0.7% (foreign aid)

So, the UN in the 1970s suggested that wealthy countries commit to spend 0.7% of their income on development aid to support the poorer nations. The UK is currently one of the few countries which achieves that, and has it enshrined in law. Something for which we can all be proud of. It's a mere £15-20b per year, but every little helps as they say.

Now the UK government is proposing to cut the aid budget, and failing to meet the legal requirement to spend at least 0.7% of income on foreign aid (deliberately aiming to break the law, seemingly a common characteristic of this government). They've already cut almost £3b from the budget to avoid spending more than that as incomes have fallen this year, money that many development projects would rely on and if they need to make cuts in provision it's possible that that will be the end of some projects with a far larger bill in the future to reinstate an alternative - aid workers aren't going to keep going without financial support, they'll go and find something else to do which allows them to pay their own bills, and when (if) projects restart there'll need to be a process of regaining the knowledge and experience lost.

Added to which, the government has previously announced plans to merge departments so that the "aid budget" is moved from being spent to help poorer nations into encouraging poor nations to buy British goods and services.

So, questions for discussion:

1. Should the 0.7% be treated as a "target", or should that be exceeded? Is it right to cut committed spending just because income is less than anticipated? For the record - I think it's wrong to commit to spend a certain amount and then change that later just because that would exceed a 0.7% threshold. The government should maintain spending, not cut £3b at this point just because it can do so within the law.

2. Should the government be allowed to break the law by cutting aid further, below the 0.7% threshold? Or, if they set a budget for next year at the anticipated 0.7% of income and income grows more than expected, should the government then spend more on aid? For the record - the law should not be broken, and if the recovery is faster than expected then aid spending should increase to reflect that.

3. Should the aid budget even be part of the equation in balancing the books? Yes, we know that this year the UK government has spent (or will do so) something like £200b extra on various aspects of the pandemic - purchasing equipment, PPE, vaccines etc; funding furlough and other support packages. And, there'll be a contraction of the economy hitting tax incomes as well. But, when a lot of that money has been squandered and used as hand-outs to pals of the government should the poor (at home as well as overseas) suffer for corruption and incompetence in our government? But, remember, the total aid budget is almost the same amount as was given to Serco to not run a track and trace programme. Also, remember that there's an additional lost £200b over the last few years to fund Brexit, with more costs and lost government income to come after the end of the year. When faced with a shortfall of £400b+ from both coronavirus and Brexit, even cutting the entire aid budget will have no impact at all.
«134

Comments

  • I've wondered how foreign aid is viewed:
    -Is it is a gift?
    -Is it money given by donor country so that recipient country will buy from donor country's businesses, thereby actually being about supporting donor country's industry?
    -Is it money given in a manner of repaying for the colonial past and harm caused over centuries, i.e., a country in the past sailed to another country, traded trinkets for actual human beings who they sold, took control of the country, sort of transferred control politically but kept control of the economy.

    I think often it is viewed as a gift and as tied aid to buy from donor country, i.e., the first two on my list. But perhaps I'm too idealistic, that things like history matter.
  • In the UK (I can't really speak for anywhere else) the aid budget goes through two different departments of government, with different focuses.

    The majority of that money had been spent through the Department for International Development (DfID) which is focussed on humanitarian aid, poverty reduction, the UN Millenium Goals and all those good things (well, I think they're good things). Yes, that does provide some benefit back to the UK in terms of international standing and reputation, and therefore also someone to do business with. But, at least in the stated aims this was money for poverty reduction, and it was illegal for that to include tied aid (so, no requirement for that aid to include spending on goods and services from the UK).

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) had a much smaller aid budget, and that was tied more directly into UK foreign policy - promoting British businesses, as well as other grants and loans with definite strings attached. A fair bit of this money was spent in countries that wouldn't be immediately classed as needing development aid (I actually worked on a project supported by the FCO Prosperity Fund, in Japan ... though that was a bit of an aberration and mainly seemed to be a convenient way to funnel assistance following the 2011 triple-disaster earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown, using the apparatus of an existing programme rather than create something from scratch for a very limited period of spending).

