Why I don't wear TOMS and why one-for-one aid isn't all it's cracked up to be
Read full article here.
The poster child for the in-kind donation model is TOMS, a shoe company which has gained substantial popularity for its socially conscious business model. TOMS allows its customers to donate through personal consumption with a one-for-one model, giving one pair of shoes to impoverished children for each pair purchased. The hope is that by freely giving shoes away, the gap between the haves and have-nots might be bridged.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Often, such methods of giving do more to suppress the economic growth of targeted areas than they do to help. Clothing donations have a consistent record of damaging local economies, specifically textile industries.
Remember that 1) good intentions are not enough (you can also read the blog by that name here) and 2) you need to understand the community and empower it, rather than importing and imposing ideas, if you want sustainable progress.
“Massive spending on food aid is not sustainable. Nor does it offer a solution. Instead, more money needs to be spent on building resilience to such crises over the longer term. It would take less than $1m to accurately map the economy of Somalia and the Greater Horn, showing trade routes and migration patterns, documenting the important businesses and businessmen, and detailing the mostly illicit trade in livestock, fish, charcoal and qat. Such a relatively small investment could help donor countries better to decide where their taxpayers' money should be spent—and withheld.”
—The Horn of Africa: Where did the famine go? | The Economist
slowly, going to “dead aid” conclusions
“The cynical answer is: because it distracts attention from the trade barriers they have erected in order to protect employment in the West. These trade barriers cost Africa an estimated 500 billion dollars every year. That's ten times the amount Africa is given in development aid. And because they secretly don't believe that Africa is ever going to pull it together. They feel sorry for the Africans. So they buy themselves a conscience.”
—Dambisa Moyo, international economist, on why the West continues to give aid to Africa, despite overwhelming evidence that foreign aid contributes to world hunger.Equal (not free) trade for Africa
What is going on in Africa defies all concepts that we hold to be true: our concept of neighbour, our concept of civilization, our concept of equality, of love. What Africa says about Europe, and America is withering. It says we’ve built our Houses of Parliament and government on sand, because if we really believed the things we say we believe, we would not let 23 million Africans die of AIDS. You can’t have the benefits of globalization without some of the responsibilities. We are now next-door neighbours through television images, through radio, through the internet, and through easy travel.
The answer to help Africa, which is definitely not more Foreign Aid (we can talk about this another time, I know FA is helpful, but it is not efficient and it is certainly not a long-run solution), is commerce and good government. We should look at foreign assistance as start-up money. Self-sufficiency is the goal. Everyone loves to talk about the free market, yet every major country treats Africa with unfair trade relationships. The poorest people on Earth are not allowed to put their products on our shelves in an even-handed way. They have to negotiate all kinds of tariffs and taxes. It’s not a level playing field. We can sell to them, but they cannot sell to us. In America we had Congress pass the Farm Bill which subsidizes American agriculture and makes it impossible for African farmers to compete.
All successful economies have protected their seed industries until they were strong enough to compete. We cannot deny for others what we demand for ourselves. Successful economies in Southeast Asia had a very careful, gradual journey to competitiveness. They are a great example of how aid can work to start an economy on its road to self-sufficiency. Now let’s give Africa a chance.
Congress increases funds for Israel's Iron Dome
boston.comA House panel is boosting money for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system by $680 million amid an election-year fight over whether President Barack Obama is doing enough for the longtime Mideast ally.
The Republican-controlled Armed Services Committee, which begins crafting a fiscal 2013 defense budget next week, plans millions more for the system designed to intercept short-range rockets and mortars, according to a congressional aide. The money would be in addition to the $205 million that the Obama administration and Congress agreed to in a special request in the 2011 budget and would cover several years, through fiscal 2015.
The aide spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal announcement on the budget.
An increase in money for the program was expected as the Pentagon said last month that it would work with Congress to steer more funds to a system that has proven effective in intercepting rockets and mortars fired by Palestinian militants from Gaza. The budget plan also comes as the Obama administration tries to dissuade Israel from launching a potential unilateral strike against Iran to stop its disputed nuclear development program.
“Supporting the security of the state of Israel is a top priority of President Obama and Secretary (Leon) Panetta,” the Pentagon said last month. “The Department of Defense has been in conversations with the government of Israel about U.S. support for the acquisition of additional Iron Dome systems and intends to request an appropriate level of funding from Congress to support such acquisitions based on Israeli requirements and production capacity.”
In addition, since 1988 and the early days of U.S.-Israeli cooperation on missile defense, presidents have proposed a specific amount for the program knowing full well that Israel will contact members of Congress and ask that they come up with more money. Congress routinely complies.
Last year, lawmakers took the overall request of $106 million for cooperative U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs and added millions more, providing $216 million.
This year, Republicans see a political opening in the uneasy relationship between Washington and Jerusalem over Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the state of Mideast peace talks, further complicated by the administration’s pressure on Israel to hold off on a possible military strike against Iran.
The Iranian threat to Israel has stoked the bitter rhetoric both in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail, where likely nominee Mitt Romney has accused Obama of throwing Israel under a bus and emboldening the Palestinians. The fierce talk reflects that Jewish voters, who comprise only 2 percent of the electorate nationwide, are a critical part of Obama’s base and could be the difference in close battleground states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada.
Obama’s budget for next year calls for $3.1 billion in military assistance for Israel, a slight increase over the current level and the most for any foreign country. In February, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee, complained in a letter to Obama that his “record low” budget request jeopardized Israel’s security.
Israel threatens to attack Iran and potentially start one of the greatest wars seen in decades and it escalates attacks on Gaza and in return, the United States increases their military aid.
We claim to want Israel to pull back on their incredibly dangerous warmongering with Iran and we want them to come to the table with the Palestinians and finally work out a peace agreement but we refuse to do the one thing that would likely get Israel to comply: pull funding.
Magatte Wade: Beyond the Romance of Microfinance to a Love of Manufacturing
huffingtonpost.comHAHA! Thiiisss is even BETTER. hahaha! Readreadreeeaaaddd!!!
As I like to say, you’ve said it. She has said the thing.
My faaavourite part :D - “While some of you may think that it is cute to look at us as quaint objects, indigenous fantasies to soothe your stressed out lives, we would prefer to be peers, thank you very much. Maybe we are tired of being your anthropological wet dream.” bahaha.
Preach.
Pakistan's Middle Class Extremists
Most policymakers makers believe that the poor are more susceptible to the appeals of violent groups. Counterterrorism policies have therefore often centered on economic development. In Pakistan, however, it is the middle class that is supportive of militant groups. What does this mean for counterterrorism strategy?
Read the article here.
“On average, Israelis receive 7,000 times more US foreign aid per capita than other people throughout the world, despite the fact that Israel is one of the world’s more affluent nations.”
—The Staggering Cost of Israel to AmericansIt’s like everything I’ve read so far on international trade, international relations and international development provide more and more evidence of North’s exploitation of the South, regardless of the political inclinations of the authors. From colonization to the manipulation of trade-regulating institutions and those structural adjustment policies, the exploitation is just too blatant that I sometimes really wonder how people could still be under the impression that things like foreign “aid” stem from humanitarian motives.
Except the Scandanavian countries, of course. They’re a nice bunch of people.
