Matthew Yglesias » Commitment to Development

Oct 30th, 2009 at 8:31 am

Commitment to Development

The Center for Global Development has put together a cool web ap that lets you see how different countries do in terms of being helpful to the developing world:

The United States is about average overall. Our standout categories are trade and security, we do badly on environment and aid metrics. Nicest overall country is Sweden.

Update I would really encourage people who raised issues about these metrics to go read the comment that David Roodman, who worked on the index, left down below. It's very interesting and many thanks to him for participating in the discussion.

Comments
29

29 Responses to “Commitment to Development”

Matt (not the famous one) Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Interesting and useful, though a bit odd in some ways, too. I’m not sure that refugees divided by GNP is the best way to think about helping refugees, for example. (It has some role to play, but it’s a pretty crude measurement. You’d not know from that that the US takes in massively more refugees in total number, for example, than other countries, or that, while Japan takes in almost no refugees, it does provide a fair amount of money- not as much as it should, but not an insubstantial amount- for refugee resettlement. Also, if we followed this method, Iran, Pakistan, Kenya, and some others would be off the chart for migration for this element alone.) Several other elements of the “migration” element (the one I know the most about) are odd or distorted, too, though it does give some useful idea. It’s also odd that China isn’t included at all, even though it’s now a fairly major player in development aid, trade, and investment in Africa.
The Olive RIdley Crawl Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Is invading and occupying developing countries while killing hundreds of thousands of people part of the “security” variable?
low-tech cyclist Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Nicest overall country is Sweden.

You keep on saying that. So move to Sweden, you pinko!

(Just kidding!)
Newt Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Holy cow, we don’t get any credit for 20 million illegal aliens from the third world we’re harboring? That’s the biggest sacrifice any nation in the world is making.

Of course, the particular sacrifice doesn’t do any good for the third world, mostly Latin American, nations where families are broken up and the most ambitious citizens go away leaving their nations to stagnate. The real beneficiaries are big business that employs below-minimum wage labor in American sweatshops and so-called liberals who think they’re being racially sensitive by defending illegals.
cnyexpat Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I’m not entirely clear how New Zealand has us roundly beat on the “security” metric. Does their navy guarantee the freedom of the seas for the entire world? I don’t think so, and that freedom allows international trade to take place, which has a higher impact on global welfare than any Swedish foreign aid. If the US military closed up shop tomorrow, there would be a much greater net negative impact on global security and global well-being than if you removed the militaries of any other nation listed on the chart.

Note- I’m saying this with the full understanding that our actions in Iraq, and to some degree Af/Pak, have contributed to instability in their regions.
Sancho Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I could be mistaken about this one, but these comparisons dont’ generally include charitable giving by individuals, at which the U.S. blows the European social democracies out of the water. If you aggregate U.S. government and U.S. citizen giving, we do quite well (Bill Gates alone probably does as much as Sweden for the third world).
Max424 Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
What’s up with Italy down there at the bottom.

Italy I can’t figure out. Italians? I have them down cold. But not Italy. It seems to be a country of contradictions. And geographically, it looks like a country always at the ready -prepared, really, to use at any moment the tip of its boot to kick Spain right in the ass.
DCBob Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Ah, the Scandihoovians are just trying to atone for all that raping and pillaging back about a millennium ago. ‘Bout time too.
N Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Surely the US still can get a little leftover credit for its security efforts during WWII and the cold war. After all, if not for the US, none of the other countries shown on this list would exist as democratic, independent countries. They’d be satellites or incorporated territories of the German, Japanese or Soviet empires.
ajay Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am
If not for the US, the Nazis would have conquered Canada. Rrriiiight.

5: but the US Navy doesn’t actually do very much to ensure the freedom of the seas. It’s got a couple of destroyers chasing pirates off the Somali coast and that’s it. The US Navy is set up, and has been for the last fifty years, for the purposes of blowing up shore targets, incinerating millions of Russian civilians, sinking Russian hunter-killer submarines, shooting down Russian long-range naval aviation, and delivering Marines. A US Navy that was a global sea-lane protection force would look and act very differently indeed.
ChooChoo! Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Ah Sweden… that wonderful country that sold iron ore and other war materials to the Nazi’s, acted as a middle man for German purchases of otherwise embargoed goods, and in their most shining moment offered to sell Norway Ostkaka med hallonsylt (that’s a Swedish cheesecake) when asked for aid in repelling the Nazi takeover. Perhaps they thought the rasberry jam could be used to gum up Nazi machine guns.
Somehow the world preferred Allied firepower.
And would again.
Commitment to Global Development: How does the U.S. Rank? « DC Progressive Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:34 am
[...] Commitment to Global Development: How does the U.S. Rank? Jump to Comments According to the Center for Global Development, The United States ranks 17th out of 22 rich countries in terms of its commitment to global development. (via Yglesias) [...]
j r Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:43 am
the problem with this should be obvious. you have conflated “commitment” with “being helpful to”. in order to accurately assess whether something is helpful, you would need to have some knowledge of what workds. the development business has come a long way in changing its dibursment culture, but not far enough for this index to have much usefulness outside of PR.

