Foreign aid, or developmental assistance, to states in need, whatever form it may take, proves to be a divisive issue. The act provides no direct and tangible benefit to the United States itself, and often seems to provide no long term statistical change for the countries for which it is provided. The American public seemingly opposes the use of such aid, but this opposition seems to be primarily based on misinformation due to political rhetoric. The main reason for the repulsion at the sound of ‘foreign aid’ seems to be some unfounded belief that it constitutes some large chunk of the US budget.
According to The Washington Post: “In poll after poll, Americans overwhelmingly say they believe that foreign aid makes up a larger portion of the federal budget than defense spending, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, or spending on roads and other infrastructure. In a November World Public Opinion poll, the average American believed that a whopping 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid.”
In reality, United States foreign aid constitutes approximately 1 percent of overall spending. Compared to the amount spent on military or entitlement budgets, the amount spent on foreign aid is statistically insignificant. In fact, even the 1 percent is not entirely accurate due to the fact that this aid, whether it be food, condoms or medical equipment, is purchased in the United States. Most of that money comes right back, predominantly the only money spent is that which is spent on shipping or distribution.
Once this argument has been disbanded, the most pertinent one that remains is that US foreign aid simply does not work. The validity of this argument lies entirely on the definition of ‘work.’ United States foreign aid initiatives often have a number of official purposes, but they also have many unofficial ones. Whether or not an aid initiative is working or did work depends entirely on which perspective it is seen from. There may be many cases in which from its literal official purpose an aid program ‘failed,’ but foreign aid must be considered an important foreign policy tool.
In a report entitled "Does Foreign Aid Work? Efforts to Evaluate U.S. Foreign Assistance" by Marian Leonardo Lawson, an analyst in foreign assistance, for the Congressional Research Service, American foreign aid efforts are further examined:
"For example, assistance to Uzbekistan may have been requested and appropriated for specific agriculture sector activities, but may have been motivated primarily by a desire to secure U.S. overflight privileges for military aircraft bringing troops and supplies to Afghanistan. An evaluation of the agricultural impact may be of no use to policymakers who are more interested in the strategic goal, nor to aid professionals who are unlikely to view any lessons learned in these circumstances as applicable to agricultural development projects if political needs overrode the development rationale for the program."
In addition, the report delves into the following. "Another example is the Food for Peace program, which provides U.S. agricultural commodities to countries facing food insecurity. One objective of the program is to feed hungry people, but long-standing requirements that most of the food be provided by U.S. agribusiness and be shipped by U.S.-flagged vessels make clear that supporting the U.S. agriculture and shipping industries is a program objective as well." When considering the effectiveness of US foreign aid, all of these unofficial objectives must be taken into consideration. Foreign aid is not simply a magnanimous effort to help the suffering, although it does not hurt the United States for it to be globally seen as such, it is also a strategic foreign policy move.
From another perspective is U.S aid to Pakistan. As a whole, the aid can be seen as a strategic move to gain an ally in Pakistan, whose relations are not at the moment great with the Untied States, due to its location at the crux of Afghanistan. Now this does not necessarily translate to using foreign aid to get countries to like the United States, which is not very effective in the long term. However, aid to these countries helps to build relationships and to build allies.
For example, according to The Washington Post: "U.S. assistance to Costa Rica helped that nation become a champion of democracy and human rights as well as of regional trade agreements. Similarly, the United States and India were badly estranged at different points during the Cold War, but U.S. assistance to India helped spark the 'green revolution' that prevented massive famine in the late 1960s. Today, India is one of America’s most important allies in Asia."
The significance of US foreign aid as a strategic policy is not one to be overlooked, as it can be seen as a way to get people to do what you want, which is never a bad thing for a country. There also stands the argument that US foreign aid right now may prevent the need for military intervention and the further use of money and resources in the future. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted last year: "Development contributes to stability. It contributes to better governance. And if you are able to do those things and you’re able to do them in a focused and sustainable way, then it may be unnecessary for us to send soldiers."
Therefore the question of ‘does it work’ is not one so easily answered; it depends entirely on what you think the purpose was. But it cannot be denied that this kind of aid has proven to be beneficial to the United States in the past with building relationships, gaining allies, and furthering its own interest in a country while looking charitable.