WALKING A GROUP of editorial writers through his labs at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health last week, Dr. Nirbhay Kumar was asked the inevitable question about his malaria research.
Why should U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for expensive work on a disease that was long ago brought under control in this country?
He ticked off several reasons, among them the fact that mosquitoes native to North America are among the most effective carriers of malaria. If malaria parasites got a foothold in this country, we could see a resurgence here of a disease that currently plagues half the world's population.
Short of that, plenty of Americans -- military troops, foreign service personnel or private citizens on missions ranging from aid work to business to tourism -- find themselves in parts of the world where they run a high risk of infection. Those are some of the bottom-line considerations for justifying such worthwhile work.
But, for Dr. Kumar, the biggest reason is the most obvious -- the humanitarian impact of controlling a devastating disease.
Earlier this year, the Business Alliance for International Economic Development issued a report titled "Foreign Assistance: What's In It for Americans?" The report noted that foreign assistance represented only about $44 of the average family's federal taxes each year. Assuming four people in the family, the foreign aid share of the budget is only $11 per person, as compared to $220 per family member for health and human services.
Of that $11, about $9 is spent here at home on goods and services made by Americans. From tarps needed for disaster relief and temporary housing to road- building machines or food grown by U.S. farmers, foreign assistance funds help support the domestic economy.
The benefits of good will
Once the aid reaches its destination, the gains multiply, and not just in good will. Effective assistance programs improve living standards, thus creating stronger markets for American products. "The bottom line is that our assistance programs foster an environment in which American trade and investment can prosper in developing nations," says George Ferris, chairman and CEO of Ferris Baker Watts.
Not surprisingly, such arguments prove to be persuasive with many members of Congress, even conservatives inclined to take a dim view of foreign assistance.
Less expected are the results of polls exploring attitudes toward foreign aid. A poll initially conducted in January 1995 and updated this past July found that public opposition to foreign assistance is based on "an extreme overestimation of how much the U.S. spends on foreign aid."
Surprising attitudes
Combined with an extensive review of other poll data, along with focus groups in Baltimore and Portland, Oregon, and open-ended telephone interviews, this study of American attitudes by the Program on International Policy Attitudes has found strong support for maintaining foreign aid at current spending levels, or even higher.
Foreign assistance comprises less than 1 percent of the federal budget. But when asked what they think is an "appropriate amount" to spend on foreign assistance, the median response was 5 percent -- five times more than current levels.
And why do Americans approve of spending money to help poor people in other countries? In the PIPA poll, 80 percent of respondents agreed that the United States should be willing to share at least a small portion of its wealth with those in the world who are in "genuine need."
Even though most respondents agreed that foreign aid is a lower priority than taking care of poor Americans, many also agreed with the sentiment that this country is wealthy enough to do both. This poll didn't dwell so much on market benefits or bottom-line rationales as simply on the feelings of Americans about the right thing to do.
And it brings comforting news to people like Dr. Kumar, who know that vanquishing malaria will save so many lives and prevent so much suffering that the cost of victory will be dwarfed in comparison to the benefits.
Sometimes, despite our obsession with the bottom line, it's important to do the right thing, not for reasons that ultimately speak to our self-interest, but simply because it's the right thing to do.
Sara Engram is deputy editorial page editor of The Sun.
Pub Date: 10/06/96
