Aid received, per capita, in 2007, in $ of Official Development Assistance per person. Note that grey countries can either be non-recipients or ones for which data is unavailable. The data were converted into dollars using exchange rates, hence may not accurately reflect the purchasing power of the foreign aid received.^[1]

In international relations, aid (also known as international aid, overseas aid, or foreign aid) is a voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another, given at least partly with the objective of benefiting the recipient country.^[2] It may have other functions as well: it may be given as a signal of diplomatic approval, or to strengthen a military ally, to reward a government for behaviour desired by the donor, to extend the donor's cultural influence, to provide infrastructure needed by the donor for resource extraction from the recipient country, or to gain other kinds of commercial access.^[3] Humanitarianism and altruism are, nevertheless, significant motivations for the giving of aid.^[4]

Aid may be given by individuals, private organisations, or governments. Standards delimiting exactly the kinds of transfers that count as aid vary. For example, aid figures may or may not include transfers for military use: to cite one instance, the United States included military assistance in its aid figure until 1957 but no longer does.^[5] The most widely used measure of aid, "Official Development Assistance" (ODA) is such a figure. It is compiled by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The United Nations, the World Bank, and many scholars use the DAC's ODA figure as their main aid figure because it is easily available and reasonably consistently calculated over time and between countries.^[6] The DAC consists of 22 of the wealthiest Western industrialised countries plus the EU; it is a forum in which they coordinate their aid policies.

Types[link]

Humanitarian aid[link]

Humanitarian aid or emergency aid is rapid assistance given to people in immediate distress by individuals, organisations, or governments to relieve suffering, during and after man-made emergencies (like wars) and natural disasters. The term often carries an international connotation, but this is not always the case. It is often distinguished from development aid by being focussed on relieving suffering caused by natural disaster or conflict, rather than removing the root causes of poverty or vulnerability.

U.S. Soldiers unload humanitarian aid for distribution to the town of Rajan Kala, Afghanistan, Dec. 5, 2009

The provision of humanitarian aid or humanitarian response consists of the provision of vital services (such as food aid to prevent starvation) by aid agencies, and the provision of funding or in-kind services (like logistics or transport), usually through aid agencies or the government of the affected country. Humanitarian aid is distinguished from humanitarian intervention, which involves armed forces protecting civilians from violent oppression or genocide by state-supported actors.

The Geneva Conventions give a mandate to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other impartial humanitarian organizations to provide assistance and protection of civilians during times of war. The ICRC, has been given a special role by the Geneva Conventions with respect to the visiting and monitoring of prisoners of war.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is mandated to coordinate the international humanitarian response to a natural disaster or complex emergency acting on the basis of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/182.

The Sphere Project handbook, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, which was produced by a coalition of leading non-governmental humanitarian agencies, lists the following principles of humanitarian action:

1. The right to live with dignity.
2. The distinction between combatant and non-combatants.
3. The principle of non-refoulement.

Development aid[link]

Official Development Assistance (ODA) measured in GNI in 2009. Source: OECD

Development aid is aid given by developed countries to support development in general which can be economic development or social development in developing countries. It is distinguished from humanitarian aid as being aimed at alleviating poverty in the long term, rather than alleviating suffering in the short term.

Official Development Assistance (ODA), mentioned above, is a commonly used measure of developmental aid. Development aid is given by governments through individual countries' international aid agencies and through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, and by individuals through development charities such as ActionAid, Caritas, Care International or Oxfam.

The offer to give development aid has to be understood in the context of the Cold War. The speech in which Harry Truman announced the foundation of NATO is also a fundamental document of development policy:

In addition, we will provide military advice and equipment to free nations which will cooperate with us in the maintenance of peace and security. Fourth, we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people.

Sources[link]

Aid from various sources can reach recipients through bilateral or multilateral delivery systems. Bilateral refers to government to government transfers. Multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank or UNICEF, pool aid from one or more sources and disperse it among many recipients.

• Official Development Assistance (ODA): Development aid provided to developing countries (on the "Part I" list) with the clear aim of economic development
• Official Aid (OD): Development aid provided to developed countries (on the "Part II" list) and international organizations
• Other Official Flows (OOF): Aid which does not fall into the other two categories, either because it is not aimed at development, or it consists of more than 75% loan (rather than grant).

Aid is often pledged at one point in time, but disbursements (financial transfers) might not arrive until later.

Private giving[link]

Private giving includes aid from charities, philanthropic organizations or businesses to recipient countries or programs within recipient counties.

What is excluded[link]

Most monetary flows between nations are not counted as aid. These include market based flows such as foreign direct investments and portfolio investments. Remittances from migrant workers to their home countries are not counted in aid numbers even though, by volume, it is twice as large as what is counted as aid.^[7] Additionally, military support is not counted.

Receiving aid[link]

Types[link]

• Project aid: Aid is given for a specific purpose e.g. building materials for a new school.
• Programme aid: Aid is given for a specific sector e.g. funding of the education sector of a country.
• Budget support: A form of Programme Aid that is directly channelled into the financial system of the recipient country.
• Sector-wide Approaches (SWAPs): A combination of Project aid and Programme aid/Budget Support e.g. support for the education sector in a country will include both funding of education projects (like school buildings) and provide funds to maintain them (like school books).
• Technical assistance: Educated personnel, such as doctors are moved into developing countries to assist with a program of development. Can be both programme and project aid.
• Food aid: Food is given to countries in urgent need of food supplies, especially if they have just experienced a natural disaster. Food aid can be provided by importing food from the donor, buying food locally, or providing cash.
• International research, such as research that went into the green revolution and many vaccines.