    The Johnson so-called government recently merged these into the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office ... which takes on much more of the FCO focus than the DfID one, ie: much more about UK foreign policy than humanitarian aid.
  • 1. Should the 0.7% be treated as a "target", or should that be exceeded? Is it right to cut committed spending just because income is less than anticipated?

    In the long term, you have to match your spending to your income. If your circumstances change, you have to adjust your commitments.

    That said, what we're discussing here is neither long-term, nor a significant amount in budget-balancing territory. I'd say you should honour your commitments, unless to do so would cause significant difficulty (whether "you" are an individual, or the government), and so the government should honour the commitments they have made.
    2. Should the government be allowed to break the law by cutting aid further, below the 0.7% threshold? Or, if they set a budget for next year at the anticipated 0.7% of income and income grows more than expected, should the government then spend more on aid? For the record - the law should not be broken, and if the recovery is faster than expected then aid spending should increase to reflect that.

    I'm going to disagree with this. Make budgets and stick to them. If your income is less than expected, aid will go above 0.7%; if it's more than expected, aid will go below 0.7%. It will average out, and the organizations you're funding will always get what they're expecting.
    My experience of government grants is that while we'll gladly take any money that's on offer, sudden unexpected windfalls are less efficiently spent than planned budgets.
    3. Should the aid budget even be part of the equation in balancing the books?

    In theory, yes: it's part of the budget. In practice, as you point out, it's a small part of the budget, and in general very much achieves value for money. So although theoretically I think it should be part of the equation, in practice I'd argue that there were unlikely to be any situations where pruning the aid budget was an efficient way of balancing the books.

  • I do not recommend that the 0.7% is changed but if the government did want to lower it they do not need to break the law. All they would need to do would be to change the law.

  • I think of it as reparations, we fucked the world - we have debts.
  • I think of it as reparations, we fucked the world - we have debts.

    Well that's kind of what I think. Though, I'd tend to balance it within the complexity of many many years of contact.
  • I think of it as reparations, we fucked the world - we have debts.
    We also fought 2 world wars to maintain freedom in the world

  • AnthonyAnthony Shipmate Posts: 10
    Telford wrote: »
    I think of it as reparations, we fucked the world - we have debts.
    We also fought 2 world wars to maintain freedom in the world

    European colonialism certainly changed the world, but there is no way of knowing if the world would have been any better or worse if it had never happened, and there is certainly no need to feel we have debts to re-pay.

    In my opinion we didn't fight world wars to maintain freedom in the world, only to maintain the culture and traditions the western world enjoyed. That said, my response to the 3 starter questions is that foreign aid should not be cut, laws and agreements should not be broken, and foreign aid should not be part of the budget equation. The problems of climate change, global warming, pollution, and immigration, simply did not exist 70 years ago, and information technology is not only showing the developed nations how difficult life is in the third world, but also showing the third world how effectively the developed world is sucking up the lions share of the worlds resources. These facts are seeding ever growing international unrest. The problems are growing exponentially, and the world is in a state of massive social imbalance, full to the brim with human beings.

    It is not simple charity. It is in our own best interests to even the balance between rich and poor, to help developing countries improve their lives and to reduce the urge to raise large families as a means of survival.

    0.7% is a ridiculously low figure - It should be 10%, a more Christian level but perhaps I have my head in the clouds. Maybe we should start at 7% and concentrate on getting development aid to where it is truly needed and not shrunk on its way through bureaucracy and corruption.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    We also fought 2 world wars to maintain freedom in the world
    Most historians would differ.

    (We entered the Second World War to maintain national self-determination in Eastern Europe. From that point of view it was not a resounding success. Arguably Hitler's regime was in part our fault for imposing an unjust peace on Germany after the First World War.)

  • Something does not follow. Ok, the UN called on the richer countries to dedicate 0.7% for humanitarian aid (not foreign aid),

    How is this suggestion a legal requirement? Is it enshrined in British law?

