Foreign aid to MICs needs 'more sophisticated approach' instead of cuts

"[T]he E.U., the Global Fund [to Fight] AIDS, TB and Malaria, and the World Bank's International Development Association ... want to save money during a fiscal crunch by cutting off aid to middle-income countries (MIC)," Andy Sumner and Amanda Glassman of the Center for Global Development write in the Guardian's "Poverty Matters Blog." However, doing so "means disconnecting foreign aid from most of the world's poor and sick," they write, adding, "At least three factors support the development of a more sophisticated approach."

First, in countries where health spending is controlled by the central government, pockets of the lowest income populations exist and receive a very small portion of health expenditure, they write. Second, donors can support "public spending accountability" in wealthier countries that may "face profound governance and corruption challenges," they state. Third, "value for money may well be higher in MICs, where poverty and disease are concentrated, but where capacity is sufficient -- if motivated and measured -- to deliver results," the authors write, noting donors could establish "a sliding scale on financial contributions" or "support purchasing clubs" for drugs or bed nets through existing multilateral organizations, for example (1/2).