Aid conditionality[link]

A major proportion of aid from donor nations is tied, mandating that a receiving nation spend on products and expertise originating only from the donor country. ^[8] For example, Eritrea is forced to spend aid money on foreign goods and services to build a network of railways even though it is cheaper to use local expertise and resources.^[8] US law requires food aid be spent on buying food at home, instead of where the hungry live, and, as a result, half of what is spent is used on transport.^[9] Oxfam America and American Jewish World Service report that reforming US food aid programs could extend food aid to an additional 17.1 million people around the world.^[10]

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as primary holders of developing countries' debt, attach structural adjustment conditionalities to loans which generally include the elimination of state subsidies and the privatization of state services. For example, the World Bank presses poor nations to eliminate subsidies for fertilizer even while many farmers cannot afford them at market prices.^[11] In the case of Malawi, almost five million of its 13 million people used to need emergency food aid. However, after the government changed policy and subsidies for fertilizer and seed were introduced, farmers produced record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007 as production leaped to 3.4 million in 2007 from 1.2 million in 2005, making Malawi a major food exporter.^[11] In the former Soviet states, the reconfiguration of public financing in their transition to a market economy called for reduced spending on health and education, sharply increasing poverty.^[12][13][14]

Criticism of aid[link]

Aid is seldom given from motives of pure altruism; for instance it is often given as a means of supporting an ally in international politics. It may also be given with the intention of influencing the political process in the receiving nation. Whether one considers such aid helpful may depend on whether one agrees with the agenda being pursued by the donor nation in a particular case. During the conflict between communism and capitalism in the twentieth century, the champions of those ideologies, the Soviet Union and the United States, each used aid to influence the internal politics of other nations, and to support their weaker allies. Perhaps the most notable example was the Marshall Plan by which the United States, largely successfully, sought to pull European nations toward capitalism and away from communism. Aid to underdeveloped countries has sometimes been criticized as being more in the interest of the donor than the recipient, or even a form of neocolonialism.^[15]

Marshall Plan aid to Germany, West Berlin, 1949

S.K.B'. Asante lists some specific motives a donor may have for giving aid: defense support, market expansion, foreign investment, missionary enterprise, cultural extension.^[16] In recent decades, aid by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank has been criticized as being primarily a tool used to open new areas up to global capitalists, and being only secondarily, if at all, concerned with the wellbeing of the people in the recipient countries.

Besides criticism of motive, aid may be criticized simply on the grounds that it is not effective: i.e., it did not do what it was intended to do or help the people it was intended to help. This is essentially an economic criticism of aid. The two types of criticism are not entirely separate: critics of the ideology behind a piece of aid are likely to see it as ineffective; and indeed, ineffectiveness must imply some flaws in the ideology. Statistical studies have produced widely differing assessments of the correlation between aid and economic growth, and no firm consensus has emerged to suggest that foreign aid generally does boost growth. Some studies find a positive correlation, but others find either no correlation or a negative correlation. In the case of Africa, Asante (1985) gives the following assessment:

Summing up the experience of African countries both at the national and at the regional levels it is no exaggeration to suggest that, on balance, foreign assistance, especially foreign capitalism, has been somewhat deleterious to African development. It must be admitted, however, that the pattern of development is complex and the effect upon it of foreign assistance is still not clearly determined. But the limited evidence available suggests that the forms in which foreign resources have been extended to Africa over the past twenty-five years, insofar as they are concerned with economic development, are, to a great extent, counterproductive.^[17]

The economist William Easterly and others have argued that aid can often distort incentives in poor countries in various harmful ways. Aid can also involve inflows of money to poor countries that have some similarities to inflows of money from natural resources that provoke the resource curse.^[18][19]

Many individuals^[20] and organizations criticize U.S. Aid. Emergency funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, for instance, are linked to a wide range of free-market policy prescriptions that some argue interfere in a country's sovereignty. Policy prescriptions from outsiders can do more harm as they might not fit the local environment. The IMF can be good at helping countries over a short problematic financial period, but for poor countries with long lasting issues it can cause harm.^{[citation needed]} In his book The White Man's Burden, Easterly argued that if the IMF only gave adjustment loans to countries that can repay it, instead of forgiving debts or lending repetitively even if conditions are not met, it would maintain its credibility.

In addition to the above criticisms, the logistics in which aid delivery occurs can be problematic. An earthquake in 2003 in Bam, Iran left tens of thousands of people in need of disaster zone aid. Although aid was flown in rapidly, regional belief systems, cultural backgrounds and even language seemed to have been omitted as a source of concern. Items such as religiously prohibited pork, and non-generic forms of medicine that lacked multilingual instructions came flooding in as relief. An implementation of aid can easily be problematic, causing more problems than it solves.^[21]

James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist, has argued that foreign aid causes harm to the recipient nations, specifically because aid is distributed by local politicians, finances the creation of corrupt government such as that led by Dr Fredrick Chiluba in Zambia bureaucracies, and hollows out the local economy. In an interview in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Shikwati uses the example of food aid delivered to Kenya in the form of a shipment of corn from America. Portions of the corn may be diverted by corrupt politicians to their own tribes, or sold on the black market at prices that undercut local food producers. Similarly, Kenyan recipients of donated Western clothing will not buy clothing from local tailors, putting the tailors out of business.^[22] In an episode of 20/20, John Stossel demonstrated the existence of secret government bank accounts which concealed foreign aid money destined for private purposes.

Some believe that aid is offset by other economic programs such as agricultural subsidies. Mark Malloch Brown, former head of the United Nations Development Program, estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about US$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports:

"It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs developing countries about US$50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports. Fifty billion dollars is the equivalent of today's level of development assistance."^[23][24]

Some have argued that the major international aid organizations have formed an aid cartel.^[25]

In response to aid critics, a movement to reform U.S. foreign aid has started to gain momentum. In the United States, leaders of this movement include the Center for Global Development, Oxfam America, the Brookings Institution, InterAction, and Bread for the World. The various organizations have united to call for a new Foreign Assistance Act, a national development strategy, and a new cabinet-level department for development.^[26]

Beyond aid[link]

As a result of these numerous criticisms, other proposals for supporting developing economies and poverty stricken societies. Some analysts, such as researchers at the Overseas Development Institute, argue that current support for the developing world suffers from a policy incoherence and that while some policies are designed to support the third world, other domestic policies undermine its impact,^[27] examples include:

• encouraging developing economies to develop their agriculture with a focus on exports is not effective on a global market where key players, such as the US and EU, heavily subsidise their products
• providing aid to developing economies' health sectors and the training of personnel is undermined by migration policies in developed countries that encourage the migration of skilled health professionals

One measure of this policy incoherence is the Commitment to Development Index (CDI) published by the Center for Global Development . The index measures and evaluates 22 of the world's richest countries on policies that affect developing countries, in addition to simply aid. It shows that development policy is more than just aid; it also takes into account trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology.