    As I understand it, UN General Assembly resolutions, while they may be the expression of the majority of nations, they do not have the force of law. This is one aspect even the most liberal United States Politician (Think Bernie Sanders) would object to. The UN is not a one-world government.
  • When faced with a shortfall of £400b+ from both coronavirus and Brexit, even cutting the entire aid budget will have no impact at all.

    ... and if heis interested in balancing the books, then he's just undone his 3bn saving with a 4bn increase in funding for the armed forces.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Something does not follow. Ok, the UN called on the richer countries to dedicate 0.7% for humanitarian aid (not foreign aid),

    How is this suggestion a legal requirement? Is it enshrined in British law?

    From the OP…
    So, the UN in the 1970s suggested that wealthy countries commit to spend 0.7% of their income on development aid to support the poorer nations. The UK is currently one of the few countries which achieves that, and has it enshrined in law. <snip>
    (my bold)

  • Anthony wrote: »

    0.7% is a ridiculously low figure - It should be 10%, a more Christian level but perhaps I have my head in the clouds. Maybe we should start at 7% and concentrate on getting development aid to where it is truly needed and not shrunk on its way through bureaucracy and corruption.
    You think 0.7% is ridiculous but it's far better than most countries. Bear in mind that we are not giving away our spare money. We are actually borrowing money to give it away.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    We also fought 2 world wars to maintain freedom in the world
    Most historians would differ.

    (We entered the Second World War to maintain national self-determination in Eastern Europe. From that point of view it was not a resounding success. Arguably Hitler's regime was in part our fault for imposing an unjust peace on Germany after the First World War.)

    That was Sir Humphrey's argument - we saved half of Europe from fascist dictatorship and left half of Europe under a Communist dicatorship.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>Bear in mind that we are not giving away our spare money. We are actually borrowing money to give it away.
    We’re borrowing money for a whole raft of things (including the biggest military spending boost in 30 years). Overseas aid is only a tiny proportion of what we spend. Nearly three times as much already goes in defence spending alone.
  • edited November 2020
    The UK spends (or had done before these cuts) about £15b per year on foreign aid. Our government gave that much to Serco to not deliver a track and trace system. Or, a bit more (£20b) to build submarines to carry new Trident nuclear missiles. How much of the government income from tax and borrowing has been given to friends of Tory MPs in unaccountable and what appear to be corrupt PPE and similar contracts over the last few months?
  • AnthonyAnthony Shipmate Posts: 10
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    You think 0.7% is ridiculous but it's far better than most countries. Bear in mind that we are not giving away our spare money. We are actually borrowing money to give it away.

    I am aware that in 1674 a group of London Financiers founded the Bank of England, so that A (The Government) could borrow money from B (The Bank) on the surety of C (The general public), but I question the common sense in using cash to bring humanitarian aid to those in need. Surely aid in the form of services and goods would be far more useful.

    Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Anthony wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    You think 0.7% is ridiculous but it's far better than most countries. Bear in mind that we are not giving away our spare money. We are actually borrowing money to give it away.

    I am aware that in 1674 a group of London Financiers founded the Bank of England, so that A (The Government) could borrow money from B (The Bank) on the surety of C (The general public), but I question the common sense in using cash to bring humanitarian aid to those in need. Surely aid in the form of services and goods would be far more useful.

    No, not really. It's almost always more efficient to buy goods and employ people locally. Part of this is "teach a man to fish..." logic but there's also a Keynesian aspect that buying (say) food locally puts money in the hands of shopkeepers and farmers who recycle that money into the local economy. If you buy ship loads of American long-grain rice or soya you may get more food per pound but the money ends up in the international markets and so not as effective. Even this is a massive over-simplification.
  • Anthony wrote: »
    European colonialism certainly changed the world, but there is no way of knowing if the world would have been any better or worse if it had never happened, and there is certainly no need to feel we have debts to re-pay.
    Actually there is. Europeans actually bought human beings sold human beings. They appropriated the resources of countries,. They exterminated people. Even within my lifetime we're dealing with cultural and language genocide (yes it's called that) from European derived policies. Billions of dollars have already been paid. There's a lot more to do.

