USAID - 26 million in drought aid alone. 2000 metric tons of food in February. I think Shell made a mistake. For every $1 USAid spends on Nigeria, Shell contributes $3. They have a vested interest true, but the money is geared towards worthwhile goals. Until there is an internal change however, the money will not be productive. It is money down the drain. Unless the money can be controlled once it is turned over, corruption will run rampant. And yet, could you imagine what would happen if the U.S. gave 40 million for job training and then insisted that the country would only receive the monies if the U.S. could oversee the spending? Ha ha, not likely. We tried that already and it really backfired.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/countries/nigeria/


>>>While I think it is hard to pin down the problem to specific individuals, yes, the rich nations have done too little to assist poorer nations. The poverty itself is - to a great extent - the result of a long history of exploitation.
>>
>>How about long history of local gov't corruption?
>>Where does all the money/contributions go?
>
>I agree. from http://www.cafod.org.uk/policy_and_analysis/public_policy_papers/rough_guides/transparency
>
>The paradox of plenty
>
>Countries endowed with an abundance of natural resources seem unlikely candidates for chronic, deep poverty. Surely oil revenues provide a route out of poverty for their populations? But the reality is the opposite. Natural resource revenues in poor countries are associated with worsening poverty, corruption and conflict, and authoritarian government lacking in transparency, accountability and fairness. Taken as a group, less developed countries that depend on oil exports have seen living standards drop dramatically. Countries without petroleum resources grew four times more quickly than those with petroleum resources between 1970 and 1993, although the resource-poor countries had half the savings of the resource-rich countries in 1970. Oil-rich countries are ‘among the most economically troubled, the most authoritarian and the most conflict-ridden states in the world today.' [2]
>
>Characteristics of oil-rich states
>
>Poverty. Nigeria, the biggest oil producer in Africa, has received more than $300 billion in oil revenues over the past 25 years, yet more than 70 per cent of the population has a per capita income of less than $1 per day, 43 per cent lack sanitation and clean water, and infant mortality is amongst the highest in the world. Militarisation. As economic growth fails to live up to expectations, governments in oil-rich states resort to repression to retain power. In the decade from 1984 to 1994, OPEC* members’ share of military expenditure as a percentage of total central government spending was three times that of developed countries, and two to ten times that of non-oil-producing developing countries. Authoritarian government. Oil resources have been used to fund authoritarian regimes, from President Abacha of Nigeria to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Corruption. Dependence on oil encourages many forms of corruption: companies make payments or loans to government officials to secure contracts
>and other benefits. Elites may siphon off profits for their own private spending, to fund their business interests, or purchase arms to protect their hold on the natural resources. Civil war. Oil can exacerbate pre-existing tensions in society as different groups demand a share of revenues. Oil can also sustain conflict: for example, in Sudan, the DRC and Indonesia.