Report Sections
1) The Problems of Waste and Corruption
2) Self-Reliance

1) The Problems of Waste and Corruption   Back to top
Most Americans are frustrated with the performance of foreign aid programs. In PIPA’s 1995 poll, 83% agreed with the statement: "There is so much waste and corruption in the process of giving foreign aid that very little actually reaches the people who really need it." A February 1995 Reader’s Digest poll found an identical 83% who agreed with the assertion that waste prevents aid from getting to the people who really need it.(1)

PIPA’s September 1996 poll presented arguments in opposition to foreign aid. The statement "When the US government gets involved in things like foreign aid, there is so much waste and incompetence that it does not really end up helping people very much at all" proved the most popular of three arguments. Fifty-seven percent thought this statement had merit. Even among those who reported a generally favorable view of foreign aid, 54% said they found merit in the argument.

There are, however, strong indications that if Americans had more confidence in the effectiveness of foreign aid programs, they would not only be willing to support current spending, but actually increase spending substantially. In the 1995 PIPA poll, 58% agreed with the statement: "If I knew that most foreign aid was going to the poor people who really need it rather than to wasteful bureaucracies and corrupt governments, I would be willing to pay more in taxes for foreign aid." (emphasis added).

Americans are also quite responsive to very ambitious proposals for solving the problem of hunger provided that they believe that the programs will be effective. In the 1995 PIPA poll, respondents were asked:

Imagine that the UN called a conference of leading scientists and experts to develop a plan and determine how much it would cost the developed countries, working together with the poor countries, to virtually eliminate hunger in the world in 5 years. If you were confident that this plan probably could work, and that people in other countries, as well as the US, would pay their fair share, would you personally be willing to pay [$50 or $100] each year for the next five years to virtually eliminate hunger?

Of the half sample that was asked about paying $50 for five years, 78% said they would be willing, while of the half sample that was asked about paying $100, 75% assented. (Note: This question was asked before respondents were told the actual amount of foreign aid spending, and thus presumably would be on top of the already large amount they assumed was going to foreign aid.) In the focus groups, respondents thought it was self-evidently clear that, of course, they would pay such an amount if it would produce such a result.

2) Self-Reliance  Back to top

Americans are also concerned that foreign aid may engender dependency. In the focus groups some participants compared it to welfare. In a 1993 ICI poll, 83% agreed that "many aid programs are bad because they make countries dependent on us."(5)

Focus group and interview participants likewise stressed the goal of self-sufficiency when giving aid. Several mentioned the old adage, "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime." Participants often spoke of a responsibility to provide assistance that enables countries to develop. "Teach more of the smaller countries, particularly the Third World countries, to develop their resources, to be self-sufficient...[things] as simple as learning how to put a garden out," explained a Nashville man.

Participants also expressed a preference for training and development over humanitarian relief. "Humanitarian aid is kind of a crisis situation," said a Portland woman. "But development [aid] builds the country so that people can do better for themselves...you really see the long-term results." She concluded, "You can give them food, but that doesn’t mean they will have food two years later."

In the PIPA poll, an overwhelming majority saw promoting development as a way of avoiding the need for humanitarian relief. Eighty-six percent agreed that:

Americans are a generous people, so it is natural for them to provide relief when people are suffering from a disaster such as a famine. But the really intelligent thing to do is to help poor countries develop so that their economies are strong enough to cope with adversities.

Americans put such a high value on self-reliance that they are willing to pay more in taxes in support of foreign aid programs designed to foster it. Sixty-five percent supported the statement:

I prefer to give a hand up rather than a handout. Simply giving money and goods to poor countries can make them dependent. Whenever possible, I prefer to give them training and access to credit and other resources, so that they can become self-reliant, and I would be willing to pay more in taxes to that end. (emphasis added)

There is also some evidence that Americans are willing to incur other kinds of costs to help developing countries become more self-reliant. In the October 1999 PIPA poll, 72% favored transferring trade quotas from wealthier countries to developing countries so that they can sell more of their products in the US (69% in January 1995). Support was sustained even when it was pointed out that taking these quotas away from wealthier countries could be politically sensitive. Similarly, 63% favored the idea, under discussion in the World Trade Organization, of giving the world's poorest countries preferential trade treatment--even when it was suggested that this might threaten some American jobs ("bad idea": 30%).

Apparently, most Americans do not oppose helping developing countries for fear that they will ultimately become competitors. In the ICI poll, 67% disagreed with the idea that it was "against our interests to help developing countries because they will compete with us economically and politically."(8) And in the PIPA poll, respondents were asked:

In the years after the Korean War, the US gave billions of dollars in aid to South Korea. Some people feel that this is a good example of how we contributed to developing a country that is now an ally and a trading partner. Others feel that this aid helped South Korea take away our markets by selling low cost goods and therefore was a mistake. Do you think it was a mistake to have given aid to South Korea?

Only 33% said it was a mistake and 60% said it was not.