[Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana"

[Andrew Skilton]

[ASkilton]
>I recall a recent UN report that estimated that, of the 10 billion dollars sunk
>into Cambodia by international agencies over the last decade, only 1 billion
had
>reached the target - i.e. desperately poor Cambodian people. Spectacular!
[Curt]
>File this under "Yes, but...." The current US military budget is approx. 
$560 billion (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm). The rest of the 
world put together spends about as much - so lets round it off to an 
even $1 trillion per annum. If that money were instead spent on wasteful 
aid programs in which only 1/10 of the money went to the people who 
needed it, that would still be $100 billion a year going to people who 
desparately need it. If the $$$ were specifically targeted at the 
poorest 1/3 of humanity it would come out to about $50 per person a 
year. 

Sure, fine. I hereby authorise you to redirect the UK 'Defence' budget!

I've heard before, probably on this list, the argument that even if only a small
percentage of an aid budget actually filters through to the target community,
the programme is still validated by that small percentage of good done. I
certainly don't begrudge the Khmer people that single billion dollars I
mentioned, and surely cannot be understood to have been suggesting that the
inefficiency of aid programmes plus local corruption warrants the withdrawal of
aid? But one of the points swilling around in my opaque statements was the
possibility that by exercising what control we can, in the case of charitable
donation by making more astute choices of recipient, we can increase the
percentage that hits the target. I therefore do not understand your 'but'.

Andrew