Cash distribution is something that has been floating around among young(ish), forward thinking development scholars and practitioners for a while. Owen Barder makes the case:
American legislation requires that food aid be bought in the US, that 50 percent of commodities be processed and packed in the US before shipment, and that 75 percent of food aid managed by USAID and 50 percent of the food aid managed by the US Department of Agriculture be transported in “flag-carrying” US-registered vessels. The result is that only 40% of money spent on food aid by the US actually goes towards buying food; the rest goes to US transport companies. Buying the food locally would be better, but best of all might be something even more radical. Why not give the money itself to people who are hungry?
Not a bad idea, but keep in mind that most countries that really, really need international food aid are often not open to the help: Burma after last year's Cyclone Nargis, Zimbabwe for the past 29 years, North Korea - the list goes on. De-tying food aid from American agricultural producers is a noble cause and a good idea, but that doesn't mean direct cash aid is its' logical, or even possible, conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment