Aid Hurts

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/international/africa/22niger.html?pagewanted=1">In Niger, Hungry Are Fed, but Farmers May Starve</a> (NY Times Free Subscription required)<br />n<br />nQuite an interesting article about how aid flowing to the hungry in Niger could cause a collapse of the farm system by competing against the bumper crop just starting to hit the market. <br />n<br />n<blockquote>But now, after a season of good rains, Niger's farmers are producing a bumper crop of millet, the national staple. This should be a cause for rejoicing, yet in one of the twists that mark life in the world's poorest countries, the aid that was intended to save lives could ruin the harvest for many of Niger's farmers by driving down prices.<br />n <br />nThe newly harvested millet and the donated food will reach market stalls at the same time, and with prices depressed, poor farming families may be forced to sell crops normally set aside for their own use and use the money to pay off debts. The effect would be a new cycle of hunger and poverty.</blockquote> <br />n<br />nI alway call something like this the law of unintended consequences. All the aid will hurt in the long run, who would have guessed.<br />n<br />nWhat I really found interesting is this.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>A Bush administration proposal that sought to deliver a portion of American food aid more quickly and at lower cost to starving people around the world appears headed for defeat in Congress, though there is still a narrow chance a scaled-down version will survive in the Senate.<br />n<br />nThe administration asked for authority to use a quarter of the $1.2 billion food aid budget provided to the Agency for International Development to buy corn, wheat and other commodities in the developing countries facing hunger crises, or in neighboring countries, rather than from American producers.<br />n <br />nNow, the government must buy the food in American markets and send most of it on American-flagged ships.</blockquote><br />n<br />nNow I understand why American aid is structured this way, to "help" American farmers. Let me give you a little hint though, transportation costs are why I got out of the wheat business and the amount of aid that can be supplied would be much more if the transportation costs were less. But, I guess the idea is to keep the African nations in poverty instead of boosting them up and helping them get going.<br />n<br />nAs a "farmer" I am very proud of the fact I raise food that feeds people. No food, no people. It's tough to see farmers failing when they are bringing in a bumper harvest.<br />n<br />n<b>As poverty has been reduced in terms of mere survival, it has become more profound in terms of our way of life. Raoul Vaneigem</b><br />n<br />n<b>Update:</b> It occurred to me later that the President has been called racist for Hurricane Katrina and it's aftermath in New Orleans, but here he wants to get more food aid quicker to the poor in Africa while at the same time helping boost local economies. So, is he racist or not? I think not. <br />n<br />