Thus, some states are beginning to go Beyond Aid and instead seek to ensure there is a policy coherence, for example see Common Agricultural Policy reform or Doha Development Round. This approach might see the nature of aid change from loans, debt cancellation, budget support etc., to supporting developing countries. This requires a strong political will, however, the results could potentially make aid far more effective and efficient.^[27]

Aid inefficiencies and possible improvements[link]

Aid destinations[link]

It is true that aid is rarely given for motives of pure altruism. However, it is important to look at where aid goes. For example, “only about one fifth of U.S. aid goes to countries classified by the OECD as ‘least developed.’”^[28] This “pro-rich” trend is not unique to the United States.^[28][29] According to Collier, “the middle income countries get aid because they are of much more commercial and political interest than the tiny markets and powerlessness of the bottom billion.”^[30] What this means is that, at the most basic level, aid is not targeting the most extreme poverty.^[28][29]

The form of aid must also be considered. The World Bank, until recently, issued only loans, meaning that the country must repay both the loan and the interest rates. In contrast, the European Commission issues grants, which countries need not worry about paying back. This means that “loans have been going to the poorest countries and the grants to the middle-income countries.”^[30]

Furthermore, consider the breakdown, where aid goes and for what purposes. In 2002, total gross foreign aid to all developing countries was $76 billion. Dollars that do not contribute to a country’s ability to support basic needs interventions are subtracted. Subtract $6 billion for debt relief grants. Subtract $11 billion, which is the amount developing countries paid to developed nations in that year in the form of loan repayments. Next, subtract the aid given to middle income countries, $16 billion. The remainder, $43 billion, is the amount that developing countries received in 2002. But only $12 billion went to low-income countries ($15 billion for all developing countries) in a form that could be deemed budget support for basic needs.^[29]

When aid is given to the Least Developed Countries who have good governments and strategic plans for the aid, it is thought that it is more effective.^[29]

Aid outcomes and implications[link]

The basic criticism of aid is that it neither goes where it was intended nor helps those intended. According to Collier, there are four known traps that contribute this problem. The first such trap is known as the conflict trap. Aid should not be used to finance military endeavors. It is difficult to “design aid in such a way that it works even in the environments of poor governance and poor policy that are most at risk of conflict.”^[30] The second trap is called the natural resource trap. Countries that are resource rich already have a large volume of capital flowing into their economies. However, it is not being used to its potential. The third trap occurs when a country is entirely landlocked, making it difficult for the country to engage in global trade.^[30]

The fourth trap is that of bad governance. However, “there are three ways in which aid can potentially help turnarounds: incentives, skills, and reinforcement.”^[30] Policy conditionalities, or structural adjustments, were reservations put on aid until a government agreed to aid implemented in the 1980s. This did not work. Aid needs to somehow provide incentives for giving the people power. Power needs to be transferred from the governments to the people.^[30] Aid should be restructured in order to allow for skills building in country. According to Collier, “technical assistance is not negligible – money spent on countries with the skilled people who constitute technical assistance is a quarter of total aid flows.”^[30] The problem is not that too little money is being provided, rather that technical assistance is not country specific. Aid is also given as budget support, reinforcement for failing states. There is an opportune moment for assisting failing states but it must be done at the right time. Aid cannot be continually poured into failing states and be expected to produce a turnaround. However if aid is given at the opportune political moment, it can support turnarounds. Collier suggests that when that moment occurs “pour in the technical assistance as quickly as possible to help implement reform” and “then, after a few years, start pouring in the money for the government to spend.”^[30]

Actual impact[link]

Peter Singer argues that over the last three decades, “aid has added around one percentage point to the annual growth rate of the bottom billion.” He argues that this has made the difference between “stagnation and severe cumulative decline.”^[28] Aid can make progress towards reducing poverty worldwide, or at least help prevent cumulative decline.

Improving the economic efficiency of aid[link]

Currently, donor institutions make proposals for aid packages to recipient countries. The recipient countries then make a plan for how to use the aid based on how much money has been given to them. Alternatively, NGO's receive funding from private sources or the government, and then implement plans to end their specific issues. In the views of many scholars, this system is inherently ineffective.^[29] If we hope to eliminate poverty, we must reexamine how we distribute funding, and how we attack problems.

According to Sachs, we should redefine how we think of aid. The first step should be to learn what developing countries hope to accomplish and how much money they need to accomplish those goals. Goals should be made with the Millennium Development Goals in mind for these furnish real metrics for providing basic needs. The “actual transfer of funds must be based on rigorous, country-specific plans that are developed through open and consultative processes, backed by good governance in the recipient countries, as well as careful planning and evaluation.”^[29]

Possibilities are also emerging as some developing countries are experiencing rapid economic growth, they are able to provide their own expertise gained from their recent transition. This knowledge transfer can be seen in donors, such as Brazil, whose $1 billion in aid outstrips that of many traditional donors.^[31] Brazil provides most of its aid in the form of technical expertise and knowledge transfers.^[31] This has been descried by some observers as a 'global model in waiting'.^[32]

Various academic theories[link]

Since the 1960s, improving the efficiency of foreign aid has been a common topic of academic research. There is debate on whether foreign aid is efficacious, but for the purposes of this article we will ignore that. Given that schema, a common debate is over which factors influence the overall economic efficiency of foreign aid. Indeed, there is debate about whether aid impact should be measured empirically at all, but again, we will limit our scope to increasing the economic efficiency.

Philosophy[link]

At the forefront of the aid debate has been the conflict between professor William Easterly of New York University ^[33] and his ideological opposite, Jeffrey Sachs, from Columbia University. Easterly advocates the "searcher's" approach, while Sachs advocates a more top down, broad planned approach. We will discuss both of these at length.^[34]

“Searchers Approach”[link]

William Easterly offers a nontraditional, and somewhat controversial “searching” approach to solving poverty, as opposed to the “planned” approach in his famous critique of the more traditional Owen/Sachs, The White Man’s Burden. Traditional poverty reduction, Easterly claims is based on the idea that we know what is best for those countries, which are impoverished. He claims that they know what’s best. Having a top down “master plan,” he claims, is inefficient. His alternative, called the “Searchers” approach, uses a bottom up strategy. That is, this approach starts by surveying the poor in the countries in question, and then tries to directly aid individuals, rather than governments. Local markets are a key incentive structure. The primary example is of Mosquito nets in Malawi. In this example, an NGO sells Mosquito nets to rich Malawians, and uses the profits to subsidize cheap sales to the impoverished. Hospital nurses are used as middle-women, profiting a few cents on every net sold to a patient. This incentive structure has seen the usage of nets in Malawi spike over 40% in less than 7 years.^[35]

Aspects of “Searcher’s Approach”[link]

Bottom up philosophy[link]

