UK Foreign Aid: Bongo Bongo or saving lives?
There is little doubt that Godfrey Bloom's comments were over exaggerated, old fashioned and borderline racist. However, with more and more of taxpayers money being spent on international development it is an issue that can't be shied away from for fear of being branded racist.
In fact, this year Britain will become the first G8 country to stick to a decades old promise to spend 0.7% of GDP. That's £11.3 billion a year, roughly £130 per taxpayer. Many will ask whether the policy is right given the current economic situation (which despite the recent improvements is still mired in £1.3 trillion of debt). Some believe we should act like Germany (which has cut its aid budget by £1 billion in 2012) or super rich Monaco (whose own austerity program has included the cutting of one departmental budget: foreign aid). Despite this, David Cameron has boasted of the policy, which plays well to his obscured but still present compassionate conservatism agenda.
Public opinion on foreign aid giving is inconsistent, with a September 2012 Comres poll of just over 1,000 adults showed that 60% support increasing Britain's foreign aid budget, and another poll just two months later suggested that only 1 in 4 (25%) supported increasing the foreign aid budget.
In the same poll, 60% of those questioned agreed that the foreign aid budget is being wasted. Whether this is on 'Ray Ban sunglasses' or 'apartments in Paris' remains to be said, but there are clear examples of waste. When travelling in India myself, my exchange partner pointed out a house of a local politician that dwarfed the other middle class Indian homes. Of course, whether this wealth was accumulated thanks to foreign aid remains just a rumour. This brought up a puzzling question; Why are we giving aid to a country with a space program, AND one which squanders it anyway? However, UK aid to India is ending in 2015, and can be morally justified given that absolute poverty affects 32% of the population. The country contains a third of the world's poorest people. Ok, so aid is needed, but the Indian government could easily devote more resources to reducing poverty, such as cutting back on its $1.3 billion space program or cutting back on its infamous levels of regulation to increase foreign direct investment. Furthermore, there are statistics to back up my observations. For example, £70 million of the £388 million DFID 'Education for All' initiative in India was stolen by Indian government officials, according to the Indian government itself. The Indian finance minister Pranab Mukherjee even said that British aid to India was 'peanuts' and 'not needed'. However, India is booming and UK aid to the nation is ending.
It can be said that the market mechanism has proved to be a much more effective in the development of nations. However, to have an industrializing economy you need basic infrastructure to act as a springboard to Chinese style 10% p.a. GDP expansion, which foreign aid is providing to Africa. The neoliberal tiger economy growth in the 1980s and 1990s was called an economic miracle thanks to foreign direct investment and already present infrastructure, as well as a relatively stable socio-political environment (ie fewer wars). And once there's demand in an economy (exports), the supply side can develop further from booming tax receipts (especially as in Asia there was infrastructure present anyway from the bottom up post war development of the 1950s, 60s and 70s). Africa however is different, with little foundation infrastructure to support a manufacturing boom. Hence foreign aid and the springboard argument here.
Aid, some argue, is also a smokescreen for boosting the profits of big business, as explained by this site: http://www.wdm.org.uk/aid/case-studies
UK Aid does indeed help; in 2008 it provided 2.5 million people with clean water and sanitation, trained over 15,000 teachers and financed the construction of 1,500km of road and maintenance of a further 15,000 km. Imagine what could be achieved if 60p for every £1 spent on aid wasn't wasted on bureaucracy. Or imagine what could be achieved it that money was spent on training 10,000 teachers in the UK (of which there is a severe shortage, especially in the crucial STEM subject area), or maintained just 10,000km of roads here (which are lagging by international standards, and named by the CBI as an area where business is seriously concerned about). But morally this argument is ridiculous: What's worse, millions dying every year from cholera or a few potholes on country lanes? No one would answer the latter. I feel that this is actually a simplistic argument to make, as the ideal behind Britain's great aid giveaway comes down to more than moral spending priorities. It comes down to philosophical views and economic patriotism.
Personally, I believe the aid budget should be frozen and targeted more on providing infrastructure, education and political stability. This would therefore provided a base for the market to work its proven magic and save more lives per £ in the long run than vaccines would ever do. If Britain wasn't in £1.3 trillion of debt with a stubbornly high £120 billion a year government budget deficit and extensive structural economic issues, I might agree with Cameron's compassionate conservatism, but charity begins at home (eg 500,000 of Britons now reliant on food banks). I would also argue that the UK public is already generous enough, being the 3rd most charitable population in Europe (behind smaller nations of Ireland and the Netherlands). Furthermore, it is often wasted (see Indian focus paragraph above) and used simply to boost profits of big business through special economic zones.
