Development Money

So when I think of foreign aid, I have no idea what that actually means.  I always envision trucks distributing bags of rice or pallets of water being airdropped from helicopters.  Governments give massive amounts of foreign aid to developing countries--where does it go?

I've got a few examples.  We did not get to go to Pokhara where there is a museum dedicated to mountaineering that was funded by Germany, if I recall correctly.  This makes sense because the Germans, having conquered the Alps during the 1800s, were the most enthusiastic in first attempting to conquer the high Himalayas in the 1900s.  That Germany would cherish Himalayan history with a museum is very cool.  But we didn't see that one.  We did have the opportunity to see a nearby museum about religion, which you may recall from my blog entry "Patan."  The museum's pamphlet says that it was made possible by money and work from the Austrian government.  Why Austria would put its resources into preserving the culture of Nepal escapes me.  Still, I think it's great, because access to education here is limited, and that single museum can provide a brilliant experience for local people that we take for granted with our huge number of museums in America.  It's particularly nice that it commemorates and educates about the local heritage, so that local people see value in their own culture and it doesn't get entirely taken over by Nike, Coca-Cola, and Apple.  But I digress.  The fact that there is no obvious connection between Austria and eastern religions actually makes me happy, because it seems to be that Austria is preserving culture for culture's sake, without any self-interest.  

At the same time, I find myself wondering if a museum is really the best use of funds in a country that has great need for basic services.  Today we drove to Bhaktapur, a distance of about 20 km, on a road that was in various states of construction.  It almost, at times, resembled a normal highway (though with a center line that still is only a suggestion--it makes for some near misses).  In one place where it is still entirely dirt there was a large sign that said the Kathmandu-Bhaktapur highway was made possible jointly by the governments of Nepal and Japan.  This highway will connect two major population centers along a route of much commerce, so it will benefit the local population a lot.  Though it is a shame to see land paved over at the expense of progress, I can only think that if a road connected Kathmandu and the villages suffering from cholera, medical aid might have reached those people soon enough.  So yeah, go Japan, funding a much-needed road.

The other government-funded project we're aware of is the maternity hospital that Melissa already talked about.  It is funded largely by South Korea.  This project contributes directly to a lower infant mortality rate, a lower maternal mortality rate, and generally promotes well-being in a country without good health care.  Despite Melissa's descriptions of the facility that make it seem backward to us, it's a heck of a lot better than delivering in a rural village with no health care at all.  So yeah, go South Korea.

The absence here of descriptions of US-funded projects is only because we haven't happened to notice any.  I have no doubt the US government contributes lots of money to development projects here and elsewhere.  Melissa noted, however, that due to the global gag order instituted by President Bush (and Reagan before that) the US government would not fund anything like the maternity hospital because it does counsel about contraception and terminations.  (Melissa points out that there are American organizations here that do that kind of work, but they are NGOs that receive no government funding.  Obama did rescind the global gag order in his first week of office.)

As I've made note of these development projects, it's led me to think about how international development and economics work on a larger scale.  I really don't know a lot about it, and I'd like to read more.  It is by no design of my own that the three examples relate to three separate fields: culture, infrastructure, and health care.  It seems appropriate that we should distribute aid in such a way, rather than focusing only on delivering food to the hungry, for example.  As important as such humanitarian work is, foreign aid would be a never-ending sinkhole if it does not go to establish something permanent.  (Which can also, of course, translate into alleviating hunger.  I've read about programs designed to educate farmers or genetically engineer higher-yield crops in Africa.)  Anyway, I hope that the foreign aid is distributed by people who are both compassionate and intelligent, working within systems that lead to sustainable changes.

(The picture for this entry doesn't really have anything to do with the topic.  But it is an example of the odd juxtaposition of a modern building taking shape underneath shaky scaffolding made of bamboo lashed together.)