&
Realities
Myths
Myth: The United
Reality: Multilateral programs are supported financially by a
States provides more than
its fair share of development
assistance.
variety of donors. For example, the L’Aquila global agriculture initiative includes not only pledges of $3.5 billion over three years from the
United States and $3 billion each from Germany and Japan, but also
$2 billion from the Netherlands (population 16.7 million) and $1 billion
from Canada (population 34.7 million).
The United States saves millions of lives every year with programs
like child immunizations, PEPFAR, and food aid. There is no doubt
that our efforts make a big difference. But the amount the United
States gives per person is less than average for donors and far less
than Scandinavian countries. Preliminary data for 2011 indicate that
Sweden and Denmark devoted more than 1 percent of their national
incomes to development assistance. The U.K. gave 0.56 percent,
the average for 23 donor countries was 0.46 percent, and the United
States was near the bottom of the list at 0.2 percent.
Myth: U.S. leadership
Reality: U.S. leadership leverages additional funding from
on development assistance
isn’t really essential.
other donors. Recently, USAID administrator Dr. Rajiv Shah told
members of Congress that the agency is increasing its contributions
to the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria “to make sure
that we’re investing in those multilateral vehicles that allow us to leverage our dollars with the dollars of other donors and generate $2 or $3
or $4 of investment for every $1 we put in.”
Conversely, U.S. withdrawal from development initiatives sends a
signal that often leads to a decrease in support from other donors as
well. For example, when the United States cut back on its support for
agricultural development at the end of the 1980s, the efforts of most
other developed countries waned as well.
Agriculture remained a relatively neglected area until as recently as
2008, when the global food price crisis and other factors, such as new
information on the damage caused by early childhood malnutrition,
brought leaders’ attention back to the necessity of improving farming
if we are to reduce hunger.
5