Global Health Watch 1 in one file

Global Health Watch 1 in one file Global Health Watch 1 in one file

31.10.2014 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!