Recommended links:
Good critique of foreign aid: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8808521/the-great-aid-mystery/
Foreign aid statistics and arguments for: http://www.womankind.org.uk/what-we-do/frequently-asked-questions/overseas-aid-mythbuster/
In fact, this year Britain will become the first G8 country to stick to a decades old promise to spend 0.7% of GDP. That's £11.3 billion a year, roughly £130 per taxpayer. Many will ask whether the policy is right given the current economic situation (which despite the recent improvements is still mired in £1.3 trillion of debt). Some believe we should act like Germany (which has cut its aid budget by £1 billion in 2012) or super rich Monaco (whose own austerity program has included the cutting of one departmental budget: foreign aid). Despite this, David Cameron has boasted of the policy, which plays well to his obscured but still present compassionate conservatism agenda.
Public opinion on foreign aid giving is inconsistent, with a September 2012 Comres poll of just over 1,000 adults showed that 60% support increasing Britain's foreign aid budget, and another poll just two months later suggested that only 1 in 4 (25%) supported increasing the foreign aid budget.
In the same poll, 60% of those questioned agreed that the foreign aid budget is being wasted. Whether this is on 'Ray Ban sunglasses' or 'apartments in Paris' remains to be said, but there are clear examples of waste. When travelling in India myself, my exchange partner pointed out a house of a local politician that dwarfed the other middle class Indian homes. Of course, whether this wealth was accumulated thanks to foreign aid remains just a rumour. This brought up a puzzling question; Why are we giving aid to a country with a space program, AND one which squanders it anyway? However, UK aid to India is ending in 2015, and can be morally justified given that absolute poverty affects 32% of the population. The country contains a third of the world's poorest people. Ok, so aid is needed, but the Indian government could easily devote more resources to reducing poverty, such as cutting back on its $1.3 billion space program or cutting back on its infamous levels of regulation to increase foreign direct investment. Furthermore, there are statistics to back up my observations. For example, £70 million of the £388 million DFID 'Education for All' initiative in India was stolen by Indian government officials, according to the Indian government itself. The Indian finance minister Pranab Mukherjee even said that British aid to India was 'peanuts' and 'not needed'. However, India is booming and UK aid to the nation is ending.
It can be said that the market mechanism has proved to be a much more effective in the development of nations. However, to have an industrializing economy you need basic infrastructure to act as a springboard to Chinese style 10% p.a. GDP expansion, which foreign aid is providing to Africa. The neoliberal tiger economy growth in the 1980s and 1990s was called an economic miracle thanks to foreign direct investment and already present infrastructure, as well as a relatively stable socio-political environment (ie fewer wars). And once there's demand in an economy (exports), the supply side can develop further from booming tax receipts (especially as in Asia there was infrastructure present anyway from the bottom up post war development of the 1950s, 60s and 70s). Africa however is different, with little foundation infrastructure to support a manufacturing boom. Hence foreign aid and the springboard argument here.
Aid, some argue, is also a smokescreen for boosting the profits of big business, as explained by this site: http://www.wdm.org.uk/aid/case-studies
UK Aid does indeed help; in 2008 it provided 2.5 million people with clean water and sanitation, trained over 15,000 teachers and financed the construction of 1,500km of road and maintenance of a further 15,000 km. Imagine what could be achieved if 60p for every £1 spent on aid wasn't wasted on bureaucracy. Or imagine what could be achieved it that money was spent on training 10,000 teachers in the UK (of which there is a severe shortage, especially in the crucial STEM subject area), or maintained just 10,000km of roads here (which are lagging by international standards, and named by the CBI as an area where business is seriously concerned about). But morally this argument is ridiculous: What's worse, millions dying every year from cholera or a few potholes on country lanes? No one would answer the latter. I feel that this is actually a simplistic argument to make, as the ideal behind Britain's great aid giveaway comes down to more than moral spending priorities. It comes down to philosophical views and economic patriotism.
Personally, I believe the aid budget should be frozen and targeted more on providing infrastructure, education and political stability. This would therefore provided a base for the market to work its proven magic and save more lives per £ in the long run than vaccines would ever do. If Britain wasn't in £1.3 trillion of debt with a stubbornly high £120 billion a year government budget deficit and extensive structural economic issues, I might agree with Cameron's compassionate conservatism, but charity begins at home (eg 500,000 of Britons now reliant on food banks). I would also argue that the UK public is already generous enough, being the 3rd most charitable population in Europe (behind smaller nations of Ireland and the Netherlands). Furthermore, it is often wasted (see Indian focus paragraph above) and used simply to boost profits of big business through special economic zones.
Recommended links:
Good critique of foreign aid: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8808521/the-great-aid-mystery/
Foreign aid statistics and arguments for: http://www.womankind.org.uk/what-we-do/frequently-asked-questions/overseas-aid-mythbuster/
Comments
Post a Comment