Os dados não mentem
"Quem ajuda mais no mundo?" Brasileiros se acham bom nisto. Mas o Brasil é um país subdesenvolvido. Então, claro, sobraram os países ricos. E aí? Qual deles ajuda mais os países pobres?
Agradeçam aos EUA, mas não a George Bush. Ele, até os ataques de Bin Laden, caminhava para um isolacionismo crescente. Mas, agora...
Aí vai um trecho da matéria do Washington Post seguido do link para as fontes originais dos dados.
America's improved ranking reflects a series of revealing tweaks to the index. Last year's version counted contributions to multilateral peacekeeping efforts but not other military expenditures; this was unfair, because America frequently mounts solo missions. This year the index counts all peacekeeping and peacemaking operations sanctioned by the United Nations or some other multilateral body, so America's rank in the security category has gone from 18th to 11th.
Equally, America has done better because of the improved measurement of migration. Last year Switzerland did suspiciously well: The country welcomes large numbers of foreign workers with open arms because it needs to offset its energetic policy of booting out immigrants who've been around a bit. By switching from a gross measure of migration to a net one, the new index demotes the Swiss. The United States, on the other hand, now comes in second.
A third tweak responds to a frequent American complaint: that unflattering comparisons between America's aid budget and those of more generous Dutch and Scandinavians unjustly exclude private donations stimulated by U.S. tax incentives. The new index includes private giving attributable to tax breaks. Surprisingly, the impact is modest: The U.S. rank in the aid category rises from 20th to 19th.
The index is arguably still unfair to the United States. In the military category, it excludes U.S. bases in such places as South Korea or American naval protection of sea lanes, even though these boost global security and therefore economic progress. This year's index attempts to credit rich countries that put public money into research that could hasten development, but it does not reward privately funded research, of which the United States has plenty. Third, the index does not weight its components. Aid, a category in which the United States scores poorly, is treated the same as trade or migration, categories in which the United States comes first and second. Yet aid is worth $58 billion a year; remittances from migrants may be worth $80 billion a year; and the World Bank estimates that trade barriers in rich economies cost poor nations more than $100 billion per year.
What of the future? Bush has announced several policies that could improve America's standing. He's promised a Millennium Challenge Account that will eventually transfer $5 billion a year to poor countries with good policies, plus an AIDS initiative that could transfer a further $3 billion. These admirable initiatives could be eclipsed in financial terms by the president's migration proposal, announced earlier this year -- if he ever were to follow through with it. If Bush did something to kick-start the Doha round of trade talks, his claim to be making the world a better place would sound even more persuasive.
Link: The Center for Global Development
"Quem ajuda mais no mundo?" Brasileiros se acham bom nisto. Mas o Brasil é um país subdesenvolvido. Então, claro, sobraram os países ricos. E aí? Qual deles ajuda mais os países pobres?
Agradeçam aos EUA, mas não a George Bush. Ele, até os ataques de Bin Laden, caminhava para um isolacionismo crescente. Mas, agora...
Aí vai um trecho da matéria do Washington Post seguido do link para as fontes originais dos dados.
America's improved ranking reflects a series of revealing tweaks to the index. Last year's version counted contributions to multilateral peacekeeping efforts but not other military expenditures; this was unfair, because America frequently mounts solo missions. This year the index counts all peacekeeping and peacemaking operations sanctioned by the United Nations or some other multilateral body, so America's rank in the security category has gone from 18th to 11th.
Equally, America has done better because of the improved measurement of migration. Last year Switzerland did suspiciously well: The country welcomes large numbers of foreign workers with open arms because it needs to offset its energetic policy of booting out immigrants who've been around a bit. By switching from a gross measure of migration to a net one, the new index demotes the Swiss. The United States, on the other hand, now comes in second.
A third tweak responds to a frequent American complaint: that unflattering comparisons between America's aid budget and those of more generous Dutch and Scandinavians unjustly exclude private donations stimulated by U.S. tax incentives. The new index includes private giving attributable to tax breaks. Surprisingly, the impact is modest: The U.S. rank in the aid category rises from 20th to 19th.
The index is arguably still unfair to the United States. In the military category, it excludes U.S. bases in such places as South Korea or American naval protection of sea lanes, even though these boost global security and therefore economic progress. This year's index attempts to credit rich countries that put public money into research that could hasten development, but it does not reward privately funded research, of which the United States has plenty. Third, the index does not weight its components. Aid, a category in which the United States scores poorly, is treated the same as trade or migration, categories in which the United States comes first and second. Yet aid is worth $58 billion a year; remittances from migrants may be worth $80 billion a year; and the World Bank estimates that trade barriers in rich economies cost poor nations more than $100 billion per year.
What of the future? Bush has announced several policies that could improve America's standing. He's promised a Millennium Challenge Account that will eventually transfer $5 billion a year to poor countries with good policies, plus an AIDS initiative that could transfer a further $3 billion. These admirable initiatives could be eclipsed in financial terms by the president's migration proposal, announced earlier this year -- if he ever were to follow through with it. If Bush did something to kick-start the Doha round of trade talks, his claim to be making the world a better place would sound even more persuasive.
Link: The Center for Global Development
<< Home