A few weeks back, in the first proper post on this blog, I discussed the UK’s decision to make gay rights a key factor in deciding aid receipts. I noted that
- Aid volumes aren’t responsive to different levels of policy/human rights (Clist 2011)
- This means adding another thing to be worried about is plain silly.
- However, the UK are being quite clever, by threatening to alter the type of aid that countries get
- They can to that (Clist, Isopi and Morrissey 2012)
Well, the US have come out and said that they also want to add gay rights to the list of aid conditions (guardian, bbc and nytimes). First, let’s look at some reaction from Rick Perry’s campaign:
“Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money”
NB: he’s falling further behind in the race for the republican nomination. I’m not sure what special rights he means here, as I thought that these were just fairly straight forward rights. Next, Bill Easterly:
“Great: aid to respect rights for gays in poor cos. Next step: respect rights for straights in poor cos”
on twitter (and versions using full words on facebook and G+ no doubt).
My thoughts? Well, the news reports are inconclusive about what this actually means. I certainly wouldn’t expect the US to suddenly vary aid in response to gay rights when it is fairly insensitive to general indicators of policy, and even poverty. Which means one of two things. One, it could be about domestic politics (see Rick Perry quote). Two, this is about part of the on going policy influence that is difficult to measure and so, almost inevitably, widely overestimated or underestimated by various people.
Donors seem to try and use aid to promote multiple contradictory aims, and fail to notice this. Most recipients of aid have noticed this however, and will duly ignore the threats. Which means this news story is probably one you can ignore.
