Last week, Professor Nelson Camilo Sánchez of UVA’s School of Law wrote an article in which he called for a crackdown on international corporate taxation with hopes that this would transfer a greater degree of wealth and prosperity to developing nations.
Brilliant breakdown of why throwing money at development problems usually backfires. The East Asia comparison really drives it home since both regions started at similar poverty levels in 1990 but diverged massively based on institutional quality rather than aid volumes. I've seena few SMEs try to expand into African markets and the biggest roadblock was never capital but navigating unpredictable regualtory environments where contracts mean little. The incentive distortion angle is underrated too, when aid crowds out local entrepreneurs it undermines the exact engine thats needed for sustained growth.
I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of your piece.
But as your second chart demonstrates so well, any focus on foreign aid misses the forest for the trees.
East Asian property rates have plummeted in the last 35 years while Sub-Sharan African ones have not primarily because the former have to a great degree adopted free-market economic policies while the latter have not.
Agree, whih is what makes the demise of USAD so tragic. It was the US's best instrument for promoting reform.
Of course promoting reform abroad while anti-reforming at home -- deficits financing consumption, trade and investment retrictions -- is less effective.
“…what makes the demise of USAD so tragic. It was the US's best instrument for promoting reform.”
So how well has that reform actually done, huh?
I would concede that if you could fully extract the leftist NGO money-laundering entirely from USAID one can make a case for using it as a lever to “force” countries to adopt more free market policies.
But there is little track record of U.S. doing and succeeding at that.
While the amount of leftist grift here is both stunning and yet sadly not surprising.
Do you have evidence-based results that demonstrate your claims about USAID under Bush? I.e. not merely “alignment”, but contributing to effective results?
I was workingin USAID Nigeria at the time and that was basically what we were doing. Anto corruptionstrengthieing the congrssionalbudgeitng gunction, removing the silliest of the protectionism, straighteningo ut what was really owed of the extenal debt, polio vacccination, move to use of gas for fuel oil in electicity generation, LNG export..
Brilliant breakdown of why throwing money at development problems usually backfires. The East Asia comparison really drives it home since both regions started at similar poverty levels in 1990 but diverged massively based on institutional quality rather than aid volumes. I've seena few SMEs try to expand into African markets and the biggest roadblock was never capital but navigating unpredictable regualtory environments where contracts mean little. The incentive distortion angle is underrated too, when aid crowds out local entrepreneurs it undermines the exact engine thats needed for sustained growth.
I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of your piece.
But as your second chart demonstrates so well, any focus on foreign aid misses the forest for the trees.
East Asian property rates have plummeted in the last 35 years while Sub-Sharan African ones have not primarily because the former have to a great degree adopted free-market economic policies while the latter have not.
Agree, whih is what makes the demise of USAD so tragic. It was the US's best instrument for promoting reform.
Of course promoting reform abroad while anti-reforming at home -- deficits financing consumption, trade and investment retrictions -- is less effective.
“…what makes the demise of USAD so tragic. It was the US's best instrument for promoting reform.”
So how well has that reform actually done, huh?
I would concede that if you could fully extract the leftist NGO money-laundering entirely from USAID one can make a case for using it as a lever to “force” countries to adopt more free market policies.
But there is little track record of U.S. doing and succeeding at that.
While the amount of leftist grift here is both stunning and yet sadly not surprising.
Well. Trump could appoint the admiistrtors. I d say aht the Bush USAID was pretty well aligned.
Do you have evidence-based results that demonstrate your claims about USAID under Bush? I.e. not merely “alignment”, but contributing to effective results?
I was workingin USAID Nigeria at the time and that was basically what we were doing. Anto corruptionstrengthieing the congrssionalbudgeitng gunction, removing the silliest of the protectionism, straighteningo ut what was really owed of the extenal debt, polio vacccination, move to use of gas for fuel oil in electicity generation, LNG export..