One of the central tenets in Easterly’s approach is a more bottom up philosophy of aid. This applies not only to the identification of problems, but to the actual distribution of capital to the areas in need. In effect, Easterly would have countries go to the area which needed aid, collect information about the problem, find out what the population wanted, and then work from there. In keeping with this, funds would also be distributed from the bottom up, rather than being given to a specific government.^[35]

Utilize aid organizations, and local frameworks[link]

Easterly also advocates working through currently existing Aid organizations, and letting them compete for funding. Utilizing preexisting national organizations and local frameworks would not only help give target populations a voice in implementation and goal setting, but is more efficient economically. Easterly argues that the preexisting frameworks already "know" what the problems are, as opposed to outside NGOs who tend to "guess". ^[35]

Aid individuals, not governments[link]

Easterly strongly discourages aid to government as a rule. He believes, for several reasons, that aid to small “bottom up” organizations and Individual groups is a better philosophy than to large governments.^[35]

Independent evaluation[link]

Easterly states that for far too long, inefficient aid organizations have been funded, and that this is a problem. The current system of evaluation for most aid organizations is internal. Easterly claims that the process is biased because organizations have a large incentive to represent their progress in a positive light. What he proposes as an alternative is an independent auditing system for aid organizations. Before receiving funding, the organization would state their goals and how they expect to measure and achieve them. If they do not meet their goals, Easterly proposes we shift our funding to organizations who are successful. This would prompt organizations to either become efficient, or obsolete.^[35]

Compartmentalized goals[link]

Easterly believes that aid goals should be small. In his opinion, one of the main failings of aid lies in the fact that we create large, utopian lists of things we hope to accomplish, without the means to actually see them to fruition. Rather than establish a utopian vision for a particular country, Easterly insists that we shift our focus to the most basic needs and improvements.If we feed, clothe, vaccinate, build infrastructure, and support markets, the macroscopic results will follow.^[35]

Use the market[link]

The “Searching Approach” is intrinsically tied to the market. Easterly claims that the only way for poverty to truly end is for the poor to be given the capability to lift themselves out of poverty, and then for it to happen. Philosophically, this sounds like the traditional “bootstrap” theory, but it isn’t. What he says is that the poor should be given the fiscal support to create their market, which would give them the ability to become self reliant in the future.^[35]

Ideas[link]

In the end of his book, Easterly proposes a voucher system for foreign aid. The poor would be distributed a certain amount of vouchers, which would act as currency, redeemable to aid organizations for services, medicines, and the like. These vouchers would then be redeemed by the aid organizations for more funding. In this way, the aid organization would be forced to compete, if by proxy.^[35]

Proscriptive "Ladder Approach"[link]

Sachs presents a near dichotomy to Easterly. Sachs presents a broad, proscriptive solution to poverty. In his book, The End of Poverty, he explains how throughout history, countries have ascended from poverty by following a relatively simple model. First, you promote agricultural development, then industrialize, embrace technology, and finally become modern. This is the standard “western” model of development that has been followed by countries such as China and India. Sachs main idea is that there should have a broad analytical “checklist” of things a country must attain before it can reach the next step on the ladder to development. Western nations should donate a percentage of their GDP as determined by the UN, and pump money into helping impoverished countries climb the ladder. Sachs insists that if followed, his strategy would eliminate poverty by 2025.

^[36]

Top down[link]

Sachs advocates using a top down methodology, utilizing broad ranging plans developed by external aid organizations like the UN and World Bank. To Sachs, these plans are essential to a coherent and timely eradication of poverty.He surmises that if donor and recipient countries follow the plan, they will be able to climb out of poverty.

^[36]

Use external framework[link]

Part of Sachs’ philosophy includes strengthening the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the United Nations. If those institutions are given the power to enact change, and freed from mitigating influences, then they will be much more effective. Sachs does not find fault in the international organizations themselves. Instead, he blames the member nations who compose them. The powerful nations of the world must make a commitment to end poverty, then stick to it.

^[36]

Aid through existing governments[link]

Sachs believes it is best to empower countries by utilizing their existing governments, rather than trying to circumnavigate them. He remarks that while the corruption argument is logically valid in that corruption harms the efficiency of aid, levels of corruption tend to be much higher on average for countries with low levels of GDP. He contends that this hurdle in government should not disqualify entire populations for much needed aid from the west.

^[36]

Self evaluation[link]

Sachs does not see the need for independent evaluators, and sees them as a detractor to proper progress. He argues that many facets of aid cannot be effectively quantified, and thus it is not fair to try to put empirical benchmarks on the effectiveness of aid.^[36]

Optimism[link]

Sachs’ view makes it a point to attack and attempt to disprove many of the ideas that the more “pessimistic” Easterly stands on.

First, he points to economic freedom. One of the common threads of logic In aid is that countries need to develop economically in order to rise from Poverty. On this, there is not a ton of debate. However, Sachs contends that Easterly, and many other neo-Liberal economists believe high levels of Economic freedom in these emerging markets is almost a necessity to Development. Sachs himself does not believe this. He cites the lack of Correlation between the average degrees of Economic Freedom in countries And their yearly GDP growth, which in his data set is completely Inconclusive.

Also, Sachs contends that democratization is not an integral part of having Efficient aid distribution. Rather than attach strings to our aid dollars, or only Working with democracies or “good governments”, Sachs believes we should Consider the type of government in the needy country as a secondary Concern.

Sachs’ entire approach stands on the assertion that abject poverty could be Ended worldwide by 2025.^[36]

Economic efficiency[link]

David Dollar[link]

Dollar/Collier showed that current allocations of aid are allocated inefficiently. They came to the conclusion that aid money is given in many cases as an incentive to change policy, and for political reasons, which in many cases can be less efficient than the optimal condition. They agree that bad policy is detrimental to economic growth, which is a key component of poverty reduction, but have found that aid dollars do not significantly incentivize governments to change policy. In fact, they have negligible impact. As an alternative, Dollar proposes that aid be funneled more towards countries with “good” policy and less than optimal amounts of aid for their massive amounts of poverty. With respect to “optimal amounts” Dollar calculated the marginal productivity of each additional dollar of foreign aid for the countries sampled, and saw that some countries had very high rates of marginal productivity (each dollar went further), while others [with particularly high amounts of aid, and lower levels of poverty] had low [and sometimes negative] levels of marginal productivity. In terms of economic efficiency, aid funding would be best allocated towards countries whose marginal productivities per dollar were highest, and away from those countries who had low to negative marginal productivities. The conclusion was that while an estimated 10 million people are lifted from poverty with current aid policies, that number could be increased to 19 million with efficient aid allocation.^[37]

