The impact of a US bill requiring 75% of US food aid to be shipped on American vessels

An article in the New York Times (April 24, 2014) titled “Provision could limit US Food Aid” describes a Coast Guard spending bill that requires “75% of US food aid to be shipped on US owned vessels”. The impact is to increase costs and cause delays in delivery, thus decreasing the amount and effectiveness of US food aid to distant countries like South Sudan. It also runs counter to a move to purchase food closer to the source of the emergency by providing cash rather than food in kind. Do proponents of the requirement, who claim it will preserve US jobs by requiring use of US ships, have an argument that is credible ? Will this requirement decrease the amount of US food shipped and thus run counter to the goal of preserving US jobs ? Should constraints on transportation be eliminated so that USAID can choose the most cost effective solution ?

About these ads

About aviyer2010

Professor
This entry was posted in Global Contexts, Supply Chain Issues and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The impact of a US bill requiring 75% of US food aid to be shipped on American vessels

  1. There is a fairly stable supply of American ships available to do this, and adding to that capacity would be burdensome. This bill presumes that American vessels are plentiful to fulfill the demand for aid. The net result will be less food aid because this is an artificial constraint on supply and capacity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s