Gauging Generosity

From: Amara Graps (amara@amara.com)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 01:02:44 MDT

  • Next message: Technotranscendence: "Re: Gauging Generosity"

    An article from last May 3 in The Economist called: "Gauging
    Generosity" offers a discussion of measures of "giving" and tries to
    answer the question: "Which rich countries do most to help poor
    countries?"

    The Center for Global Development, a Washington think-tank, with
    Foreign Policy magazine rates 21 rich countries used these measures
    of help:

    * aid,
    * trade,
    * the environment,
    * migration,
    * investment, and
    * peacekeeping.

    The Economist paper is here:
    http://www.cgdev.org/rankingtherich/EconomicsfocusCDI.pdf

    For the full perspective,
    You should look at the table in the above paper to see a numbered
    rating for each of the six categories, here, however is the average
    calculated for the six categories:

    Netherlands 5.6
    Denmark 5.5
    Portugal 5.2
    New Zealand 5.1
    Switzerland 5.0
    Germany 4.7
    Spain 4.7
    Sweden 4.5
    Austria 4.4
    Norway 4.3
    Britain 4.2
    Belgium 4.0
    Greece 3.9
    France 3.8
    Ireland 3.6
    Italy 3.6
    Finland 3.5
    Canada 3.4
    Australia 3.2
    U.S. 2.6
    Japan 2.4

    It's an interesting evaluation. Norway is a generous aid donor, but
    it has protectionist trade policies. America scores very well on
    trade, but gives only 0.12% of its GDP in aid and scores poorly in
    the other categories as well. Portugal is very high in investment
    (it is a big investor in Latin America). New Zealand, Switzerland,
    and Germany are extremely high in migration. Switzerland's migration
    policy (the number of legal migrants it accepts relative to its
    population) was surprising because it is not usually thought to be
    open to foreigners. From my experience so far in Germany and Italy,
    I can say the migration numbers for Germany and Italy seem about right
    (Germany: 8.1 and Italy 1.1).

    Of the aid and trade measures, the CGD has a sophisticated rating
    system that adjusts foreign aid to the country's GDP, and the
    quality of the aid. Of the quality of the aid, for example, it
    deducts administrative costs, and it strips out principal and
    interest repayments made by poor countries (because a lot of the
    "aid" is in fact low-interest loans, not gifts).

    The environmental index tries to capture how much rich countries
    deplete global environmental resources, for example by measuring
    greenhouse-gas emission per head. It also looks at their
    contributions to clean technology and commitment to environmental
    treaties. U.S. came out at the bottom, but The Economist points out
    that it didn't consider investment in pharmaceutical or agricultural
    research, where the U.S.'s contribution is significant.

    The CGD index is a crude first stab at measuring the rich world's
    help for the poor and the authors themselves admit that it has many
    flaws, but it is a good first step that emphasizes that aid alone is
    a misleading guide; trade and peace matter at least as much.

    -- 
    ********************************************************************
    Amara Graps, PhD          email: amara@amara.com
    Computational Physics     vita:  ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt
    Multiplex Answers         URL:   http://www.amara.com/
    ********************************************************************
    "Every exit is an entry somewhere else." --Tom Stoppard
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 01:11:54 MDT