Thank you, Bill.

[url]http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=943[/url] is indeed an interesting post by a great blogger.

You write:
[i]the U.S. rated Nr.3 only behind Spain and the U.K. in Performance over Time 2003-2006[/i]

That sounds a bit confusing. The US is [b]not[/b] the top 3 country for the 2003-2006 time period. Rather: The US has improved its policies a lot during that time and therefore is ranks among the top 3 countries who have improved their aid the most.

So the good news is: The US is improving its policy more than Germany. That's great. It would be really great, if all countries would compete more. Being the number one country in helping the poor should be more prestigous than winning the soccer world cup.

Like in soccer, the US has a long way to go since the US is so far still on the 13th rank in helping the poor.

Did you read the articles I linked to?

If you had done so, you would have learned for example:

"Aid has proven particularly effective in boosting health and education, which improved markedly around the world during the last four decades. In developing countries, life expectancy at birth increased from 43 to 59 years between 1960 and 2002, and infant mortality rates fell from 147 to 79 per thousand. Although aid was not the most significant contributor to these trends, many analysts believe it played a key role. The United States could unquestionably increase the effectiveness of its aid by reducing bureaucratic overhead, increasing coordination with other donors, and aiming fewer funds at corrupt or incompetent governments."

If you are really a "right wing professor", then please read the links and substantiate your claims with some relevant links, as it is custom for academics.

Thank you very much!

Thanks for responding!

I had linked to an article by Steven Radelet, who is senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and was deputy assistant secretary of the treasury from 2000 to 2002.

He writes about popular myth like the one you mentioned:
"“America Is the Most Generous Country in the World if You Include Private Donations to Charities.”
No. Americans certainly rise to the occasion in times of crisis, as the outpouring of charitable giving to tsunami victims demonstrated. According to U.S. government figures, private donations to low-income countries through American churches, charities, foundations, nongovernmental organizations, and college scholarships was at least $6.3 billion in 2003. And such data almost certainly understate the actual amount of private aid. Some organizations do not respond to the government survey used to collect the data, and some important forms of contribution are omitted, such as volunteer time. Alternative estimates vary, with the upper-end figure (including gifts to more developed countries such as Israel and Russia) at $17.1 billion for 2000. By this estimation, private charitable donations per American total $58 per year—or about 0.16 percent of U.S. income—ranking the United States second among major donors in private giving (the first is Ireland at 0.22 percent).

Combining public and private donations puts total U.S. development assistance in the range of $35 billion per year, or about 0.32 percent of U.S. income. In other words, for every $3 of income, the United States provides about one cent in development assistance. Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2773&print=1

Responsible for the ranking are Foreign Policy and the Center for Global Development. Both are American.

The Center for Global Development has some more background on the components: [b]Environment:[/b]
"The environment component looks at what rich countries are doing to reduce their disproportionate exploitation of the global commons. Are they reining in greenhouse gas emissions? How complicit are they in environmental destruction in developing countries, for example by importing commodities such as tropical timber? Do they subsidize fishing fleets that deplete fisheries off the coasts of such countries as Senegal and India?"
[url]http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_components/environment/[/url]

[b]Technology[/b]
"One important way that rich countries affect poorer ones over the long run is through technology transfer. For example, with medical technology from the rich countries, human health and survival in Latin America and East Asia made gains over four decades during the 20th century that took Europe almost 150 years. Today, the Internet is facilitating distance learning, democracy movements, and new opportunities to participate in the global economy."
[url]http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_components/technology/[/url]

Click on the links for a bit more info on the components.

The ranking isn't perfect. No ranking ever is. The US scores high on security, but I fail to see how Chad, Rwanda, Botswana etc. have benefited from US security policies... (A [b]small[/b] and not very important point: On the contrary, the US military is using a lot of oil (I read somewhere that the US military is using as much oil as Greek) => high oil prices => poor countries need to spend more money on oil, i.e. the more international security the US is trying to provide, the more these countries need to spend on oil...)
Anyway, the above links give you more info on all the components, incl. security.
You might say, US security policy (incl. Iraq) is having long term benefits for the third world. Yes, hopefully. If you look long-term for security policies, you should also look long-term for environmental policies. Climate change could cause a lot of damage to third world countries, especially those at sea level etc. Think Katrina. And yes, climate change is real. Most scientists agree, even those who made studies for various US government agencies. Sorry, but I trust scientists more than conservative bloggers.