Global Health Watch 1 in one file
Global Health Watch 1 in one file Global Health Watch 1 in one file
Holding to account | E5 1961=100 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 GNI per capita in 1960 $11,308 GNP per capita GNI per capita in 2002 $28,500 ODA per capita 100 75 Aid per capita Aid per capita in 2002 $67 in 1960 $61 50 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Figure E5.3 The growing gap: aid from rich nations has not kept pace with their wealth (Source: Randel et al. 2004 ) although it is the biggest donor, the US is not the most generous – when the amount given is compared to each country’s national wealth, it comes last. Although aid more than doubled in real terms over a 40–year period, this does not mean donor countries are more generous – they became much richer over the same period. Figure E5.3 shows how the growth in aid per person from donor countries compares with how much richer people in those countries have become. While wealth in donor countries has gone up by 152%, from US$ 11,303 per person to US$ 28,500, aid per person has risen by less than 10%, from US$ 61 to US$ 67. LDCs (Least Developed) 34% UMICs (Upper Middle Income) 4% LMICs (Low Middle Income) 33% OLICs (Other Low Income) 29% Figure E5.4 Share of aid to poorer countries 2002 (Source: Randel et al. 2004) 324
Global aid trends – allocation Where is aid allocated? In 2002, a third of global aid went to the 49 least developed countries, while 29% went to other low-income countries including India, China, Ghana, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Lower middle-income countries received a third, including Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Fiji, Iraq, Morocco, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines and Yugoslavia. Upper middle-income countries received 4% (see Figure E5.4). Aid has shifted to different regions. In 1992–2002 the major changes were a 5% fall in aid to east Asia and a 5% rise in aid to south and central Asia. The share of aid to Sub-Saharan Africa rose from 33% to 36% and Europe’s share more than doubled from 5% to 11%. Aid for political purposes Aid is used and spent on many different things. The amount spent on basic health and other social programmes is surprisingly small (see Figure E5.5). It is easily diverted to projects to support export promotion and win geopolitical influence. Two key trends are the use of aid to bolster the ‘war on terror’, and the vigorous promotion of the privatization of industry and public services in poor countries. Aid and the war on terror Official development assistance has always reflected donors’ geopolitical imperatives. The growing priority now appears to be their security interests. In 2003 the OECD released a controversial policy statement. ‘Development co-operation has an important role to play in helping to de- Other Education 7% Other Bilateral Commitments 66% Basic Education 2% Other Health 2% Basic Health 3% Population Programmes 3% Water Supply & Sanitation 3% Government & Civil Society 8% Other Social Infrastructure & Services 6% Figure E5.5 Shares of bilateral aid to basic needs (Source: Randel et al. 2004) Aid 325
- Page 291 and 292: Box E1.1 Milestones in WHO history
- Page 293 and 294: aised by his attempts to revitalize
- Page 295 and 296: • stronger internal focus on perf
- Page 297 and 298: 21 WHO - up in the clouds? Reaction
- Page 299 and 300: in favour of so-called ‘vertical
- Page 301 and 302: to speak openly, while bullying and
- Page 303 and 304: velop a unified, purposeful health
- Page 305 and 306: to medicines, and the mobilizing ro
- Page 307 and 308: Recommendations WHO’s core purpos
- Page 309 and 310: doctors, and more people with exper
- Page 311 and 312: E2 | UNICEF In 2005, Carol Bellamy,
- Page 313 and 314: In sum, for almost a decade, childr
- Page 315 and 316: prompted a global debate on how to
- Page 317 and 318: E3 | The World Bank and the Interna
- Page 319 and 320: 22 World Bank: the centre of world
- Page 321 and 322: approach to conditionality is being
- Page 323 and 324: tal policies should explicitly refe
- Page 325 and 326: E4 | Big business This chapter deal
- Page 327 and 328: 23 The Marlboro Man was described b
- Page 329 and 330: dedicated funding [Articles 5.6 and
- Page 331 and 332: grass roots in building government
- Page 333 and 334: 24 A pack of Cerelac cereal food pu
- Page 335 and 336: USAID has also funded work on breas
- Page 337 and 338: (from whatever its source, and howe
- Page 339 and 340: These trends in taxation are underp
- Page 341: Norway Denmark Netherlands Luxembou
- Page 345 and 346: weapons, vehicles and military trai
- Page 347 and 348: table e5.1 Value (in £) of new DFI
- Page 349 and 350: OECD (2005). Development Co-operati
- Page 351 and 352: 25 Breaking the chains of debt: pro
- Page 353 and 354: Box E6.1 Zambia: inflation or death
- Page 355 and 356: have met the Fund’s conditions, a
- Page 357 and 358: E7 | Essential health research Rese
- Page 359 and 360: Developing national health research
- Page 361 and 362: for African Medical Editors (Certai
- Page 363 and 364: Neither the consultations leading u
- Page 365 and 366: Box E7.4 Asking the social-politica
- Page 367 and 368: • global architecture for health
- Page 369 and 370: part f | Conclusions Global Health
- Page 371 and 372: current debt relief mechanism - the
- Page 373 and 374: agreement, and taking health and he
- Page 375 and 376: ity of the now-developed countries
- Page 377 and 378: tion and water are experiencing sim
Hold<strong>in</strong>g to account | E5<br />
1961=100<br />
275<br />
250<br />
225<br />
200<br />
175<br />
150<br />
125<br />
GNI per capita<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1960 $11,308<br />
GNP per capita<br />
GNI per capita<br />
<strong>in</strong> 2002 $28,500<br />
ODA per capita<br />
100<br />
75<br />
Aid per capita<br />
Aid per capita<br />
<strong>in</strong> 2002 $67<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1960 $61<br />
50<br />
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000<br />
Figure E5.3 The grow<strong>in</strong>g gap: aid from rich nations has not kept pace<br />
with their wealth (Source: Randel et al. 2004 )<br />
although it is the biggest donor, the US is not the most generous – when the<br />
amount given is compared to each country’s national wealth, it comes last.<br />
Although aid more than doubled <strong>in</strong> real terms over a 40–year period, this<br />
does not mean donor countries are more generous – they became much richer<br />
over the same period. Figure E5.3 shows how the growth <strong>in</strong> aid per person from<br />
donor countries compares with how much richer people <strong>in</strong> those countries<br />
have become. While wealth <strong>in</strong> donor countries has g<strong>one</strong> up by 152%, from US$<br />
11,303 per person to US$ 28,500, aid per person has risen by less than 10%,<br />
from US$ 61 to US$ 67.<br />
LDCs (Least<br />
Developed) 34%<br />
UMICs (Upper Middle Income) 4%<br />
LMICs (Low Middle<br />
Income) 33%<br />
OLICs (Other Low<br />
Income) 29%<br />
Figure E5.4 Share of aid to poorer countries 2002<br />
(Source: Randel et al. 2004)<br />
324