Dalgaard[link]

In a followup study to Collier, Dalgaard finds that regardless of policies and utility, aid seems to be less efficient per dollar in the tropics. He states that aid dollars are likely to be just as effective anywhere, so there must be a mitigating externality that is not being accounted for.^[38]

“New Conditionality”[link]

New Conditionality is the term used in a paper to describe somewhat of a compromise between Dollar and Hansen. Paul Mosely describes how policy is important, and that aid distribution is improper. However, unlike Dollar, “New Conditionality” claims that the most important factors in efficiency of aid are income distributions in the recipient country and corruption.^[39]

McGillivray[link]

One of the problems in foreign aid allocation is the marginalization of the fragile state. The fragile state, with its high volatility, and risk of failure scares away donors. The people of those states feel harm and are marginalized as a result. Additionally, the fate of neighboring states is important, as economies of the directly adjacent states to those impoverished, volatile “fragile states” can be negatively impacted by as much as 1.6% of their GDP per year. This is no small figure. McGillivray advocates for the reduced volatility of aid flows, which can only be attained through analysis and coordination.^[40]

Beynon[link]

Beynon revisits Collier/Dollar’s “efficient aid allocation” and finds much of the same results, although he believes that the model needs to be more robust, with more samplings, and take into account other Millennium Development Goals.^[41]

Aid conditionality[link]

Aid often comes with conditions on its allocation. This is called Aid Conditionality. The two types of conditionality are Outcome and Process based conditionality. Outcome conditionality ties aid to a certain goal, while process conditionality ties aid to a certain method of implementation. These two forms of conditionality are often seen together. The problem with aid conditionality is that it not only restricts the local legislatures in how they shape their own country, but often removes local populations from the goal setting and decision making process entirely.^[42]

Academic research has shown that in many instances, aid is conditionally tied due to political motives, rather than notions of proper policy and implementation.

The European Union double standard of trade policy mentioned above is more illustrated in its trade with Latin America. In their April 2002 publication,Oxfarm Report reveals that aid tied to trade Liberalization by the donor countries such as the EU with the aim of achieving economic objective is becoming detrimental to developing countries.For example, the EU subsidizes its agricultural sectors in the expense of Latin America who must liberalize trade in order to qualify for aid. Latin America having, a comparative advantage on agriculture and mainly forms its export sector losts $ 4bn annually due to the EU farm subsidy policies. The aid money actually, instead of being used to finance other development infrastructure, ends up being used to fund terms of trade deficit brought about by trade liberalization. This inequalities and many others imposed upon developing countries have actually benefited the donor rather than the recipient.This cases clearly illustrate the evolution of development aid assistance from providing financial resource to fuel development to being a foreign policy tool used by donor countries to promote their domestic interests. while this can be considered controversial issues, addressing them adequately may help attain some effectiveness in development aid assistance goals.

Aid and UNSC votes[link]

Axel Dreher showed that over the period 1951-2004, there was a robust positive relationship between United Nations Security Council membership and participation in Internation Monetary Fund programs. Additionally, conditions placed on Security Council member nations' aid are lower in number and severity. ^[43] Member nations of the UNSC received on average .8 more World Bank loans per year. ^[44]

Aid conditionality and good governance[link]

Seemingly in support of Bill Easterly's searcher's approach, Carlos Santiso found evidence that conditionality is quite harmful to development, and advocates a "radical approach in which donors cede control to the recipient country".

Santiso also argues that neither good governance or democracy is sustainable without the other. ^[45]

See also[link]

• Debt relief
• Disability aid abroad
• Global Food Security Act of 2009
• International Aid Transparency Initiative
• Transparency International
• United States foreign aid

Notes and references[link]

Further reading[link]

• Moyo, Dambisa (2010). Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-103118-7. 
• Riddell, Roger C. (2008). Does Foreign Aid Work?. Oxford University Press. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/97801995444462|97801995444462]]. 
• Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak (2007). Making Aid Work. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02615-4. 
• Calderisi, Robert (2006). The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid Isn't Working. Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-7125-0. 
• Easterly, William (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Effort to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin. ISBN 1-59420-037-8. 
• Lancaster, Carol; Ann Van Dusen (2005). Organizing Foreign Aid: Confronting the Challenges of the 21st Century. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-5113-3. 
• Oxfam America (2008). Smart Development: Why US foreign aid demands major reform. Oxfam America, Inc.. http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/publications/briefing_papers/smart-development. 
• Sogge, David (2002). Give and Take: What's the Matter with Foreign Aid?. Zed Books. ISBN 1-84277-069-1. 
• [5] The cartel of good intentions, Foreign Policy, Washington, Jul/Aug 2002, Authors: William Easterly, Issue: 131, Pagination: 40-49, ISSN: 00157228

External links[link]

Rand Paul
United States Senator from Kentucky
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011 Serving with Mitch McConnell
Preceded by	Jim Bunning
Personal details
Born	Randal Howard Paul (1963-01-07) January 7, 1963 (age 49) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Kelley Ashby Paul (m. 1990)
Relations	Ron Paul Carol Wells Paul (parents)
Children	William, Robert, and Duncan
Residence	Bowling Green, Kentucky
Alma mater	Baylor University (1981–1984) Duke University (M.D., 1988)
Occupation	Ophthalmologist (Physician), Politician
Religion	Presbyterian[1] (baptized Episcopalian)
Website	paul.senate.gov Rand Paul 2010

Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party. A member of the Tea Party movement, he describes himself as a "constitutional conservative"^[2] and a libertarian.^[3] He is the son of Republican Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas and had never previously held political office. Paul first received national attention in 2008 when making political speeches on behalf of his father. Rand Paul is the first United States Senator in history to serve alongside a parent in the United States House of Representatives.

A graduate of the Duke University School of Medicine, Paul has been a practicing ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, Kentucky, since 1993, and established his own clinic in December 2007. In 1994, he founded Kentucky Taxpayers United, of which he is still the chairman.^[4]

In 2010, Paul ran as the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky and defeated Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. As a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Paul has been vocal in advocating for term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.^[5]

Early life and education[link]

Paul at a rally in Erlanger, Kentucky, on October 2, 2010, along with his father, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, and his son, William Paul.

