You think so? In most estimates of PPP GDP, Burundi comes in last with ~700-800 per capita, which Afghanistan coming up about 10-15 slots higher, at ~$2k per capita.Originally Posted by Loki
Granted, the estimates will probably be revised downwards quite a bit with the effective withdrawal of foreign aid and freezing the former government's foreign assets. But it seems like some int'l aid is still flowing and there's a healthy off-the-books economy that has sustained the Taliban for decades. I honestly am not sure that Afghanistan is the 'worst' off, though they're certainly on the list.
I'm not looking for argument about specific countries or regions, though - we all can probably list the top 50 best recipients of aid, but the logistics of getting money to a good local partner is challenging outside of the biggest donors. I'm more interested in sectors of aid and ways of distributing it. Let's say that we think that the pneuomococcal vaccine is the most important aid priority in the world right now. It'll be damned hard to fund a pneumococcal vaccine push in a country that is not currently doing it, but I could decide to give $$ to, say, WHO or GAVI - which will decide on the disbursement of the aid geographically and temporally. But maybe they're not doing it right! Or maybe I decide it's food aid - is the WFP the best way to do it, or are we worried about screwing with local agricultural production and want to favor a different approach?
It's not as straightforward as saying 'just give it to X country' or 'just give it to X cause'. What's the combination of organization, cause, region, etc. that results in the best use of a marginal dollar?
Reply With Quote