On food aid, I agree that it is a VERY inefficient use of resources. However, the counter-argument is that if you untie the food aid, you will see a HUGE drop in aid targeting hunger because you lose your in-built political support from farm-state senators/congressmen and US shippers. If we convert food aid into cash for local/regional purchase (the argument goes) there will be very little political will to support aid to address global hunger (especially if you are using US tax money to buy grain from competitor European / Australian companies that may be closer to the intended beneficiaries). So, given the political reality, most NGOs have decided that it is better to use an inefficient resource rather than no resource at all (fyi, average loss in value for tied food aid is ~30%).

So, the picture is a bit more complicated, as usual. I guess we need to be mobilizing political will to address hunger as we ALSO seek to end inefficient food aid practices. But do you think aid to address hunger has a strong in-built constituency in the US? It’s growing, but still marginal when compared to the UK, Sweden, etc – I think.

Bill, I think you are a little unfair with USAID. USAID doesn’t choose to use American grain and ships, they are compelled to do so by law. Congress makes those laws and I suspect that there is not enough popular support for changing them. This has certainly been known for many years, and no one is pushing to change these laws or (for that matter) change the cotton or sugar subsidies that hurt farmers from poor countries.

You seem to assume that if everyone understood about what form of charity works and what charity hurts, that giving would change. I would like to believe this, but I don’t think it is realistic. People do respond to simplistic slogans because they don’t want to burden themselves with complexities while they feel better about helping others. They certainly aren’t going to push for changes that will hurt their own economies.