implying that the amount could
be quite low. Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the federal
budget, 20 times the actual amount of approximately 1%.
Other polls have also found even such high estimates. A November
1995 Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation poll asked respondents to
give their "best guess" about what percentage of the federal
budget was spent on foreign aid. The median estimate was 20%, the
mean 26%, and only 1% of the sample guessed the amount to be less
than 1%.(5)
In an April 1995 CBS/New York Times poll, the median estimate was
in the 10-20% range, with just 9% guessing an amount less than 5%.(7)
When asked to make comparisons between foreign aid and other major
items in the federal budget, respondents’ misperceptions become
even more pronounced. When a November 1995 Washington Post/ Kaiser
Foundation poll asked whether more of the federal budget was spent
on Medicare or foreign aid, 58% said the latter (though, in fact,
the former receives more than 10 times as much).(8)
A June 1995 poll co-sponsored by the Harvard School of Public Health
and the Kaiser Foundation asked respondents to indicate the government’s
two largest spending areas among five items listed. By a wide margin,
foreign aid was cited by the largest number—64%. The actual
two largest expenditures were cited by minorities—for Social
Security just 33% and Medicare 32%.(9)
Consistent with this extreme view of the magnitude of foreign aid
spending, is the assumption of most Americans that foreign aid spending
has a major and negative impact on the US economy. An August 1996
Washington Post/Kaiser poll presented respondents a list of possible
reasons why the US economy is not as good as it might be and asked
whether each one was a major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason.
Sixty-six percent thought "foreign aid spending is too high"
was a major reason the economy was not as good as it might be, while
23% thought it was a minor reason.(10)
This misperception of how much federal spending goes to foreign
aid cuts across all major political and demographic groups. In PIPA’s
1995 poll, no group offered a median estimate less than 10% of the
federal budget—still ten times the actual amount. However,
there were a few differences: Democrats offered higher median estimates
(18%) than Republicans (14%); younger respondents tended to give
higher estimates (up to 20%) than older respondents; and respondents
with less education offered higher estimates (24-25%) than those
with college or post-graduate degrees (10-11%).
PIPA also tested to find out if these estimates of foreign aid spending
were inflated by the incorrect assumption that foreign aid budget
includes the costs of defending other countries militarily. To find
out in June 1996 respondents were asked:
US foreign aid includes things like humanitarian
assistance, aid to Israel and Egypt, and economic development
aid. It does not include the cost of defending other countries
militarily, which is paid for through the defense budget. Just
based on what you know, please tell me your hunch about what percentage
of the federal budget goes to foreign aid.
Despite this clarification, the median estimate
was even higher than it had been previously without the clarification.
The median estimate was 20% and the mean 23%.
The June 1996 PIPA poll also tried to explore the question of foreign
aid spending in terms of a percentage of the gross national product
(GNP). Respondents were given a definition of GNP and asked: "What
is your hunch about how many dollars the US does give [for humanitarian
and economic aid] for every $1000 of GNP?" The median response
was an extraordinarily high $100—the actual amount is $1.50.
This amount is so high it is very possible that, despite the efforts
to define GNP, many respondents were actually answering in terms
of an estimate of the federal budget. Nonetheless the high number
dramatizes how much Americans overestimate foreign aid spending.
3) How Much is Appropriate? Back
to top
When Americans are asked to set an appropriate level for US foreign
aid spending they set a level much higher than the actual level.
This suggests that the reservations that the Americans have about
foreign aid and the feeling that the US spends too much on it are
largely a reaction to the perceived amount of foreign aid, not to
foreign aid in principle.
In the July 2000 PIPA poll, after making their estimate of spending
on foreign aid, respondents were asked what they thought an "appropriate"
amount would be. The median response was 10% of the federal budget—ten
times present spending levels. In the December 1995 Washington Post/Kaiser
poll, in which the median estimate of the actual amount of foreign
aid was 20% of the federal budget, respondents were asked how much
the US should be spending, and the median prescribed level was also
10% (mean 13%).
In the June 1996 PIPA poll, in which respondents were told that
foreign aid did not include the costs of defending countries militarily,
the percentage deemed appropriate was also 10%.
Also in June 1996, PIPA asked how much of every $1,000 of US GNP
should be devoted to humanitarian and economic aid. The median response
was $25—17 times the actual amount of $1.50.
4) Response to Correct Information Back to top
When respondents are asked to respond to correct information
about the current level of foreign aid spending, an overwhelming
majority find it unobjectionable. This further confirms that misperceptions
play a critical role in the reservations about the US foreign aid
program and the feeling that the US spends too much on it.
In PIPA’s July 2000 poll, respondents were asked to "imagine
that you found out that the US spends 1% of the federal budget on
foreign aid." Only 12% said that this would be "too much"—down
from the 55% who originally had said the US was spending too much.
In the January 1995 PIPA poll respondents were told how much the
US spends on foreign aid as a percentage of the federal budget and
were told how much the average taxpayer gives to foreign aid. They
were then asked to assume that any change they proposed would affect
their own taxes accordingly and asked whether they favored cutting,
increasing, or maintaining current foreign aid spending. In this
case, 35% said they wanted to cut it. Twenty-five percent wanted
to increase spending and 37% wanted to keep it the same. Thus, 62%
wanted to at least maintain present spending levels.
The foreign aid budget was then broken down into 10 different areas
and for each area, respondents again were told the total amount
of spending and how much the average taxpayer pays. They were again
asked to assume that any change they proposed would affect their
own taxes. For 8 of the 10 areas, a strong majority ranging from
61% to 91% wanted to maintain or increase spending. In only two
areas (aid to Israel and Egypt and military aid) did a majority
want to cut spending (In CCFR's November 1998 poll also, 56% wanted
to decrease military aid). In all areas of aid to poor countries,
75% or more favored maintaining or increasing spending.
In the June 1996 poll, when asked "What if you heard that the
US gives a dollar and a half for every $1000 of GNP" to development
aid (the correct amount), only 18% thought this was too much, while
47% thought the amount was about right, and 26% thought it was too
little.
Focus group participants reacted to real foreign aid spending in
much the same manner as survey respondents. Overall, there was some
disbelief that the actual amounts could be so low. Learning the
actual percentage prompted many to readjust their perspectives and
view foreign aid more favorably, even among those who had been initially
vitriolic on the subject. As a Baltimore man said, "Let’s
put this in perspective, okay? This is peanuts! It’s nothing.
In relation to the whole pie, it’s a small part." A New
Jersey woman who initially said that America needs to put itself
first more and cut back foreign aid reacted by saying, "One
percent sounds pretty low. Sounds like we need to get our act together
in America, start making money in America or in other countries,
so that we can support other countries better."
5) Spending Relative to Other Industrialized Countries Back to top
A similar dynamic was uncovered when poll respondents were asked
to think about how much development assistance the US gives as compared
to other industrialized countries. Here again Americans overestimate
how much the US spends—though by a lesser margin, and when
asked to prescribe an appropriate level, set it higher than the
actual level.
When asked how much aid the US gives as a percentage of all aid
given by all countries, the median respondent estimated 40%and said
it should be 20% (PIPA, September 1996). In fact, according to recent
OECD figures, the US contributes 12% of all development assistance.
If military aid is also factored in, the US percentage would be
a bit more, but still considerably less than the 20% prescribed.
PIPA’s 1995 study found similar overestimates
of how much of US GNP goes to less developed countries as compared
to other industrialized countries. Eighty-one percent incorrectly
assumed that the US gives a higher percentage of its GNP than most,
while 9% assumed the US gives about the same. Just 5% correctly
assumed that the US gives less. In fact, of the 21 industrialized
donor countries of the OECD, the US ranks at the very bottom.
When asked how much the US "should" give as a percentage
of GNP, 68% said the US should give the same as other industrialized
countries, 13% said the US should give more and only 16% said it
should give less. Thus, in this context, 81% seemed to think the
US should be giving more than it now is.
In June 1996 PIPA asked: "Of the foreign aid given by all the
wealthy countries in the world, what percentage do you think is
given by the US?" The median response was 40%. When asked what
they thought it should be, respondents gave a median response of
20%.
Similarly, when respondents were asked "to
imagine the US economy and the European Union economy as if they
were one big economy," and then to think about the relative
shares of development aid to poor countries given by the US and
Europe, the median respondent estimated that the US gives 60% and
the European Union 40% (PIPA, February-April 1998). When asked what
they thought it should be, the median respondent wanted a 50-50
split, with the US and Europe sharing the burden equally. (In reality,
based on 1996 figures from the OECD, the US gave only 22% while
the EU countries gave 78%.)
|
