I’m looking at disbursements instead of obligations because when trying to figure out the difference, I found: Obligations are liabilities legally incurred and committed to be paid for by the government either immediately or in the future.
El Salvador2007: 90,000 2008: -20,000 2009: 50,000 2010: 20,000 2011: 50,000 2012: 20,000 2013: No change 2014: 50,000 2015: 50,000Guatemala:2007: -50,000 2008: 75,000 2009: 15,000 2010: -10,000 2011: 60,000 2012: -60,000 2013: 25,000 2014: -10,000 2015: 35,000Honduras:2007: 45,000 2008: 35,000 2009: -15,000 2010: 45,000 2011: -15,000 2012: 50,000 2013: no change 2014: 15,000 2015: 35,000Here’s that data presented so it's actually readable: Aid Disbursements for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador (2007-2017)Honduras, Aid vs. I don't even think it's worth trying to find a correlation in aid and migrant flow in this data because of those factors, and since the data on migrant flow I listed here in flawed, possibly quite heavily.
Even when money is lost due to corruption, some of it does go to projects which improve the situation.
There is no neutrality requirement for comments in this subreddit — it's only the I know we’re supposed to provide answers but I have more questions.
Someone mentioned that the foreign aid money their country received was simply getting pocketed by corrupt politicians.
I'd assume governments are aware that much of it is pocketed and decide it's still worth it.
Hi there, It looks like your comment is a top-level reply to the question posed by the OP which does not provide any links to sources.This is the aid, in millions, given from 2007 to 2017 for each country: Honduras: 2007: 74m, 2008: 88m, 2009: 129m, 2010: 123m, 2011: 80m, 2012: 63m, 2013: 106m, 2014: 102m, 2015: 106m, 2016: 152m, 2017: 150m Guatemala: 2007: 70m, 2008: 90m , 2009: 100m, 2010: 131m, 2011: 128m, 2012: 116m, 2013: 146m, 2014: 142m, 2015: 146m, 2016: 177m, 2017: 241m El Salvador: 2007: 56m, 2008: 72m, 2009: 100m, 2010: 171m, 2011: 187m, 2012: 208m, 2013: 89m, 2014: 69m, 2015: 76m, 2016: 90m, 2017: 94m The hardest part of this has been finding the number of migrants coming from these countries, and specifically data over the last several years.The best I could think of was maybe this Pew Research data on the number of people living in the United States from specific countries in the Northern Triangle.While it is not clear what I have two questions:1: Does foreign aid to Central America and Southern Mexico reduce migrant flows to the United States?2: How is this effect measured, and is there a dispute about its effectiveness? However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources.To answer your question about the effectiveness for foreign aid, I do see answers saying that it is effective, even if some money is lost to unfortunate transaction costs like corruption.Specifically for migration flow and that effectiveness, I’m having a hard time parsing through these answers and finding what’s truly relevant to the countries in question vs.How do we know that the money is going where it’s intended to?How do we know if we are getting a return on investment?You had the pre-Korean War few, the post-Korean War refugees and 'war brides,/ and then the Third Wave which started in 1965 and later - which has increased over the years even as economic development of South Korea increased dramatically.The same is with China where 299,000 immigrants were in the US in 1980 near the start of their economic reforms.