Congressionally Mandated Robbery on the High Seas

I just want to give a quick shout-out to Christopher Barrett and his Cornell University colleagues for their new study of the outdated and costly cargo preference requirements in U.S. food aid policy. This is a clear example of the importance (and unintended consequences) of the organization and implementation of U.S. foreign assistance programs.They estimate that the requirement to ship a portion of U.S. food aid on U.S.-flagged ships costs taxpayers nearly $150 million in 2006 (roughly equal to the 2006 value of non-emergency food aid to Africa), robbing the development budget, but with little or no benefit in terms of national security interests.I wrote about the costly inefficiencies in U.S. food aid in my book on the Doha Round agricultural negotiations several years ago. This report adds new evidence of the urgent need for reform. You can get a preview of their conclusions from their Washington Post op-ed this morning and there will be a discussion with the authors at the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa next week.Particularly in today’s political and economic environment, reforming cargo preferences for food aid seems to be a win-win for both political parties, American taxpayers, and aid recipients.