Rethinking foreign aid

With a new administration and a new budget year, the issue of U.S. foreign aid -- what it should do, who should administer it, whether to bother with it at all -- is percolating once again. This time, it is not only traditional skeptics such as Senator Jesse Helms raising questions. Supporters of development assistance also contend that foreign aid is "adrift" and in need of "major institutional restructuring," in the words of a report recently published by the Overseas Development Council and the Henry L. Stimson Center.

American support for foreign aid has declined since its Cold War heyday. The United States ranks last in giving, proportionate to its economy, among industrialized nations. This is not as it should be. Yes, there are plenty of places where foreign aid has been misdirected, misused and/or was dubious in impact. But the fact is that foreign aid has also done a lot of good, from promoting the green revolution that helps feed the world, to significantly expanding life spans to helping secure democracy in Poland and other transitional countries. Why should it not be continued and improved? It's still in America's interest to promote democracy and free markets in the world's poorer countries, to respond to famines and other humanitarian emergencies and to prod reform and peace in the Middle East, the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.

In many cases, the World Bank and other multilateral agencies can best promote those goals. The United States retains a huge influence in those institutions, while not having to foot the entire bill. That's why it makes no sense for the United States not to pay its share.

-- The Washington Post