Marshall Plan

Between 1948 and 1951, the United States contributed more than thirteen billion dollars (nearly $100bn at present-day U.S. prices) of economic and technical assistance toward the recovery of 16 European countries which had joined (16 April 1948) in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC, forerunner to today's OECD) in response to Marshall's call for a joint scheme.

The plan was rejected by the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellite countries owing to U.S. insistence on economic liberalization and pan-European co-ordination of recovery efforts, but gave impetus to the formation in the west of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to the European Economic Community.

The Marshall Plan has often been cited as an example of how massive economic assistance can produce prosperity. However, some have pointed out that post-war reconstruction of Europe was a far easier problem than the development or reconstruction of areas in today's Third World. In the case of Europe, despite being devastated by war, there was still significant physical infrastructure along with technical skill in the population. In the case of the Third World, the infrastructure and technical skills do not exist to the same extent.

Criticism of the Marshall Plan became prominent among historians of the revisionist school during the 1960s and 1970s. They argued that the plan was American economic imperialism, and that it was an attempt to gain control over Western Europe just as the Soviets controlled Eastern Europe.

In the 1980s criticism of the Marshall Plan's claim to a decisive role in Europe's recovery developed. These critics point out that growth in many European countries revived before the large-scale arrival of U.S. aid, and was fastest among some of the lesser recipients. While Marshall aid eased immediate difficulties and contributed to the recovery of some key sectors, growth from the post-war nadir was largely an independent process. The first person to make this argument was the economic historian Alan S. Milward. European socialists argue that a similar amount of reconstruction money could have been obtained by nationalizing the holdings of wealthy Europeans who deposited their money in US banks during World War II.

Marshall Plan Expenditures

Economic Assistance, April 3, 1948 to June 30, 1952 (in millions of dollars)

COUNTRY	Total	Grants	Loans
Total for all countries	$13,325.8	$11,820.7	$1,505.1
Austria	677.8	677.8	--
Belgium-Luxembourg	559.3	491.3	68.0a
Denmark	273.0	239.7	33.3
France	2,713.6	2,488.0	225.6
Germany, Federal Republic of	1,390.6	1,173.7	216.9b
Greece	706.7	706.7	--
Iceland	29.3	24.0	5.3
Ireland	147.5	19.3	128.2
Italy (including Trieste)	1,508.8	1,413.2	95.6
Netherlands (*East Indies)c	1,083.5	916.8	166.7
Norway	255.3	216.1	39.2
Portugal	51.2	15.1	36.1
Sweden	107.3	86.9	20.4
Turkey	225.1	140.1	85.0
United Kingdom	3,189.8	2,805.0	384.8
Regional	407.0d	407.0d	--

Notes:

• a. Loan total includes $65.0 million for Belgium and $3.0 million for Luxembourg: grant detail between the two countries cannot be identified.
• b. Includes an original loan figure of $16.9 million, plus $200.0 million representing a pro-rated share of grants converted to loans under an agreement signed February 27, 1953.
• c. Marshall Plan aid to the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) was extended through the Netherlands prior to transfer of sovereignty on December 30, 1949. The aid totals for the Netherlands East Indies are as follows:
  Total $101.4 million, Grants $84.2 million, Loans $17.2 million.
• d. Includes U.S. contribution to the European Payments Union (EPU) capital fund, $361.4 million; General Freight Account, $33.5 million; and European Technical Assistance Authorizations (multi-country or regional), $12.1 million.

Source:

Statistics & Reports Division

Agency for International Development

November 17, 1975

http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm

Referenced By