Randal Howard Paul^[6] was born on January 7, 1963, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul. Paul's father is a physician and U.S. Representative of Texas's 14th congressional district. The middle child of five, his siblings are Ronald "Ronnie" Paul Jr., Lori Paul Pyeatt, Robert Paul and Joy Paul-LeBlanc.^[7] Paul was baptized in the Episcopal Church^[8] and identified as a practicing Christian as a teenager.^[9] Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,^[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.^[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".^[9][12][13]

The Paul family moved to Lake Jackson, Texas, in 1968,^[11][14] where Rand was raised^[15][16] and his father began his medical practice and for an extent of time was the only obstetrician in Brazoria County.^[11][14] When Paul was 13, his father was elected to the United States House of Representatives.^[17] In his teenage years, Paul studied the Austrian economists that his father respected, as well as Ayn Rand.^[11] Paul went to Brazoswood High School and was on the swimming team and played defensive back on the football team.^[9][15] Paul attended Baylor University from fall 1981 to summer 1984. Paul was enrolled in the honors program at Baylor, and had scored approximately in the 90th percentile on the Medical College Admission Test.^[18] During Paul's time at Baylor, he was involved in the swim team and Young Conservatives of Texas and was a member of a secret organization known as the NoZe Brotherhood.^[19] Paul left Baylor early when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.^[18]

Personal life[link]

Paul arriving at the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport on November 1, 2010, in Bowling Green, Kentucky, along with his wife Kelley, sons Duncan and Robert, and a campaign staffer.

In Atlanta, Paul met Kelley Ashby, a Rhodes College English major. Paul and Ashby were married on October 20, 1990, and moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky, less than 30 miles (48 km) from her hometown of Russellville, Kentucky, in 1993.^[20]

Kelley Paul is a freelance writer, and she manages payroll and marketing communications for Paul's surgical practice.^[21] The couple have three sons: William, Duncan and Robert.^[22]

Medical career[link]

Paul has held a state-issued medical license since moving to Bowling Green in 1993.^[23] He received his first job from Dr. John Downing of Downing McPeak Vision Centers, which brought him to Bowling Green after completing his residency. Paul worked for Downing for about five years before parting ways. Afterwards, he went to work at the Graves-Gilbert Clinic, a private medical group in Bowling Green, for 10 years before creating his own practice in a converted one-story house across the street from Downing's office.^[24] After his election to the U.S. Senate, Paul merged his practice with Downing's medical practice.^[25] Paul has had two malpractice lawsuits filed against him since 1993. Paul was cleared in one case and the other was settled for $50,000.^[24] Regardless, his medical work has been praised by Downing and Paul has medical privileges at two Bowling Green hospitals.^[23][24] Paul specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants.^[12]

As a member of the Bowling Green Noon Lions Club, Paul founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic to help provide eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay.^[26] He is a regular presenter at the annual Men's Health and Safety Day conference held by The Medical Center of Bowling Green since 1998.^[27] In 1999 Paul founded the Non-profit organization National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[28]

Board certification[link]

In 2010 the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Paul, who described himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, was not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO).^[23] In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology boards earning his certification under the ABO for a term of one decade. In 1997, after a dispute with the American Board of Ophthalmology over recertification requirements,^[29] Paul, along with 200 ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO).^[30] A spokesperson for the American Board of Medical Specialties stated: "He [Paul] is not board-certified."^[23]

Paul's ABO certification lapsed on December 31, 2005, and Paul has since been certified by the NBO.^[23] ABO administrator Beth Ann Slembarski says that over 95 percent of the nation’s practicing ophthalmologists have American Board of Ophthalmology certification.^[31] Regardless of his additional certifications, Paul has been licensed by the state to practice medicine in Kentucky since 1993, and his license is in good standing with no history of disciplinary action. The Courier-Journal reported: "There is no indication that Paul isn't qualified to practice ophthalmology."^[23]

Political activism[link]

Rand Paul in 2011 speaking at the Night of the Rising Stars.

As founder and chairman of the anti-tax organization Kentucky Taxpayers United (KTU) since 1994, Paul regularly presents "taxpayers' friend" awards to state legislators. KTU, which regards itself as nonpartisan, but is criticized for being ideologically conservative,^[32][33] examines legislator records on taxation and spending to inform voters where their own lawmakers stand on the issues.^[34] Paul's editorial commentary on behalf of KTU has been published and recognized in the Kentucky Post.^[35]

KTU sponsors the Taxpayer's Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, encouraging politicians to pledge publicly to vote uniformly against tax raises.^[35] Nine of fifteen Northern Kentucky legislators signed the pledge,^[36] such as Senator Dick Roeding^[35] and Representative Royce Adams in 1996.^[37] In 2000, these legislators considered a hotel room tax hike (favored by Governor Paul Patton for helping expand the Dr. Albert B. Sabin Convention Center in nearby Cincinnati), even though the increase might "incur the wrath of Paul's group," as two newspapers put it.^[36][38]

Paul stated that Patton's argument for "revenue recovery" was merely a euphemism for taxes^[39] and said that KTU would fight reelection of any pledge-breakers; Adams requested in writing that Paul's group release him from his pledge, stating that it only applied to his first term.^[37] By the close of session in April, the tax increase had failed, although Patton had achieved most of his intended budget; Paul stated legislators were pressured to finalize the budget by deadline rather than to "face accusations of shutting down government."^[40]

Paul often speaks on his father's behalf,^[22][41] and he and his son William attended the third Republican presidential debate of 2007 in New Hampshire, as well as campaigned door-to-door in the state for his father.^[42] At a New Hampshire rally with 250 in attendance (plus 30 members of his own family), Paul repeated a campaign meme by pretending to take a call from Rudy Giuliani during his remarks, and joking that Giuliani needed campaigners and wanted to borrow the Paul family.^[43]

On December 16, 2007, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul spoke at Faneuil Hall in favor of small government principles,^[44] calling for what CNN termed a "modern day revolution."^[45] He continued campaigning across the country for his father in 2008,^[21] traveling as far as Montana.^[26]

Paul has co-authored a book entitled The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Jack Hunter, released on February 22, 2011.^[46] It defends the Tea Party movement.^[47]

Electoral history[link]

Paul in Louisville, November 2009

Primary campaign[link]

In the beginning of 2009, Paul was the focus of an online grassroots movement to draft him in a bid to replace beleaguered Republican Kentucky senator Jim Bunning. The news of his potential candidacy became a topic of national interest and was discussed in the Los Angeles Times^[48] and locally in the Kentucky press.^[49] Commenting on Paul's possible candidacy, Congressman Ron Paul noted that "Should Senator Bunning decide not to run, I think Rand would make a great U.S. Senator."^[50]

