Aid from Wealthy

It is not as if the amount of aid being given is enough to raise the poor countries from their level of indigence. It would require the transfer of some 10 per cent of the annual national income of the rich countries of the world to enable the poor countries to develop autonomously. Realistic economists, more modest, have asked that a vigorous effort be made to transfer some one per cent of national income, which would hardly break the rich countries. But even the most generous donor, the United States, gives only just over half of one per cent of her national income. (New Zealand, with a standard of living not far behind the American, gives only about one-sixth of one per cent, or 2½d in the £. This is, of course, no small sum, but nearly two million; almost as much as the two million; the country spends on ice-cream.)

To make matters worse, this inadequate amount is spread so thin that no independent body has been able to credit it with any improvement in the situation. Economic aid has made no difference to the fact that Pakistan's economy stagnates, India's moves forward. Indonesia's declines, Malay's develops steadily.

Things might have been otherwise had the donor countries concentrated their efforts on a promising candidate, such as India or Malaya, which in turn could have helped other countries. But the desire to curry favour (often called "political considerations") dictated otherwise. Consequently, what is given can no longer honestly be called economic aid; it is charity. The beggars may eat better from time to time, but they will remain beggars. The epitaph on the "economic aiders" might well be: "They could have created oases; they sprinkled the desert instead"