Americans Strongly Support Helping Hungry People 

Phillip S. Warf

 
How do Americans feel about the problem of world hunger? Do they want the U.S. government to try to tackle the problem of hunger? The industrialized countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have set the goal of cutting world hunger in half by the year 2015. 

Are Americans ready to commit to such a goal and to make the necessary sacrifices to carry it out? Are they ready to support long-term development assistance as well as short-term hunger relief? 
These are some of the questions that were explored in a recent study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) that included a nationwide poll of 901 randomly selected adult Americans, focus groups, and a review of polling from other organizations. 

The results were very encouraging for those who would like to see the United States maintain or expand its efforts to stem world hunger. PIPA found overwhelming support for U.S. foreign aid programs aimed at reducing hunger as well as for U.S. participation in an effort to cut world hunger in half by 2015. There was also strong support for aid focused on Africa, where hunger is most pervasive and, in some areas, still on the rise. Support for development assistance was also strong. 

Strong Support for Efforts to Reduce Hunger

Overwhelming majorities support U.S. efforts to alleviate hunger abroad in principle. In the survey, 87 percent favored the U.S. "giving food and medical assistance to people in needy countries." Respondents were also asked to rate reasons for giving aid, as well as forms of aid, on a zero-to-ten scale, with zero being completely negative, 10 being completely positive, and 5 being neutral. The most popular reason for giving aid was to "alleviate hunger", which received a mean score of 7.71, with 77 percent giving a response of 6 or higher. Aid "to help poor countries develop their economies" was next, with a mean score of 6.42; 59 percent gave it a score above 5. With regard to the forms of foreign aid, "child survival programs" received the highest mean score, 7.66, with 76 percent giving it a positive score (i.e., above 5).

By contrast, reasons and forms of aid that stressed strategic goals received much lower marks. "To increase U.S. influence over other countries" was given a  mean score of 4.40, with just 23 percent giving a positive rating. The two forms of aid that ended up at the bottom were "aid to Israel and Egypt", which was given a mean rating of 4.45 and viewed favorably by just 27 percent, and "military aid...to countries that are friendly to the U.S.," which was rated positively by only 25 percent, and earned a mean rating of just 4.26.

Other results show a dramatic trend toward increased support for giving aid for hunger relief relative to other goals. For example, respondents were given three types of countries that might receive U.S. aid and were asked to say which they would select as "most important." "Countries with the poorest economies" was chosen by a solid majority of 59 percent; another 23 percent chose "countries important to U.S. security"; and just 13 percent picked "countries needed by the U.S. as trade partners." This is a dramatic shift from a 1986 poll, when a 44 percent plurality chose countries important for security and only 33% chose countries with the poorest economies.

Similarly, presented two arguments, only 34 percent preferred the one that 
said "we should only send aid to parts of the world where the U.S. has a security interest." However, a strong 63 percent agreed with the argument that "when hunger is a major problem in some part of the world, we should send aid whether or not the U.S. has a security interest in the region."

Other polls have also found strong support for putting a high priority 
on addressing the problems of world hunger and poverty. In a November, 1998 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, given a list of foreign policy goals, 62 percent said that "combating world hunger" should be a "very important" goal for the United States; just 4 percent said it should not be an important goal. This was higher support than for the goal of "maintaining superior military power worldwide" (59 percent very important). 

Attitudes about the current level of spending on hunger-related programs are much more positive than for spending on foreign aid in general. Less than one in four (23%) said they felt the United States spends too much "on efforts to reduce hunger in poor countries," while more than three in five (61%) said the United States spends too much on "foreign aid." Only 20 percent wanted to cut the amount spent to fight hunger, as compared with 40 percent who wanted to cut foreign aid overall.

Support for OECD Plan to Halve World Hunger

The poll contained a series of questions that tested attitudes regarding efforts by the OECD to carry out the 1996 World Food Summit pledge to cut world hunger in half by 2015. We found that an overwhelming majority (83%) supported U.S. participation in this effort. When presented a series of pro and con arguments on the question, the pro arguments did much better than the con arguments (see table). 

Arguments For and Against a Program for Cutting Hunger 

Given the high level of wealth in the industrialized countries, we have a moral responsibility to share some of this wealth to reduce hunger in the world. 

Convincing: 69% 
Unconvincing: 29% 

Because the world is so interconnected today, reducing hunger in the world ultimately serves U.S. interests. It creates more political stability, and by promoting economic growth helps create more markets for U.S. exports. 

Convincing: 64% 
Unconvincing: 33% 

The industrialized countries have huge economies and tremendous 
resources. If they would all chip in, hunger could be cut in half at an 
affordable cost. 

Convincing: 75%
Unconvincing 23% 

It is not the responsibility of countries like the United States to take care of 
the hungry in other parts of the world; that is the responsibility of their governments. 

Convincing: 45%
Unconvincing 52% 

It is unrealistic to try to cut world hunger in half. It would cost more 
money than people in the industrialized countries would be willing to pay. 

Convincing: 42%
Unconvincing 53% 

The causes of hunger in other countries are complex and poorly understood. It is naive to think that outsiders can really make a serious difference 
by throwing money at the problem. 

Convincing: 41%
Unconvincing 55%

Conclusion: So, having heard all these points of view, do you think that, if the other industrialized countries are willing to do their share, the U.S. should or 
should not be willing to commit to a joint plan for cutting world hunger 
in half by the year 2015? 