On May 1, 2009, Paul officially confirmed that if Bunning, whose fundraising in 2009 has matched his poor numbers in opinion polling for the 2010 election,^[51] declined to seek a third term, he would almost certainly run in the Republican Party primary to succeed him,^[52] and formed an exploratory committee soon after, while still promising to stay out of the race if Bunning had ultimately decided to run for re-election. Paul made this announcement on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, though the news was first broken by a local Kentucky news site.^[53]

On July 28, 2009, Bunning announced that he would not run for re-election, after facing insufficient fundraising. This announcement left only Paul and Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the remaining candidates for the Republican nomination,^[54] with Paul announcing on August 5, 2009 that he would officially run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican. The announcement was made through a series of national TV events, radio, and other programs, as well as through newspapers in Kentucky.^[55][56][57]

Early fundraising success[link]

On August 20, 2009, Paul's grassroots planned a moneybomb to kick off his campaign for United States Senate. The official campaign took in $433,509 in 24 hours.^[58] According to Paul,^[59] This set a new record in Kentucky's political fundraising history in a 24-hour period.

A second "moneybomb" was held on September 23, 2009, to counter a D.C. fundraiser being held for primary opponent Trey Grayson, by 23 Republican United States Senators, 17 of whom voted for the bank bailout.^[60] The theme was a UFC "fight" between Paul and "We the People" vs. Trey Grayson and the "D.C. Insiders."^[61] The money bomb ended up raising $186,276 for Paul in 24 hours on September 23;^[62] bringing Paul's Senate campaign's total raised to over one million. Later in the campaign, Paul claimed his pledge to not take money from lobbyist and Senators who voted for the bailout was only a "primary pledge"^[63] and Paul later held a DC fundraiser with the same Senators who were the target of the September 23, 2009 "moneybomb." Paul ended up raising some $3 million during the primary period.

Primary victory[link]

Rand Paul with then-Senator Jim Bunning.

Although Grayson was considered the frontrunner in July 2009,^[64] Paul found success characterizing Grayson as a "career politician" and challenging Grayson's conservatism. Paul ran an ad in February that made an issue out of Grayson's September 2008 admission that he voted for Bill Clinton when he was 20 years old.^[65] Although the Paul campaign later removed the video from YouTube, Paul's Democratic general election competitor put it back up on October 20 after Paul had taken exception to the Democrat making an issue out of Paul's own college-age actions.^[66] James Dobson, a Christian evangelical figure, endorsed Grayson on April 26 based on the advice of what Dobson described as "senior members of the GOP", but on May 3 the Paul campaign announced that Dobson had changed his endorsement to Paul^[67] after Paul and some Paul supporters had lobbied Dobson insisting on Paul's social conservative bona fides.^[68]

On May 18 Paul won the Republican Senatorial primary by a 23.4% margin,^[69] meaning he would face the Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, in the November 2 general election.^[70]

General campaign[link]

On June 28, 2010, Rand Paul supporters held their first post-primary online fundraising drive, this time promoted as a "money blast."^[71][72]

BP oil spill comments[link]

On May 21, 2010, Paul generated some controversy by characterizing statements made by Obama administration officials regarding the BP oil spill cleanup as sounding "un-American". Paul said:

Paul may have been referring to a statement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who said "our job is basically to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum to carry out the responsibilities that they have, both under the law and contractually to move forward and to stop this spill."^[74] Salazar's remark was later slightly misquoted as "boot on the throat" by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs clarified at the same press conference, when asked if this metaphor did not imply hostility to BP, "I think the President accurately conveyed in his remarks yesterday that we are going to do everything humanly possible, and ensure that BP is doing everything humanly possible, to deal with this as comprehensively and as quickly as they can."^[75]

Private property and civil rights[link]

Paul criticized the Bowling Green Daily News on May 30, 2002 for supporting the Fair Housing Act. He explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."^[76] On May 19, 2010, Paul stated that he favors 9 out of 10 titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but had he been a senator during 1960s, he would have raised some questions on the constitutionality of Title II of the Act, which prohibits private businesses who provide public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or national origin against their customers, arguing that it infringes upon constitutional freedoms. Paul stated on National Public Radio, "I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism".^[77] Paul favors community and neighborhood pressure to persuade private businesses, rather than federal laws that he argued might violate the constitution.^[78] Paul said he abhors racism, and he would have marched with Martin Luther King Jr. to repeal Jim Crow Laws. Paul's comments on Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964 stirred controversy^[79][80][81] and brought concern among Republican party insiders about his viability in the general election.^[80][81] Paul later released a statement declaring that he would have voted for the Act and stated "unequivocally ... that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964".^[82][83] Paul stating that while he "abhors racism," he doesn't like the idea of the federal government determining who a business may serve.^[84] Amid a flurry of controversy, Paul became the first American politician to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press in their 64-year history.^[85] Additionally, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, publicly denounced him, saying that Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act is a "misplaced" philosophy for the 21st Century.^[86]

Paul addressed his feelings about intentions of the legislation relating to public offices, stating that he "overwhelmingly agrees with the intent of the [Civil Rights Act] which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," and that Constitutional challenges to the law have been settled by the courts.^[87]

Endorsements[link]

Paul has secured endorsements from several public figures and political organizations. They include the Downsize DC Foundation,^[88] Concerned Women for America,^[89] Gun Owners of America,^[90] Steve Forbes,^[91] FreedomWorks,^[92] Club for Growth,^[93] James Dobson,^[94] Sarah Palin,^[95] Jim DeMint,^[96] Cathy Bailey,^[97] Jim Bunning,^[98] Erick Erickson,^[99] National Federation of Independent Business,^[100] Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,^[101] National Right to Life,^[102] US Chamber of Commerce,^[103] National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition,^[104] Mike Huckabee,^[105] and Tony Perkins/FRC Action PAC.^[106][107]

U.S. Senate career[link]

Tenure[link]

