Experts yesterday examined the impact of United States foreign aid programs, concluding that while economic growth programs have been successful, promoting political and cultural growth has been a more difficult task.

"U.S. policies toward development must be examined, evaluated and carried out within the perspective of general U.S. foreign policy and, more broadly, general U.S. economic policy," said Henry L. Stimson Professor of Law Milton Katz '27.

Katz led "The Marshall Plan and After," a panel discussion by five Harvard experts in economics and political science on the impact of aid programs in East Asia, South America and Europe.

The panelists generally agreed that foreign aid programs have significantly aided economic growth in developing countries. Aid efforts are directed at establishing political stability, democratic principles and economic self sufficiency in developing countries, panelists said.

"The average overall rate of economic growth in developing countries in the past 25 years is higher that that of Western Europe," said Cabot Professor of Economics Hollis B. Chenery. Other panelists cited the turnaround made by Japan, once a country desperately in need of aid and now a lending nation itself.

But economic growth has not been paralleled by equivalent gains in political development, according to Eaton Professor of the Science of Government Samuel P. Huntington.

"When one looks at the picture of political development compared to that of economic development, one can only say the picture looks bleaker," he said.

Panelists supported Secretary of State George P. Schultz's opinion that proposed cuts in the foreign affairs budget could hurt U.S. foreign aid efforts.

"Congress should wake up and show some responsibility and not cut funds to the Department of State that accounts for a miniscule percentage of the budget," Katz said.