this might more accurately be labeled the “good intentions” index.
Jason L. Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Sancho @6: I could be mistaken about this one, but these comparisons dont’ generally include charitable giving by individuals, at which the U.S. blows the European social democracies out of the water.

You are mistaken. They do include them. The U.S. indeed ranks high on private charitable giving per GDP, 4th out of 22. It’s beaten by Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada, in that order.
afu Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Fuck that map is horrible.

Protip: If you want your map to readable, don’t make the color scale go from slightly light grey to very dark grey.
cnyexpat Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am
AJ @5- The US doesn’t need to be set up specifically as a sea-lane protection force. The very fact that we have an enormous “fleet in being” that is committed to keeping sealanes open for American and other trade keeps belligerent powers from trying blockades or obstructing the flow of trade. If the US Navy didn’t exist, you can bet that, for instance, Iran or Iraq would have tried to close the Persian Gulf during their war in the 1980s.
David Roodman Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Hi everyone. I run the beast being commented on here. Thanks for all the great questions. All raise complicated issues to which I will do some violence with short answers:

The CDI adjusts for size out of interest in whether countries live up to their potential to help. Absolute impact matters a lot too, but doesn’t seem to me to be a fair way to compare countries. Should we expect New Zealand to import as much, or take as many immigrants, or give as much aid, or maintain a navy as large as the U.S. does? That’s why we use GNP to proxy countries’ capacity to absorb refugees, e.g.

For that matter should we expect China, which is still far poorer on a per capita basis, to give as much aid? That’s one reason China is not in the index; another is lack of data. We did try adding Brazil, Russia, India, and China to the environment component once.

#2: The security component does not count the invasion of Iraq. It counts military interventions with an international mandate. Now the invasion of Afghanistan *was* backed by the UN Security Council, so it is counted. Especially if lots more troops are added, this may pose a real challenge for the index next year.

#4: The U.S. does get credit for illegal aliens to the extent that they give their information to census takers. I.e., we use census data in one part of the migration component to count both legals and illegals.

#5: For its size New Zealand has contributed a lot of troops to internationally sanctioned military operations, such as in East Timor, and to UN-run peacekeeping operations.

#6: The index counts private charity to the extent it is attributable to public policy. E.g., in the U.S. the tax deduction for charity and the low overall tax rate (leaving more money for private charity) combine, we estimate, to increase overseas giving by 50%. So we credit the U.S. government for half of private overseas charity.

#9: Well, WWII was a long time ago. But the security component does give credit to countries, most of all the US, for positioning navies near sea lanes to protect global trade. This is meant to capture the idea that the U.S. military has to an extent undergirded the growth of the global economy, giving Asian tigers the security to export, grow fast, and climb out of poverty.

#13: You’re right there’s huge uncertainty about the ultimate impacts of the policies we score. We do our best to use the available analysis to guide us in choosing what to reward and penalize.
Hector Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Where’s Cuba on this map? Or Venezula? Both countries give a lot of foreign assistance.
Hector Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Re: It’s beaten by Ireland,

Ah, not surprised. Must be the fact that the Irish, unlike too many Americans and Europeans, do not yet consider themselves too cool for Christ and too hip for heaven.
David Roodman Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Hector the situation with Cuba and Venezuela is the same as for China: 1. To whom much is given, much is expected. I.e., the index covers the richest countries. 2. Lack of data.
heedless Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
David,

Thanks for taking the time to explain some of you methodology to us.

Quick question:

I saw several references to greenhouse gas production in your Environmental metric, but you generally used policy rather than actual emission levels for scoring. Can you explain the thinking behind that decision?
Hector Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
David,

Ah, I see. It probably is confusing too that Cuba’s donations are largely in-kind (doctors, agronomists, and other trained personnel). And Venezuela’s are somtimes in kind too (i.e. oil).
johnnyk Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I’m curious about military toys disguised as foreign aid.
Country A claims it gives country B $500 million in aid but that aid could be nothing more than credit for tanks built in the “donor” country, no?
Warren Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Nice to see the American jingoists out in full force, here, and all the reminders of how we saved the world once upon a time. There’s a juncture after which we’re going to experience diminishing returns incessantly milking that point. Y’know, 20 million dead Russians might have had something to do with it, too.

