Helping Ourselves by Helping Poor Countries

Helping Ourselves by Helping Poor Countries

Some U.S. policymakers are convinced that rising federal deficits outweigh the value of U.S. investments in overseas development assistance. But evidence would suggest otherwise. In the long run, the U.S. economy benefits more by helping developing countries to reduce poverty, so that these countries become trading partners with us.

A few decades ago, the countries that are some of our strongest trading partners in Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, to name a few) had economies that were veritable basket cases—South Korea’s economy was weaker than North Korea’s at the time of partition¹—yet these countries developed rapidly by historical standards, and their own efforts were facilitated by steadfast assistance from the United States.

At the time of this writing, the United States is on the verge of signing a free trade agreement with South Korea that is described by Democrats and Republicans alike as crucial to the growth of the U.S. economy. It’s just one example of how consistent investments in overseas development pay off in the end, both for our partners and for us.

It’s worth noting that U.S. development investments in these countries began in the agricultural sector.² The poorest countries are always agriculture-based economies, and the largest share of poor people earns a living in agriculture. When development occurs from the bottom up, the tide of progress carries poor people along with it. Growth spurs investments in education. Children can go to school rather than to the fields to support their family’s subsistence-level earnings. Education makes it possible for countries to participate more fully in the global economy, investing in technology (much of it purchased from the United States) to expand their industrial capacity.

U.S. investments in agricultural development through the Feed the Future initiative are helping partner countries that today resemble the South Korea of half a century ago. The initiative focuses most of its resources on Africa, targeting assistance to countries whose governments have a track record of matching donor assistance with investments of their own. Feed the Future builds on lessons learned in the Millennium Challenge Account and PEPFAR programs by providing incentives to national governments that work together with private sector and civil society groups to solve problems. The U.S. government works with its own domestic partner organizations in a similar way.

African governments recognize that agriculture is a sector that they themselves must invest in to catalyze economic growth. Before Feed the Future, many countries had already begun to do so, taking steps to realize the vast potential of their collective agricultural resources through greater regional integration of their economies.

Donors realized their neglect and began to catch up when a surge in food prices woke them up to the critical role of agriculture in development. In a matter of months, more than 100 million additional people fell into hunger because the prices of staple grains rose so dramatically. In 2009, in the aftermath of the worst hunger crisis in history not related to a famine, the U.S. government established Feed the Future. In 2011, volatile food prices again drew international attention to the plight of the world’s billion chronically hungry people. Food-price volatility has become the new normal.

In our 2011 Hunger Report, we applauded the U.S. government for responding forthrightly to the hunger crisis. In the 2012 report, we emphasize how this is no time to pull back on the investments the U.S. government pledged in Feed the Future. It is also no time to pull back on food aid. Nothing the United States does for people in crisis situations around the world is more of a lifeline than food aid, a $2 billion annual investment that keeps nearly 50 million people each year from going hungry.³ In the 2012 Hunger Report, we recommend ways for Feed the Future and U.S. food aid programs to work together more efficiently.

For example, we recommend that food aid programs follow the lead of Feed the Future by focusing more deliberately on improving nutrition outcomes for the most vulnerable people—who are pregnant and lactating women and children under the age of 2. In recent years, research has shown that nutrition interventions occurring at key times in people’s lives—especially during the 1,000 days from pregnancy to the second birthday—dramatically improve their developmental potential for their entire lifetimes.⁴ All U.S. development programs should seize on these findings and incorporate them appropriately. In particular, the United States should coordinate the two areas most specifically focused on fighting hunger: the one-two punch of food and farm policies in the developing world. This will help achieve the strongest possible nutrition outcomes with the limited resources available, getting the biggest bang for the buck.

Over the next 50 years, Africa’s population is expected to grow by more than that of any other continent. Quantifying the benefits of reduced global poverty for the United States is not easy. But, for example, 50 years ago China’s per-capita income was roughly the same as the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.⁵ Yet in the past 15 years, exports of U.S. soybeans to China have increased 26-fold.⁶ As we help African countries participate more fully in the global economy, we help our own country by cultivating more significant trading partners.