Should: 83% 
Should Not: 13% 

Perhaps most significant is how Americans feel about paying for a program to cut 
hunger in half. When we asked respondents how much it would cost the average 
taxpayer, the median estimate was $50 a year. To find out how Americans would 
feel about paying a set cost of $50 a year, PIPA in a different November, 2000 
poll asked to assume that "this plan would cost the average taxpayer in the 
industrialized countries $50 a year, and that people in the other countries, as 
well as the U.S., were willing to pay their share." In this case, 75 percent said they 
would be willing to pay $50, and just 19 percent would not. Thus, it is likely that a 
near-unanimous majority would be willing to pay the significantly smaller amount 
that many experts believe would be necessary for a program to cut world hunger 
in half.

Support for Aid to Africa

Consistent with the strong majority support for alleviating hunger and the 
relatively low priority given to strategic interests when thinking about foreign 
aid, Americans would also be likely to respond positively to an aid program 
aimed specifically at Africa. 

In the survey, as with the OECD hunger plan, respondents were presented with strongly stated pro and con arguments on aid to Africa. An overwhelming 72 percent found convincing the argument that "Africa is the continent with the highest percentage of undernourished people, and where hunger is growing the fastest. Therefore, the U.S. should pay special attention to the problem of hunger in Africa" (unconvincing: 26%). 

By a two-to-one margin (65% to 32%), respondents also found convincing the assertion that "Africa has the potential to become a significant market for U.S. trade. Therefore, the U.S. should make an effort to help Africa get on its feet." By contrast, 70 percent rejected as unconvincing the argument that "The U.S. has no vital interests in Africa. Therefore the United States should make Africa a lower priority when deciding where to distribute its aid" (convincing: 24%). 

After having heard all the arguments, respondents were asked if "U.S. aid to 
Africa should be increased, cut, or kept about the same." An overwhelming 81 percent said that aid to the continent should be increased (31%) or kept about the same (50%). Only 12 percent wanted to cut aid to Africa. This is far lower than the 
percentage that wanted to cut foreign aid in general (40%), and even lower than 
the percentage that wanted to cut the amount spent to reduce hunger in poor 
countries (20%). This is particularly striking because a 53 percent majority found 
convincing the argument that "the corruption in the governments of African 
countries is so widespread that U.S. aid does little good there." 

Other recent surveys by Gallup, Newsweek, Harvard University, and CNN/Time have found strong support for aid to Africa and a desire for greater focus on the 
continent, particularly in light of the AIDS crisis there. 

Support For Development Assistance

In addition to supporting efforts to reduce hunger in poor countries, a large 
majority also supports development assistance for such countries. Seventy-three 
percent said they favored "aid that helps needy countries develop their 
economies." As noted above, "helping poor countries develop their economies" was the second-highest-rated reason for giving aid. 

Arguments against development assistance - i.e., that it is ineffective, too 
complicated, or that it simply ends up in the pockets of corrupt officials - do 
not persuade the majority. 

Presented two arguments, only 26 percent agreed with the view that "helping poor 
countries develop their economies is too complicated and we cannot really tell 
if it is doing much good," while 71 percent agreed that, "It is important to help poor 
countries develop their economies so that they can become more self-sufficient." 
An argument against development assistance that stressed the problem of 
corruption did somewhat better, with 39 percent finding convincing the argument that "Trying to help poor countries develop their economies is a bottomless pit and 
often ends up just enriching corrupt government officials." But a solid 58 percent 
preferred the argument that, "Rather than simply responding to disasters, the 
U.S. should work to help strengthen the economies of poor countries so that they 
will be in a better position to cope when disaster strikes." 

Other PIPA polling has found that Americans feel a strong moral responsibility 
to help poor countries develop, and they believe that doing so will ultimately 
serve U.S. political and economic interests. 

Reservations About Aid 

Even though an overwhelming majority of Americans supports the 
principle of giving foreign aid and providing hunger relief, they have several 
strong reservations about aid efforts. One major reservation is the widespread 
belief that U.S. aid often goes to governments whose policies do not reflect 
U.S. values. Fully 77 percent agreed (49% strongly) with the argument that, "Too much U.S. foreign aid goes to governments that are not very democratic and have poor human rights records. This is not consistent with American principles." Just 18 percent rejected that view. 

Perhaps even more critical is the public's strong belief that a large proportion of aid money does not reach the people it is intended to help. When asked to give their best guess about "what percentage of U.S. aid money that goes to poor countries ends up helping the people who really need it," respondents gave a median estimate of just 10 percent. That is, 90 percent of the money never reaches those it was meant to help. Respondents also estimated the median amount of U.S. aid money that "ends up in the hands of corrupt government officials" in poor countries to be a remarkable 50 percent.

This skepticism about whether aid reaches those who need it may explain why 
Americans do not believe that much progress has been made in alleviating hunger. 
The survey found that a strong majority (59%) believes that over the last few 
decades the number of hungry in the world has increased, when in fact it has 
substantially decreased.

Conclusion 

The results of the PIPA study show clearly that the public strongly supports aid to reduce hunger in principle, and sees this kind of foreign aid more positively 
than efforts to promote strategic goals or boost U.S. influence abroad. The 
public overwhelmingly believes the United States should commit to a plan to cut world hunger in half by 2015, and a strong majority appears willing to pay for 
it. A strong majority also supports aid to Africa, where help is needed most. 
Americans also prefer providing poor countries with long-term development aid, 
rather than intermittent disaster relief. In fact, given the high level of corruption and waste they perceive in aid programs, the fact that a strong majority supports giving foreign aid and hunger relief serves to demonstrate how robust that support is.

Phillip S. Warf  is a Research Associate at the Program on International Policy Attitudes, a Washington-based public opinion research organization affiliated with the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. The full report on this survey is available at www.pipa.org.

Hunger Notes Home Page

copyright