Dear GKD Members, I've recently done some digging around Tom's point below concerning a lot of venting, some of it inconsistent at best, on 'boomerang' bilateral money invested in development (i.e., returning funds to the source). OXFAM has suggested that only about 20% of aid actually gets to the neediest. "Too often domestic interests take precedence: almost 30 percent of G7 aid money is tied to an obligation to buy goods and services from the donor country. The practice is not only self-serving, but highly inefficient; yet it is employed widely by Italy and the USA. Despite donors' agreements to untie aid to the poorest countries, only six of the 22 major donor countries have almost or completely done so." (See OXFAM International, "Paying the Price: Why Rich Countries Must Invest Now in a War on Poverty", Oxford, England 2005) <http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/debt_aid/mdgs_price.htm>
Thalif Deen, in a July 7, 2004 IPS article entitled "Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says UN" , says: "Donor money that comes with strings attached cuts the value of aid to recipient countries 25-40 percent, because it obliges them to purchase uncompetitively priced imports from the richer nations", says a new U.N. study on African economies. In particular, "The United States makes sure that 80 cents in every aid dollar is returned to the home country," according to a representative of 50 Years is Enough. <http://www.aegis.com/news/ips/2004/IP040715.html> The 'new' UN study referred to is ECOSOC. E/2004/17. "Economic report on Africa 2004: unlocking Africa's potential in the global economy", 12 May 2004, which can be read at: <http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/347/65/PDF/N0434765.pdf?OpenElem ent> There is also the practice of 'round-tripping', which gets referred to quite generally in another 2005 ActionAid/OXFAM report as comparable, but which is a term more usually applied to a quite specific form of procuring debt in local currency, then transferring it into foreign currency on the 'secondary' market... see: <http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ecesa/eces99-2.htm> I'm still trying to sort out fact from fantasy here....anyone with more info on this, I would be glad to hear from... Kind regards, John E.S. Lawrence UNDP consultant On 3/29/05, Tom Abeles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...But then, development is a growth industry, in and of itself. Yet, as > you so cogently point out, much of the problem in development rests with > the arcane and archaic government within countries. And it is > interesting to note, that in the case of the United States, a > significant portion of money invested in development, flows back to the > United States- I believe, at one time, USAID said the number was close > to 80% ..snip... ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
