Thanks, The NP Mod Team The idea being that by improving the living conditions of many countries, their development reaches a point where you actually give them the means and mechanisms to emigrate from their countries.Off the top of my head, a couple examples would be the waves of Korean immigration to the US.
Thanks, The NP Mod Team The idea being that by improving the living conditions of many countries, their development reaches a point where you actually give them the means and mechanisms to emigrate from their countries.Off the top of my head, a couple examples would be the waves of Korean immigration to the US.How do we know that the money is going where it’s intended to?
While it is not clear what I have two questions:1: Does foreign aid to Central America and Southern Mexico reduce migrant flows to the United States?
2: How is this effect measured, and is there a dispute about its effectiveness? However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources.
It makes sense that immigration would increase from countries where you would need a plane ticket would increase once the average wealth of its citizens increases, but I’m not so sure you can equate that to the countries where the primary form of emigration is by foot.
The same is with China where 299,000 entered the US in 1980 near the start of their economic reforms.
El Salvador2007: 90,000 2008: -20,000 2009: 50,000 2010: 20,000 2011: 50,000 2012: 20,000 2013: No change 2014: 50,000 2015: 50,000Guatemala:2007: -50,000 2008: 75,000 2009: 15,000 2010: -10,000 2011: 60,000 2012: -60,000 2013: 25,000 2014: -10,000 2015: 35,000Honduras:2007: 45,000 2008: 35,000 2009: -15,000 2010: 45,000 2011: -15,000 2012: 50,000 2013: no change 2014: 15,000 2015: 35,000Here’s that data presented so it's actually readable: Aid Disbursements for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador (2007-2017)Honduras, Aid vs. I don't even think it's worth trying to find a correlation in aid and migrant flow in this data because of those factors, and since the data on migrant flow I listed here in flawed, possibly quite heavily.
Even when money is lost due to corruption, some of it does go to projects which improve the situation.
I'd assume governments are aware that much of it is pocketed and decide it's still worth it.
Hi there, It looks like your comment is a top-level reply to the question posed by the OP which does not provide any links to sources.
To answer your question about the effectiveness for foreign aid, I do see answers saying that it is effective, even if some money is lost to unfortunate transaction costs like corruption.
Specifically for migration flow and that effectiveness, I’m having a hard time parsing through these answers and finding what’s truly relevant to the countries in question vs.