725 



from llu' new luid needy countries. The United States rarely voted for 

 approval of the bndget, and has recently Avorked with the other major 

 contribntjng States ("the Geneva Group"') to try to reduce it. One of 

 the few times that the United States did vote for the Director-Gen- 

 eral's working budget as proposed was in i5).3h. On this occasion the 

 budget was approved by ac(damation. 



TABLE l.-RECENT EVOLUTION OF THE WHO BUDGET AND U.S. ASSESSMENTS' (CALENDAR YEAR) 



Year 



197P 



1970_ 



1969. 



1968. 



1967. 



1966. 



1965 



1964. 



1963. 



1962. 



1961. 



1 Figures obtained from Office of International Health, Public Health Service. In 1958 a statutory limitation was placsd 

 upon tiie U.S. payment which lequired that for any fiscal year it could not exceed 33)^ percent of the total assessments of 

 the active members of WHO for that year. 



- Proposed. 



Beginning in about 1060 the WHO regulai- budget increased each 

 year in increments var3'ing between $3 and $6 million (see table 1). 

 The budget for 1971 was roughly 31/2 times larger than that for 1961. 

 The percent of increase per year over this same j^eriod, hoAvever, 

 showed a generally downward trend from 16.9 percent in 1961 to 8.2 

 percent in 1971. The average increase 196f)-1971 was 9.5 percent. The 

 table reflects the continued growth of the United States' assessed con- 

 tribution. The recent preoccupation of the United States, and of some 

 other major contributors/-^ is to stabilize the WHO budget and i-educe 

 the rate of increase. 



Although U.S. participation in WHO has been influenced by neces- 

 sary budgetary restraint in recent years, there is reason to believe that 

 other restraining factors of one sort or another have been operating 

 from the very beginning. Some of these factors seem well established 

 in spite of the good performance of the T'nited States in voluntary 

 contributions to international health activities in general and its 

 faithful ])ayment of assessments to WHO in particular. For example, 

 early congressional actions with res])ect to WHO were not enthusias- 

 tic, as has been documented by Ivussell in a paper on '"International 

 Preventive Medicine" ])ul)lished in 1950: 



Although .Vmeiican leaders in preventive medicine had a 

 prominent part in laying the groundwork for WHO, the 

 Ignited States Congress has thus far given it reluctant and 

 limited support. ^-^ 



Slow to ratify the | AVHO] constitution. Congress arbi- 

 trarily fixed ourannual pai-ticipation in the budget of WHO 



iKIn i;)(V2: U.S. share, 31.7 percent; U.S.S.R., 12,48; United Kiugdom, 7.13; France, 

 5.86 ; Federal Republic of Germany, 4.88 : China (Taiwan). 4.59 ; Canada, 2.85 ; India, 2.25 ; 

 Italy, 2.06: Japan, 2.01; Australia. 1.64; Sweden. 1.27: Poland, 1.25; Belgium, 1.19; 

 Argentina. 1.02. Mo.st of the member nations contributed less than 1 percent. 



^-' RussoU. ■"International Preventive Medicine." op. cit., page 397. 



