elpais.com
Foreign Aid Sanctions Increase Child and Maternal Mortality
A study published in The Lancet Global Health reveals that sanctions on foreign aid to 67 low- and middle-income countries between 1990 and 2019 led to significant increases in infant (3.1%), under-five (3.6%), and maternal (6.4%) mortality rates, reversing years of progress and highlighting the long-term consequences of such policies.
- What is the immediate impact of sanctions on foreign aid on maternal and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries?
- A study in The Lancet Global Health reveals that sanctions on foreign aid to 67 low- and middle-income countries caused a 3.1% rise in infant mortality, a 3.6% increase in under-five mortality, and a 6.4% rise in maternal mortality. These increases reversed years of progress and resulted in thousands of additional deaths.
- What are the long-term implications of the current US policy shift regarding foreign aid, considering the findings of this study?
- The findings highlight the long-term, delayed consequences of aid sanctions. The study suggests that the current US policy shift and USAID funding freezes could have substantial, long-term negative impacts on maternal and child health in affected countries, potentially reversing decades of progress. Monitoring health impacts during sanction periods and evaluating country fragility beforehand are crucial.
- How did the study quantify the relationship between reduced foreign aid and increased mortality rates, and what methodology was used?
- The research, spanning three decades and 88 sanction episodes, demonstrates a direct link between reduced foreign aid (17% reduction in health aid) and increased mortality rates. Sanctions, averaging five years, negated 64% of progress in reducing maternal mortality, 29% in infant mortality, and 26% in under-five mortality.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing is largely neutral, presenting the study's findings clearly and without overt bias. The inclusion of quotes from the lead researcher provides a balanced perspective. However, the repeated emphasis on negative consequences could be slightly modified to maintain a more balanced tone. For example, instead of solely highlighting setbacks, the article could also mention potential positive effects in certain areas that might have arisen despite the sanctions or mitigation strategies implemented.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective. However, phrases such as "system de salud se derrumbaba" (health system collapsed) and "país se desmoronaba" (country crumbled) are emotionally charged and could be replaced with more neutral descriptions such as "health system experienced significant decline" and "country faced significant challenges". While these phrases are used to communicate the gravity of the situation, it might be helpful to replace them with less emotional terms to ensure objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The study focuses on the impact of sanctions on maternal and child health, but could benefit from exploring the broader consequences on other health outcomes and socioeconomic factors. While acknowledging limitations in scope, mentioning other potential impacts (e.g., on education, infrastructure) would enrich the analysis and provide a more holistic understanding of the sanctions' effects. The study does not analyze the specific reasons for imposing sanctions, which would provide crucial context for understanding the necessity and proportionality of these measures.
Sustainable Development Goals
The study in The Lancet Global Health reveals that sanctions on foreign aid lead to significant increases in maternal, infant, and child mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries. The reduction in health aid resulted in a 3.1% rise in infant mortality, a 3.6% increase in under-five mortality, and a 6.4% rise in maternal mortality. These sanctions reversed years of progress in improving health outcomes.