Bailouts v aid v climate change – $ reveals priorities

The most popular post ever on this blog was ‘How much is $700bn‘ – a set of ‘killer facts‘ on the initial US bailout. These days $700bn feels like small change, so it’s time for an update in the run up to Saturday’s Financing for Development meeting in Doha and Monday’s start to this year’s big climate change ‘conference of the parties’ in Poznan. ‘Skewed Priorities’, a new report by Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh and Janet Redman at the Washington DC-based Institute for Policy Studies, compares the scale of global bailouts with spending on aid and climate change. Key finding? The United States and European governments have committed 40 times more money to rescue financial firms than to fight climate and poverty crises in the developing world. 


Some other killer facts from the report:

The U.S. Treasury Department’s bailout of one single company, AIG, far exceeded the total sum of all U.S. and European develop­ment aid in 2007. As of November 14, the U.S. government had put up $152.5 billion to rescue the insurance firm, compared to the $90.7 billion spent last year by the United States and 17 Western European countries on development aid.


The U.S. government spent $23.2 billion in aid to all developing countries in 2007. That’s less than the $29 billion to bail out invest­ment bank Bear Stearns.


And a couple from me:

$4.1 trillion is enough to eradicate all world poverty for over thirteen years (the UNDP calculates it would take $300bn to get the entire world population over the $1 a day poverty line).


$4.1 trillion is 27 times the annual amount of extra aid needed to achieve all the Millennium Development Goals on poverty, health, education etc ($150bn a year)


Two caveats: firstly, the weekly procession of bailouts means that these numbers go out of date as soon as they come out. The IPS report covers up to 19 November, and so does not include US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s Nov 25th announcement of a further $800 billion. Shame – $5 trillion is a nice round number. Second (and importantly), if things go well, governments (and taxpayers) should recoup most, if not all, of the money. But right now, that looks like a big if.


Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


2 Responses to “Bailouts v aid v climate change – $ reveals priorities”
  1. Tomás

    I can see how this figures tell us something about the way things work, and the priorities that we are setting so far in these fields.
    But anyway, I would like to point out the eternal question on whether entrusting those necessary sums of money to the purpose of eradicating poverty can actually make that happen. Wouldn’t there be lots of other logistical, operational, structural, social (and a long etc.) problems to deal that, even with the cash in the pocket?

  2. Duncan

    for Oxfam’s response to the underwhelming outcome of the Doha Financing for Development conference, see
    excerpt: ‘the final conclusions remain fundamentally weak in a number of key areas – not least by failing to call for a radical strengthening of the voices of developing countries in the IMF and World Bank. Meanwhile, the wording on aid represents a climbdown from the commitment made at the G8 summit in Gleneagles in 2005 to increase annual aid by $50 billion by 2010.’