Comments on: Woo hoo! We’re #13! http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/08/15/woo-hoo-were-13/ EthanZ's musings on Africa, media and international development Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:45:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joerg http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/08/15/woo-hoo-were-13/comment-page-1/#comment-60533 Joerg Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:00:44 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=943#comment-60533 David wrote: "From this list, I dropped the European Commission" Since the EU is funded by its memberstates, I assume you used some formula to give credit to the EU member states...? I am not sure, if I was able to express myself clearly. I mean: Germany for example spends amount x for national development programs. Additionally Germany pays amount y for the EU 's development programs. Since you dropped the EU Commission from the list: Did you add x and y for Germany? Endnote: I wrote the post Bill mentioned. I received quite a few comments on my blog. There are quite a few popular myth out there. And some Americans are not ready to accept that they are not helping the poor as much as they think. Thus I pointed to Steven Radelet's article in Foreign Policy in my reply in the comments section: http://atlanticreview.org/archives/369-One-Year-after-G8-Summit-on-Extreme-Poverty.html The good news, however, is that US policy has been improving. David wrote: “From this list, I dropped the European Commission”

Since the EU is funded by its memberstates, I assume you used some formula to give credit to the EU member states…?

I am not sure, if I was able to express myself clearly.

I mean: Germany for example spends amount x for national development programs. Additionally Germany pays amount y for the EU ‘s development programs. Since you dropped the EU Commission from the list: Did you add x and y for Germany?

Endnote: I wrote the post Bill mentioned. I received quite a few comments on my blog. There are quite a few popular myth out there. And some Americans are not ready to accept that they are not helping the poor as much as they think.
Thus I pointed to Steven Radelet’s article in Foreign Policy in my reply in the comments section:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/369-One-Year-after-G8-Summit-on-Extreme-Poverty.html

The good news, however, is that US policy has been improving.

]]> By: Black River Eagle http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/08/15/woo-hoo-were-13/comment-page-1/#comment-57700 Black River Eagle Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:55:47 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=943#comment-57700 You never know who is reading your stuff out there in the blogosphere, heh Ethan? Ref: David Roodman, chief architect and project manager of the Center for Global Development Commitment to Development Index 2006. Ain't it great? I put in a word about this post over at the Germany-based blog Atlantic Review, authored by 3 German Fulbright Alumni including my buddy Jörg Wolf in Berlin. Check out their post of August 24th "One Year after the G8 Summit on Extreme Poverty" http://atlanticreview.org/archives/369-One-Year-after-G8-Summit-on-Extreme-Poverty.html You never know who is reading your stuff out there in the blogosphere, heh Ethan? Ref: David Roodman, chief architect and project manager of the Center for Global Development Commitment to Development Index 2006. Ain’t it great?

I put in a word about this post over at the Germany-based blog Atlantic Review, authored by 3 German Fulbright Alumni including my buddy Jörg Wolf in Berlin. Check out their post of August 24th “One Year after the G8 Summit on Extreme Poverty”

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/369-One-Year-after-G8-Summit-on-Extreme-Poverty.html

]]> By: Ethan http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/08/15/woo-hoo-were-13/comment-page-1/#comment-55892 Ethan Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:20:47 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=943#comment-55892 Thanks, David - that's a big help. I'm sure statistical availability is the key factor on all this - given how much analysis you guys are adding, it would be very hard to analyze some of the other nations you mention. That said, it would be a really interesting study to try to quantitatively and qualitatively compare some of the nations that are beginning to get active in aid - China, India, Saudi Arabia - as well as some even harder-to-study entities - Iran's aid via Hizbullah, for instance. No idea how one would organize this sort of comparison, but I suspect it would be fascinating. Thanks, David – that’s a big help. I’m sure statistical availability is the key factor on all this – given how much analysis you guys are adding, it would be very hard to analyze some of the other nations you mention. That said, it would be a really interesting study to try to quantitatively and qualitatively compare some of the nations that are beginning to get active in aid – China, India, Saudi Arabia – as well as some even harder-to-study entities – Iran’s aid via Hizbullah, for instance. No idea how one would organize this sort of comparison, but I suspect it would be fascinating.