Also, re the evil Vikings, yeah, that’s great. I wouldn’t waste too much effort pushing that Scandinavian guilt button, I think the world has moved on—but gee thanks for setting the record straight. As regards slightly more recent history, I don’t think ‘post-war’ America is going to fare too well in the ‘ol recriminations game. You might want to consult 2,000,000 slaughtered Vietnamese about that (oh wait, you can’t).

Now if only some of these jingoists cared more for actual Americans. That’s what always gets me about so much of contemporary American nationalism, the jingos really don’t give a fig about ordinary working Americans sinking deeper into the neo-liberal muckpool of unregulated capitalism. It’s a truly fascinating variant of nationalism that seems to exist on vapid O’Reillyian air more than anything.
urgs Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I would take the global peace index score for security:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php

They got a usefull methodology to measure security contributions. Thise one it seems is conscructed according to the dreams of right radical hegemony theory fans.
urgs Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
“You are mistaken. They do include them. The U.S. indeed ranks high on private charitable giving per GDP, 4th out of 22. It’s beaten by Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada, in that order.”

Wunder which percentage of the US aid private and public goes to Israel – mainly to build guns, thus producing a negative effect for worldwide development, since Israel is already developed (0,935 hdi) and just builds more guns from the money ,which does not necessarily profit Israel itsself as much as the US by the way.
David Roodman Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 7:13 am
#21. Excellent question. I wish we had a good comprehensive measure climate *policy*. Outside of energy taxation, which is dominated today by gasoline taxation, which is counted in the index, it has been hard to find measures that make sense and that can be collected across the 22 countries in the index. So we have also included greenhouse gas emissions/capita and the difference between the economic and emissions growth rates. The latter, suggested to us by the World Resources Institute, does I think work pretty well in detecting policy changes. When the UK, Netherlands, and Germany adopted policies in the early 1990s to subsidize renewable energy and (at least in the UK) tax gas more, it did show up as a widening gap between economic and emissions growth.

#23: Military exports are not counted as aid. We get our aid data from the Development Assistance Committee in Paris, whose statistical norms are agreed by all donors that are members. DAC defines aid to exclude military aid. Meanwhile, the Commitment to Development Index’s security component penalizes arms exports, mainly ones to undemocratic, high-military-spending regimes.

#25. The security component of the CDI penalizes arms exports. It rewards money and personnel contributions to UN peacekeeping operations. It rewards personnel contribution to non-UN-run operations *if* they have an international mandate, such as from the UN Security Council. Does all that figure in the “dreams of right radical hegemony theory fans”?

#26. Some U.S. private aid does go to Israel—several billion $/year probably. But this is not counted in the CDI. The private charity totals, which also come from DAC, count giving only to countries on the official list of aid recipients which Israel is too rich to join.
lupita Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
The U.S. does get credit for illegal aliens to the extent that they give their information to census takers. I.e., we use census data in one part of the migration component to count both legals and illegals.

So the rich countries are being helpful to the poor countries by pouching their doctors and nurses and their rural communities to man their agribusinesses?

While 3rd world economists, sociologists, and politicians detail how our region has been devastated by decades of neoliberal hegemony, 1st worlders devise metrics to measure who among the rich has been the nicest. Talk about a dialogue between the deaf.

3rd world nations have been very clear as to what we would consider helpful to our development. Here is a list in case someone wishes to consider them:

1. Cut agricultural subsidies.
2. Do not invade us.
3. Allow generic AIDS drugs.
4. Do not threaten us (non-nuclear nations) with nuclear attacks.
5. Cut your drug consumption.
6. Reign in your arms dealers.
7. Regulate your financial predators.
8. Allow poor nations a voice in the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and UN Security Council.
9. Stop obstructing the rightful development of nuclear technology.
10. Save.
11. Stop wasting precious resources.

How does the 1st world stand up to those metrics, our metrics?
The Commitment to Development Index | IP Address Visitor Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
[...] Via the ever-linkable Matt Yglesias. [...]

Matt Yglesias

Commitment to Development

29 Responses to “Commitment to Development”

Blogroll