Letters

National Review, August 11, 2003

--Jim Lacey's article "We're Number Twenty?!" (June 30) contains valid points, but his attack on the Center for Global Development's rating system is marred by factual errors, easy pronouncements, and a derisive tone. I will respond area by area:

Aid: The CGD counts the foreign aid countries give as a share of GDP. It then adjusts that amount for various factors. This is not, as Mr. Lacey implies, a trick to make the U.S. look bad, but an embodiment of common sense. The low U.S. score is simply due to the fact that we give so little.

Trade: The U.S. ranks first on openness to trade with developing countries, but

Mr. Lacey is outraged that its margin over the EU is small. The EU's protectionism probably hurts poorer countries more than its foreign aid helps, but the same goes for the U.S.

Migration: The survey assesses contributions to processes of development in poorer countries, not to the welfare of the lucky minority that permanently settles in rich countries-a distinction Mr. Lacey seems to have missed. Freer trade in labor will generally contribute to processes of development. We therefore count how many migrants come from developing countries to work, not how many become citizens.

Investment: Mr. Lacey's "trillions" notwithstanding, portfolio investment from rich to poor countries has always been dwarfed by foreign direct investment, which is what the investment component focuses on. FDI has been more stable too, a virtue I cannot downplay as easily as Mr. Lacey. The "bizarre" FDI statistics we use are from standard sources.

Environment: Mr. Lacey writes that the survey is obsessed with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change: "It is only ratification that counts." We care about deeds far more than words. Mr. Lacey also errs in saying that the U.S. would do "much better" if CGD scaled nations' emissions to their GDPs rather than populations. Emissions per capita is not as absurd a measure as he suggests.

Peacekeeping: Mr. Lacey is right that the peacekeeping component falls short of grappling with the special role of the U.S. in global security-or insecurity. I welcome concrete suggestions for criteria, implementable against available data, that maximize the index's credibility across a broad political spectrum.

Mr. Lacey accuses me of "torturing" data to shame my country. The actual agenda is to highlight gaps in our understanding of the many ways that rich countries affect poor ones and to provoke public discussion of these issues.

David Roodman

Center for Global Development

Washington, D.C.

--Jim Lacey replies: Mr. Roodman's comment that my article was derisive in tone is correct. The index he is defending is so biased in its assumptions that it cannot be taken seriously as a measuring tool. His claim that I should refrain from accusations that he twisted the data to make America look bad ring hollow. To put together this index, Mr. Roodman made dozens of assumptions. In every case where a subjective decision was made, it went against the U.S. I, too, will respond area by area:

Aid: European governments tax their populations and give it as aid. America taxes less and the people give privately. Our private giving is triple what our government gives, and none of it is included in the index.

Trade: Our trade policies often distort the markets and hurt poor countries, but we do only a small fraction of the damage Europe does. We pay our farmers not to grow crops. European governments pay farmers by how much they grow. This absolutely crushes farmers who cannot even compete in their home countries.

Migration: The U.S. continues to absorb more migrants than the rest of the world combined. Mr. Roodman worked hard to put us at the bottom and tiny, xenophobic Switzerland at the top. We often take in enough migrants in a year or two to populate a new Switzerland.

Investment: My questions dealt with how FDI was counted and why portfolio investment was left out. This is truly bizarre since, according to the IMF, portfolio investment in the developing world equals $3 trillion, or double annual FDI flows.

Environment: I stand by my original comments. Mr. Roodman would do better to stop worrying about the unproven science of greenhouse gases and focus on providing children with clean drinking water.

Peacekeeping: There is no lack of data on peacekeeping. America has twice saved all of the nations that outscored us in this area from murderous tyrants and has asked almost nothing of them in return.

The index is beyond flawed. It will require a top-to-bottom reassessment of all of its assumptions before any policymaker could or should give it any credence whatsoever.

--I was disappointed by John Miller's article "Babylon Comes to Sparta" (July 14). As academic dean and provost for the United States Naval Academy, and also as a USNA graduate and a retired Navy rear admiral, I believe your readers deserve a more factual account. Rebutting every point would take more space than allowed herein, but readers should understand:

The 550-member Academy faculty provides a noteworthy strength. Balanced contributions from both civilian professional educators and professional military officers form an integral part of Academy heritage, culture, and effectiveness. The civilian faculty lends continuity and subject-matter depth to the Academy's educational program. The military officers, selected for their academic and military expertise, serve as role models while complementing the permanent faculty with perspectives and tangible experiences.