Paul was sworn in on January 5, 2011 along with his father, marking the first time in congressional history that a child served in the Senate while the parent simultaneously served in the House of Representatives.^[108] He was assigned to serve on the Energy and Natural Resources, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Small Business committees.^[109] Paul also formed the Senate Tea Party Caucus with Jim DeMint and Mike Lee as its inaugural members.^[110] Paul’s first legislative proposal was to cut $500 billion from federal spending in one year. This proposal includes cutting the Department of Education by 83 percent and the Department of Homeland Security by 43 percent, as well as folding the Department of Energy into the Department of Defense and eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Seven independent agencies would be eliminated and food stamps would be cut by 30 percent. Under Paul’s proposal, defense spending would be reduced by 6.5 percent and international aid would be eliminated.^[111] He later proposed a five-year budget plan that he believed would balance the budget.^[112]

In February, Paul was one of two Republicans to vote against extending three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals not linked to terrorist groups).^[113] In May, he remained the last senator opposing the PATRIOT Act, and was ultimately defeated on May 26.^[114]

On March 2, Paul was one of nine senators to vote against a stopgap bill that cut $4 billion from the budget and temporarily prevent a government shutdown, citing that it did not cut enough from the budget.^[115] One week later, Paul voted against the Democratic and Republican budget proposals to keep funding the federal government, citing that both bills did not cut enough spending. Both bills failed to pass the senate.^[116] He later voted against stopgap measures on March 17 and April 8, both of which passed the senate.^[117] On April 14, Paul was one of 19 senators to vote against a budget that cut $38.5 billion from the budget and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year.^[118] Paul voiced opposition to U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war and has criticized President Obama for not gaining congressional consent for Operation Odyssey Dawn.^[119] During the debt ceiling crisis, Paul stated that he would only support raising the debt ceiling if a balanced budget amendment was enacted.^[120] Paul was a supporter of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which was tabled by the Democrats.^[121] On August 3, Paul voted against a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.^[122]

On September 7, Paul called for a vote of no confidence in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.^[123] Later that month, Paul blocked legislation that would strengthen safety rules for oil and gas pipelines because he felt the bill was not strong enough.^[124] In October, Paul blocked a bill that would provide $36 million in benefits for elderly and disabled refugees, saying that he was concerned that it could be used to aid domestic terrorists. This was in response to two alleged terrorists, who came to the United States through a refugee program and were receiving welfare benefits, were arrested in 2011 in Paul’s hometown of Bowling Green.^[125] Paul lifted his hold on the bill after Democratic leaders promised to hold a congressional hearing into how individuals are selected for refugee status and request an investigation on how the two suspects were admitted in the country through a refugee program.^[126]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
  • Subcommittee on Energy
• Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging
• Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight
  • Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
  • Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
• Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Political positions[link]

Paul supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. He has gained prominence for his independent positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republicans and Democrats.^[5]

Abortion and bioethics[link]

Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act.^{[127][128][129]} He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest,^[130] but supports use of the morning-after pill.^[131] He opposes federal funding for abortion.^[128] He takes a states' rights position, favoring the overturn of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to decide on the legality of abortions without federal involvement.^[132]

According to the Paul campaign, Paul received a 100% pro-life score on a Kentucky Right to Life survey^[133] and indicated on the survey that he opposed human cloning. This was disputed by Kentucky Right to Life, however, who endorsed Paul's primary opponent instead and claimed that Paul did not, in fact, answer the cloning question.^[134]

Campaign finance reform[link]

Paul opposes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and has called it a "dangerous piece of legislation".^[135] Instead, he supports regulating the contracts given out by Congress and placing limits on corporations receiving government contracts. Paul opposes legislation limiting the amount of money individuals, corporations, and organizations can give to candidates. Additionally, Paul has proposed "mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract."^[135][136]

Civil liberties[link]

Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless searches and breach of individual privacy.^[137]

Economics and tax cuts[link]

Paul has been a longtime opponent of the bank and auto industry bailouts.

He also opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the money supply and interest rates. He has advocated allowing the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports Congress' constitutional role in controlling the money supply. Paul endorses H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bill, introduced by his father, mandating an audit of the Federal Reserve. Although Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve, he supports transparency and accountability of the semi-private institution. Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports "restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913".^[138]

Paul supports tax cuts and a balanced budget amendment, and has criticized both Republicans and Democrats on deficit spending.^[139]

Education[link]

Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education, but he says that some functions of the Department of Education, such as disbursing student loans and Pell Grants, should be transferred to other departments instead of being eliminated.^[140][141] Paul opposes federal regulation of homeschooling.^[142]

Energy[link]

Paul supports allowing the free market to compete and dictate which forms of energy to use. He opposes subsidizing energy companies, and would support allowing tax breaks for companies that produce alternative energy such as wind, solar, or geothermal. He has said that subsidizing the energy industry will only add incentive for companies to lobby the federal government.^[143]

Health care[link]

Paul opposes federal government involvement in health care. He has stated that he would repeal the HMO Act of 1973 that "drives a wedge between the patient and [one's] doctor".^[144] He believes that government has driven up the cost of health care and causes the quality and coverage to decrease. Paul would support a free market approach to health care, including tax deductions for medical expenses. He opposes federal regulations discouraging businesses from providing coverage. He supports Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).^[144] On Medicare, Paul has suggested higher deductibles as well as changes to premiums or eligibility rules as ways to address what he sees as the program's looming financial problems, saying "You want to have more participation by the person who's receiving the entitlement... by that I mean that they need to be more involved with some sort of economic transaction every time they use their entitlement, and that means they have to bear more of the burden."^[145] Paul also stated that he does not support such changes for current retirees or people nearing retirement.^[145]

Illegal immigration[link]

Paul has proposed adding security to the border by installing an electronic fence and helicopter stations to respond to breaches.^[146] He opposes birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.^[147] Paul has said that courts should review the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," to conclude whether or not it should apply to the children of illegal immigrants. If court challenges fail, Paul would support a constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.^[148]

Medical marijuana[link]

Paul believes the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere.^[149] In August, the Associated Press reported that Paul said he was opposed to the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes,^[150] but the Paul campaign says he was misquoted.^[149] Though Paul describes himself as a "social conservative," he was nonetheless described by the AP reporter as holding "libertarian leanings on drugs" and believing some drug sentences were too harsh.^[150]

Foreign policy and national defense[link]

Paul holds that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, and that the greatest national security threat is the lack of border security. He supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from “about ten rogue nations.” He supports trying terrorists caught on the battlefield in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution.^[151]

During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is "killing more terrorists than it creates." He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq.^[152] He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq and questioned whether the intelligence was manipulated."^[153]

He also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases.^[154]

Same-sex marriage[link]

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the States to decide.^[129]

Second Amendment[link]

Paul would oppose all gun control legislation, a position he says is supported by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[155]

References[link]