The Washington Post reports on the militarization of U.S. foreign aid:
The Pentagon, which controlled about 3 percent of official aid money a decade ago, now controls 22 percent, while the U.S. Agency for International Development’s share has declined from 65 percent to 40 percent, according to the 56-page report.
The report, by Refugees International, is here.
I’ve worried about the increasing influence of the armed forces in development before. But let me stress that I think much of that spending is well placed. From the same Post article:
For example, the United States has dedicated nearly $50 million to hire contractors to train 2,000 soldiers in post-civil war Liberia, a West African country of 4 million people. Meanwhile, $5.5 million has been dedicated to boosting a weak and unprofessional army of 164,000 soldiers in Congo, a country of 65 million where a decade-long conflict and humanitarian crisis have left an estimated 5 million people dead.
Professionalization of African armies is much needed, and could be aid dollars well spent. But should the military be responsible for 22 percent of foreign aid? It’s hard to imagine why.
5 Responses
Ken: Good point. Of course, I would not be surprised if that’s still 50% of what the equivalent U.N. intervention would cost. Is it the “best” use of money? Who knows? I suppose the point is the following: the U.S. military is well equipped to train armies; army training is direly needed in places like Liberia; the army is going to spend some foreign aid funds, like it or not; so we might as well have them do what they do best. A pragmatic point of view.
“For example, the United States has dedicated nearly $50 million to hire contractors to train 2,000 soldiers in post-civil war Liberia.”
50e6/2e3 = $25,000 per soldier in training fees. It’s possible that’s a reasonable use of money, but I do find it difficult to believe, especially given that the plan is to hire contractors, making the direct participation of the military relatively insignificant.
If professionalization of African armies is a worthwhile development goal, as Blattman says, then it seems logical that the US military is the agency most qualified to channel the aid. But does Blattman think that professionalization of African armies is the *best* use of the money?
Kudos for an interesting and balanced post.
Having worked with and seen AID projects in more than 10 countries I would be hard pressed to imagine an organization that could do a worse job. Is the military the best way to do it? Who knows but they could not be worse than AID.
Why the increase in the amount of aid controlled by the military? Is it because so much aid ends up in the wrong hands (those of warlords and despots) and the military helps to make sure that it goes to those who need it?