    The usual counter to this is that human beings and their societies have always done this. Which is true. People have always invaded and done some degree of exterminated the local populations. Except we don't do that any more and we decided after the 20th century world wars that it wasn't okay, and that we should, as a world , take responsibility to behaviour of nations in other countries, and between countries. So we don't accept such things. It is quite reasonable that if the effects of such behaviour are still being felt- the biblical 3rd and 4th generation isn't a bad time span to consider- that it is appropriate to feel responsible for debts. This takes us to at least most of the 20th century.

    It gets more complicated of course, when the colonial country left or was partly kicked out, but retained control of the economy and did things like organized a coup or two to indirectly control the country but pretend they're not. Things like the IMF, GATT, WTO also come to mind.
  • AnthonyAnthony Shipmate Posts: 10
    Anthony wrote: »
    European colonialism certainly changed the world, but there is no way of knowing if the world would have been any better or worse if it had never happened, and there is certainly no need to feel we have debts to re-pay.
    Actually there is. Europeans actually bought human beings sold human beings. They appropriated the resources of countries,. They exterminated people. Even within my lifetime we're dealing with cultural and language genocide (yes it's called that) from European derived policies. Billions of dollars have already been paid. There's a lot more to do.

    The usual counter to this is that human beings and their societies have always done this. Which is true. People have always invaded and done some degree of exterminated the local populations. Except we don't do that any more and we decided after the 20th century world wars that it wasn't okay, and that we should, as a world , take responsibility to behaviour of nations in other countries, and between countries. So we don't accept such things. It is quite reasonable that if the effects of such behaviour are still being felt- the biblical 3rd and 4th generation isn't a bad time span to consider- that it is appropriate to feel responsible for debts. This takes us to at least most of the 20th century.

    It gets more complicated of course, when the colonial country left or was partly kicked out, but retained control of the economy and did things like organized a coup or two to indirectly control the country but pretend they're not. Things like the IMF, GATT, WTO also come to mind.

    I disagree - believing you to be confusing criminal behaviour with cultural behaviour, or more simply behaviour either 'in keeping' or 'out of keeping' with the mood of the time.
    Cultural genocide, deliberate action by one cultural group to destroy the culture of another, is either criminal or highly undesirable, and compensation may well be appropriate, but that should not be conflated with the historic progress of humanity and the global state of the world today.
    Through the second half of the 20th century, the Western world may have decided that invasion and extermination wasn't OK, but it heartedly endorsed a world divided between rich and poor.
  • You response reads as internally inconsistent to me. Or do you support the world divided up between rich and poor. Which I see as a continuation of colonialism, just shifted in terms of how the colonization is done.
  • Yes, I know the OP says the 0.7% is enshrined in British law. I am asking how? Give me a source.
  • Anthony wrote: »
    Anthony wrote: »
    European colonialism certainly changed the world, but there is no way of knowing if the world would have been any better or worse if it had never happened, and there is certainly no need to feel we have debts to re-pay.
    Actually there is. Europeans actually bought human beings sold human beings. They appropriated the resources of countries,. They exterminated people. Even within my lifetime we're dealing with cultural and language genocide (yes it's called that) from European derived policies. Billions of dollars have already been paid. There's a lot more to do.

    The usual counter to this is that human beings and their societies have always done this. Which is true. People have always invaded and done some degree of exterminated the local populations. Except we don't do that any more and we decided after the 20th century world wars that it wasn't okay, and that we should, as a world , take responsibility to behaviour of nations in other countries, and between countries. So we don't accept such things. It is quite reasonable that if the effects of such behaviour are still being felt- the biblical 3rd and 4th generation isn't a bad time span to consider- that it is appropriate to feel responsible for debts. This takes us to at least most of the 20th century.