]]> By: David Roodman http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/08/15/woo-hoo-were-13/comment-page-1/#comment-55752 David Roodman Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:24:20 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=943#comment-55752 Hi there. Since I chose the 21, I can give you the authoritative answer! I started with the membership of the Development Assistance Committee, which is the official club of aid donors, and is run out of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. See http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,2340,en_2649_34447_1893350_1_1_1_1,00.html. There are 23 members. From this list, I dropped the European Commission, since it is not a country but an agency funded by national governments, and Luxembourg, because it is so small. A major consideration driving this choice is data availability. China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and others give out aid--but they don't give out much in the way of aid statistics. A major function of DAC is to collect aid statistics from its members. As more countries join the DAC, we will try to add them to the Commitment to Development Index. Hi there. Since I chose the 21, I can give you the authoritative answer! I started with the membership of the Development Assistance Committee, which is the official club of aid donors, and is run out of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. See http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,2340,en_2649_34447_1893350_1_1_1_1,00.html. There are 23 members. From this list, I dropped the European Commission, since it is not a country but an agency funded by national governments, and Luxembourg, because it is so small. A major consideration driving this choice is data availability. China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and others give out aid–but they don’t give out much in the way of aid statistics. A major function of DAC is to collect aid statistics from its members. As more countries join the DAC, we will try to add them to the Commitment to Development Index.

]]> By: Ethan http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/08/15/woo-hoo-were-13/comment-page-1/#comment-54370 Ethan Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:59:22 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=943#comment-54370 Thanks, BRE. Regarding the performance over time: the US has improved in its rankings, due to changes in agricultural subsidies - Denmark has declined, cutting their (huge) aid budget. That table measures change year to year, but not absolute performance. As for why the 21 nations selected are the only ones tracked, I don't really know - the site lists them as the 21 wealthiest nations, which doesn't sound right to me - I would assume that, in terms of per capita wealth - some of the Gulf petrostates would rank as well, no? Thanks, BRE. Regarding the performance over time: the US has improved in its rankings, due to changes in agricultural subsidies – Denmark has declined, cutting their (huge) aid budget. That table measures change year to year, but not absolute performance.

As for why the 21 nations selected are the only ones tracked, I don’t really know – the site lists them as the 21 wealthiest nations, which doesn’t sound right to me – I would assume that, in terms of per capita wealth – some of the Gulf petrostates would rank as well, no?

]]> By: Black River Eagle http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/08/15/woo-hoo-were-13/comment-page-1/#comment-54368 Black River Eagle Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:39:59 +0000 http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=943#comment-54368 Great information Ethan, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Notice that the U.S. ranks #3 in Table 2 (CDI Performance over Time 2003-2006) behind Spain and the U.K. and Denmark ranks dead last at #21. Development and Reconstruction Aid to Iraq looks like a bottomless moneypit according to this report, ranking only behind Somalia in combatting corruption and graft and enforcing the rule of law. As much as 30% of their national budget is lost to corruption (and theft). Yikes!!! I wonder why the the 4th Annual CGD-Foreign Policy Commitment to Development Index (CDI) includes only 20 (mostly Western) countries? Is development aid from the rest of the "international community" not worth mentioning or what? How much does everybody else contribute as a percentage of their GDP to helping the poor in developing countries??? Great information Ethan, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Notice that the U.S. ranks #3 in Table 2 (CDI Performance over Time 2003-2006) behind Spain and the U.K. and Denmark ranks dead last at #21.

Development and Reconstruction Aid to Iraq looks like a bottomless moneypit according to this report, ranking only behind Somalia in combatting corruption and graft and enforcing the rule of law. As much as 30% of their national budget is lost to corruption (and theft). Yikes!!!

I wonder why the the 4th Annual CGD-Foreign Policy Commitment to Development Index (CDI) includes only 20 (mostly Western) countries? Is development aid from the rest of the “international community” not worth mentioning or what? How much does everybody else contribute as a percentage of their GDP to helping the poor in developing countries???

]]>