There is no aid that Washington gives with no strings attached.
Moreover, bilateral foreign aid does not appear to have any impact on human or economic development, which seems to be the one issue that most economists on the left, center, and right agree:
"The econometric literature has been unable to establish a robust association between foreign aid and growth and poverty reduction" (Alex Mourmouras and Peter Rangazas, "Foreign Aid Policy and Sources of Poverty: A Quantitative Framework," January 2006, p. 1, <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp0614.pdf>).
<blockquote>Our main findings are that increased health expenditure per capita reduces infant mortality as does greater NGO aid per capita 11. We do not find any significant impact of total bilateral aid on infant mortality. Our result is in line with Boone (1996) who found "no significant impact of aid on improvement in infant mortality, primary schooling rations nor life expectancy." As expected, higher levels of development (measured by GDP per capita) and possibly greater rural development (measured by agricultural value added per worker) lead to lower levels of infant mortality. If GDP per capita increases by 1 percent, infant mortality decreases by 0.3 percent. Reducing female illiteracy can have the strongest positive impact on infant mortality as a decrease in female illiteracy by 1 percent decreases infant mortality by 0.52 percent in our first regression. As expected, an increase in poverty leads to higher infant mortality as well; the elasticity of infant mortality with respect to poverty ranges from 0.16 to 0.26. We also find a significant impact of the level of governance (proxied by ICRG) in reducing infant mortality, albeit with lower elasticities. Population growth rate, urbanization, and the presence of an IMF-supported structural adjustment program are found to be insignificant. A number of reasons could be proposed to explain why NGO aid seems to work better than bilateral aid in reducing infant mortality. First, as can be seen in section III, Figure 1b, NGOs and bilateral donors allocate aid differently: on average and over the entire period, countries with lower infant mortality rates receive relatively less NGO aid, but relatively more bilateral aid. Conversely, countries with the highest mortality ratios receive relatively more NGO aid, but less-than-the-mean bilateral aid. There seems to be a certain inconsistency between the avowed objectives of bilateral donors and their actual aid allocation, as indicated by Alesina and Dollar (2000). Second, maybe NGOs have direct links to the poor and vulnerable and are therefore more efficient. Third, as argued by Boone (1996), aid transiting through recipient governments could be diverted for the benefit of wealthy elites linked to those in power. (Nadia Masud and Boriana Yontcheva, "Does Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty? Empirical Evidence from Nongovernmental and Bilateral Aid," May 2005, pp. 12-13, <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/wp05100.pdf>)</blockquote>
BTW, before thinking about aid, it would be better to remove US unilateral sanctions. Both American capitalists and third-world advocates of human development, who rarely agree with each other, hate them.
<blockquote> HALF THE WORLD HIT BY US UNILATERAL SANCTIONS
by Someshwar Singh
Geneva, 21 Dec 99 -- More than half of the world's population in 75 countries is subject to unilateral coercive economic measures or 'sanctions' by one country alone - the United States of America - according to a recent report by the United Nations.
The report, "Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries" (A/54/486), was considered by the UN General Assembly as part of the macroeconomic policy questions related to trade and development. The issue is to receive greater focus by the United Nations in the coming years, particularly by its human rights arm.
It is in response to General Assembly resolution 52/181 of 18 December 1997, that the report was prepared. In that resolution, the Assembly, inter alia, expressed grave concern that the use of unilateral coercive economic measures, particularly, adversely affected the economy and development efforts of developing countries and had a general negative impact on international economic cooperation and on worldwide efforts to move towards a non-discriminatory and open multilateral trading system. <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/half-cn.htm></blockquote>
"Last year, the Congressional Research Service identified more than 190 provisions of U.S. law that potentially restrict some aspect of foreign commerce for foreign policy reasons. Of those provisions, 102 pertain to restrictions on government foreign aid and trade-promotion programs, including 26 on defense-related aid. Another 49 pertain to restrictions on commercial exports, including 26 on defense-related sales" ("Statement of Richard D. Farmer, Principal Analyst, Natural Resources and Commerce Division, Congressional Budget Office, on the Domestic Costs of Sanctions on Foreign Commerce, before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 27 May 1999, <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1293&sequence=0>).
A Map of Countries Subject to U.S. Unilateral Economic Sanctions (2002): <http://www.usaengage.org/literature/2002/2002sanctions/sanctions_map.html>
"Current U.S. Unilateral Sanctions, Compiled by USA*Engage, Source: President's Export Council, 1997, Carter Study, 2002": <http://www.usaengage.org/literature/2002/2002sanctions/sanctions_country.html> -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>