We live in a country founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In today’s interconnected world, we have a responsibility to demonstrate these values in our foreign policy by supporting global health, human rights, education, economic opportunity and democracy.

U.S. "development assistance" refers to the transfer of resources from the United States to developing countries and to some strategic allies. It is delivered in the form of money (via loans or grants), contributions of goods (such as food aid), and technical assistance. The U.S. gives assistance to other countries for a variety of reasons, not all of them having directly to do with development:

• National security and foreign policy interests—for example, to Uzbekistan and Pakistan in exchange for use of their territory for military operations in Afghanistan
• Political development and stability—for conflict prevention, to build peace after conflict, and to strengthen failing states
• Humanitarian crises—to countries and people suffering famine, recovering from a natural disaster, or displaced by conflict.
• Long-term development purposes—to help countries fight poverty, build roads, educate children, fight health crises, create small businesses, and spur economic growth

• The largest recipients have historically been strategic allies such as Egypt, Israel, and Turkey. Russia has become a large recipient of aid in recent years. Most recently, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have also received substantial assistance.
• Less than half goes to the poorest countries where people earn less than $2 a day. This amounts to $3 of assistance each year per citizen of these countries.
• Countries in which people earn up to $30 per day, such as South Africa, Brazil, and Thailand, receive similar amounts.
• Israel is the richest country to receive U.S. assistance—about $77 a year per Israeli. In comparison, Bangladesh receives only 65 cents per person.

Many Americans vastly overestimate the amount of development assistance the U.S. gives to other countries. They think we give far more than we do. The facts are:

• America is the richest country in the world. But according to the Commitment Development Index (CDI), which ranks 21 rich countries in their commitment to global development, we rank 14th.
• In 2005, the U.S. gave $27.5 billion in development assistance to other countries, $10 billion of which was for aid in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The U.S. is the largest donor in terms of dollars spent, but it is one of the least generous based on its capacity to help—that is, in terms of the amount it spends as a share of its national income.
• The U.S. devotes less than 1% of the federal budget to development assistance, which amounts to $92 a year, or 25¢ a day, for each American. This is less than half of what the average American spends on carbonated soft drinks every year—$224.
• U.S. private charitable contributions to poor countries amount to about $10.6 billion a year, which represents an additional $36 a year, or 10¢ a day, for each American.

• Americans tend to think that the U.S. spends 24% of its budget on development assistance, and that they would prefer that only 10% be spent in this way. But it turns out that the U.S. spends far less than that! The U.S. budget dedicates less than 1% of total federal spending to development assistance. It’s just a small slice of the pie, much smaller than most people think.
• A majority (59%) of Americans believe that it is most important to give assistance to the poorest countries; 23% say that it is best to give assistance to countries that are important to U.S. security.
• More than three-quarters (78%) of Americans favor helping poor countries develop their economies as a way to fight terrorism.

Yes! The past 50 years have seen dramatic improvements in income, health, and education in poor countries. The U.S. has contributed to this trend by helping people around the world help themselves out of poverty and by responding to humanitarian crises. Working with other bilateral and multilateral development institutions, we can make a difference.

Because of U.S. laws governing development assistance, 70% of these funds must be spent on U.S. contractors and goods. This “tied aid” may be good for the U.S. economy, but it reduces the value of U.S. assistance by up to 25%, because poor countries are not permitted to purchase less expensive goods and services of equal quality elsewhere.

While this makes it easier to track U.S. aid dollars, a country might end up with three new schools when what it really needs is 3,000 teachers who are better trained.

The Bush administration has proposed two new initiatives:

• The Millennium Challenge Account, designed to increase assistance by $5 billion a year to a set number of poor countries committed to policies that promote development; in 2006 the U.S. will allocate $1.75 billion for the initiative.
• The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was designed to increase funding by $15 billion over five years for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care, in the most affected countries; in 2005, the U.S. budget provided some $1.4 billion for PEPFAR.

These initiatives represent an important commitment of additional assistance to the poorest countries. But even if these two programs are fully funded with “new” (i.e., additional) money, and even taking private charitable giving into account, the U.S. will remain last among the rich nations in terms of how much of its economy is dedicated to development assistance.