    It gets more complicated of course, when the colonial country left or was partly kicked out, but retained control of the economy and did things like organized a coup or two to indirectly control the country but pretend they're not. Things like the IMF, GATT, WTO also come to mind.

    I disagree - believing you to be confusing criminal behaviour with cultural behaviour, or more simply behaviour either 'in keeping' or 'out of keeping' with the mood of the time.
    Cultural genocide, deliberate action by one cultural group to destroy the culture of another, is either criminal or highly undesirable, and compensation may well be appropriate, but that should not be conflated with the historic progress of humanity and the global state of the world today.

    I'm sure it is of great comfort to those remaining in the colonised countries, some of which continue to be bombed or expropriated via other means, that you've deemed concepts like the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius to be criminal.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Yes, I know the OP says the 0.7% is enshrined in British law. I am asking how? Give me a source.
    How, the same way as anything else becomes law. It was introduced as a draft Bill in 2009 (the Labour government under Gordon Brown). Then became law in 2015 under the coalition government. @Doublethink posted a link to media reporting of it, if you want something more formal International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.

  • International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015

    Which helpfully tells you that if the UK contribution drops below 0.7%, the Secretary of State has to explain why to parliament, and lay out a plan to ensure the target is met the next year. It doesn't make cutting the spending to below 0.7% "illegal" - see part 3 (2) of that Act, and it means that the natural response to a faster-than-expected growth meaning that income overtakes aid for the year is to plan to spend a bit more the following year.
  • The tricky bit is if the government decides as a deliberate act to cut foreign aid budget below the 0.7% level. To deliberately act against an Act of Parliament is in a different league from not predicting the growth of the economy precisely and hence missing that target by a small amount.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Yes, I know the OP says the 0.7% is enshrined in British law. I am asking how? Give me a source.
    How, the same way as anything else becomes law. It was introduced as a draft Bill in 2009 (the Labour government under Gordon Brown). Then became law in 2015 under the coalition government. @Doublethink posted a link to media reporting of it, if you want something more formal International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.

    IIRC, Gramps comes from one of the Great Plains states - the new Ship does not show the profile detail available on the old one. It's a fair question from him to ask how. I thought it could have been by regulation rather than legislation, and I'm pretty familiar with the system.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Gee D wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Yes, I know the OP says the 0.7% is enshrined in British law. I am asking how? Give me a source.
    How, the same way as anything else becomes law. It was introduced as a draft Bill in 2009 (the Labour government under Gordon Brown). Then became law in 2015 under the coalition government. @Doublethink posted a link to media reporting of it, if you want something more formal International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.

    IIRC, Gramps comes from one of the Great Plains states - the new Ship does not show the profile detail available on the old one. It's a fair question from him to ask how. I thought it could have been by regulation rather than legislation, and I'm pretty familiar with the system.

    How many times have I referenced my home-state in the Pacific Northwest (USA)?

    Thank you for the above references. I do note falling below the 0.7% threshold is not necessarily illegal but, rather, calls for remedial action.
  • AnthonyAnthony Shipmate Posts: 10
    Anthony wrote: »
    Anthony wrote: »
    European colonialism certainly changed the world, but there is no way of knowing if the world would have been any better or worse if it had never happened, and there is certainly no need to feel we have debts to re-pay.
    Actually there is. Europeans actually bought human beings sold human beings. They appropriated the resources of countries,. They exterminated people. Even within my lifetime we're dealing with cultural and language genocide (yes it's called that) from European derived policies. Billions of dollars have already been paid. There's a lot more to do.

    The usual counter to this is that human beings and their societies have always done this. Which is true. People have always invaded and done some degree of exterminated the local populations. Except we don't do that any more and we decided after the 20th century world wars that it wasn't okay, and that we should, as a world , take responsibility to behaviour of nations in other countries, and between countries. So we don't accept such things. It is quite reasonable that if the effects of such behaviour are still being felt- the biblical 3rd and 4th generation isn't a bad time span to consider- that it is appropriate to feel responsible for debts. This takes us to at least most of the 20th century.

