Editing Marshall Plan (section)

==Criticism==
The 1953 Spanish comedy film ''[[Welcome Mr. Marshall!]]'' depicts Castilian villagers preparing for a visit of the American authorities and hoping they will fulfill their desires.
When the American motorcade arrives, it speeds through the village and the villagers themselves have to pay for the preparations.
Underneath the surface, the film is an anti-[[Francoist Spain|Francoist]] satire despite receiving approval because the censorship board understood it to be an anti-American satire.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Arce |first=Julio |date=2011 |title=Irony, esperpento, and Parody in the Music of ¡Bienvenido Mister Marshall! |url=https://www.academia.edu/2029083 |journal=Journal of the Center for Iberian and Latin American Music}}</ref>
===Laissez-faire criticism===
[[Laissez-faire]] criticism of the Marshall Plan came from a number of economists. [[Wilhelm Röpke]], who influenced [[Federal Minister of Economics and Technology (Germany)|German Minister for Economy]] [[Ludwig Erhard]] in his [[Wirtschaftswunder|economic recovery program]], believed recovery would be found in eliminating [[central planning]] and restoring a market economy in Europe, especially in those countries which had adopted more [[fascism|fascist]] and [[corporatism|corporatist]] economic policies. Röpke criticized the Marshall Plan for forestalling the transition to the free market by subsidizing the current, failing systems. Erhard put Röpke's theory into practice and would later credit Röpke's influence for West Germany's preeminent success.{{sfn|Erhard|p=22}}{{sfn|Zmirak|2001}}

[[Henry Hazlitt]] criticized the Marshall Plan in his 1947 book ''Will Dollars Save the World?'', arguing that economic recovery comes through savings, [[capital accumulation]], and private enterprise, and not through large cash subsidies. [[Austrian School]] economist [[Ludwig von Mises]] criticized the Marshall Plan in 1951, believing that "the American subsidies make it possible for [Europe's] governments to conceal partially the disastrous effects of the various socialist measures they have adopted".{{sfn|Von Mises|2006}}

===Modern criticism===
The Marshall Plan's role in the rapid recovery of Western Europe has been debated. Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe since the evidence shows that a general recovery was already underway. The Marshall Plan grants were provided at a rate that was not much higher in terms of flow than the previous [[UNRRA]] aid and represented less than 3% of the combined [[national income]] of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951,{{sfn|DeLong|Eichengreen|1993|pp=189–230}} which would mean an increase in [[GDP]] growth of only 0.3%.{{sfn|Crafts|2011|p=6}} In addition, there is no correlation between the amount of aid received and the speed of recovery: both [[France]] and the [[United Kingdom]] received more aid, but [[West Germany]] recovered significantly faster.{{sfn|Crafts|2011|p=6}}

Criticism of the Marshall Plan became prominent among historians of the [[Historical revisionism|revisionist]] school, such as [[Walter LaFeber]], 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 economically through the [[Comecon]]. In a review of West Germany's economy from 1945 to 1951, German analyst [[Werner Abelshauser]] concluded that "foreign aid was not crucial in starting the recovery or in keeping it going". The economic recoveries of France, Italy, and Belgium, Cowen argues, began a few months before the flow of US money. Belgium, the country that relied earliest and most heavily on free-market economic policies after its liberation in 1944, experienced swift recovery and avoided the severe housing and food shortages seen in the rest of continental Europe.{{sfn|Marshall Plan for Iraq?|2003}}

Former US Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank [[Alan Greenspan]] gives most credit to German Chancellor [[Ludwig Erhard]] for Europe's economic recovery. Greenspan writes in his memoir ''[[The Age of Turbulence]]'' that Erhard's economic policies were the most important aspect of postwar Western European recovery, even outweighing the contributions of the Marshall Plan. He states that it was Erhard's reductions in economic regulations that permitted Germany's miraculous recovery, and that these policies also contributed to the recoveries of many other European countries. Its recovery is attributed to traditional economic stimuli, such as increases in investment, fueled by a high savings rate and low taxes. Japan saw a large infusion of US investment during the [[Korean War]].{{sfn|Forsberg|2000|p=84}}

The Marshall Plan has been recently reinterpreted as a public policy approach to complex and multi-causal problems in search of building integrated solutions with multilevel governance.{{sfn|Lassance|2021|pp=1–59}}