    It gets more complicated of course, when the colonial country left or was partly kicked out, but retained control of the economy and did things like organized a coup or two to indirectly control the country but pretend they're not. Things like the IMF, GATT, WTO also come to mind.

    I disagree - believing you to be confusing criminal behaviour with cultural behaviour, or more simply behaviour either 'in keeping' or 'out of keeping' with the mood of the time.
    Cultural genocide, deliberate action by one cultural group to destroy the culture of another, is either criminal or highly undesirable, and compensation may well be appropriate, but that should not be conflated with the historic progress of humanity and the global state of the world today.

    I'm sure it is of great comfort to those remaining in the colonised countries, some of which continue to be bombed or expropriated via other means, that you've deemed concepts like the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius to be criminal.

    I fail to see what on earth the link is between my comments and 'terra nullius" or any doctrine of discovery?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>Bear in mind that we are not giving away our spare money. We are actually borrowing money to give it away.
    We’re borrowing money for a whole raft of things (including the biggest military spending boost in 30 years). Overseas aid is only a tiny proportion of what we spend. Nearly three times as much already goes in defence spending alone.
    But the defence budget is for our benefit. Foreign aid is for the benefit of others. I agree with it but the fact remains that we have to borrow the money which we give away.
    The UK spends (or had done before these cuts) about £15b per year on foreign aid. Our government gave that much to Serco to not deliver a track and trace system. Or, a bit more (£20b) to build submarines to carry new Trident nuclear missiles. How much of the government income from tax and borrowing has been given to friends of Tory MPs in unaccountable and what appear to be corrupt PPE and similar contracts over the last few months?

    You are also confusing money which we donate to others with money which is spent for the benefit of the UK. The fact that some of the later is spent unwisely is not relevant.

    Removed duplicate quote. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Sorry Gramps, I did not think you were that far west - come a bit further west and join us!
  • The tricky bit is if the government decides as a deliberate act to cut foreign aid budget below the 0.7% level. To deliberately act against an Act of Parliament is in a different league from not predicting the growth of the economy precisely and hence missing that target by a small amount.
    From the wording of the Act, it doesn't seem particularly tricky to me - it even helpfully supplies potential excuses for not reaching the target:
    (3)A statement under subsection (1) or (2) must explain why the 0.7% target has not been met in the report year and, if relevant, refer to the effect of one or more of the following—
    (a)economic circumstances and, in particular, any substantial change in gross national income;
    (b)fiscal circumstances and, in particular, the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing;
    (c)circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom.
    and then explicitly states that having to produce a statement with excuses is the only consequence of missing the target:
    3Accountability to Parliament
    (1)The only means of securing accountability in relation to the duty in section 1 is that established by the provision in section 2 for the laying of a statement before Parliament.
    (2)Accordingly, the fact that the duty in section 1 has not been, or will or may not be, complied with does not affect the lawfulness of anything done, or omitted to be done, by any person.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Sorry Gramps, I did not think you were that far west - come a bit further west and join us!

    Gee, Geographically, I am further west than LA. Only two places further west are Hawaii and Alaska.
  • Then Aoteroa, then Oz...just a hop, skip and jump
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Then Aoteroa, then Oz...just a hop, skip and jump

    As indeed I meant, but perhaps should have said south-west. Not many Lutherans here, save for a couple of areas in Sth Aust and Queensland. Gramps would not be a good fit with them, they're very conservative.
  • And Walla Walla in the Riverina; they pushed east from South Australia. There was a Lutheran boarding school; not sure whether it is still going.
  • On foreign aid, I don't have the reparations motive in mind at all when I think about it. Instead, I think that as the wealthiest country in our region we have an obligation to assist our neighbors, both in times of crisis and in helping them to provide for their people. This is an altruistic, moral obligation.

    However, such arguments usually fall on deaf ears, I am sad to say, so I like to marshal the Machiavellian argument that if we don't harvest the influence that comes with aiding our neighbors, other countries will. This is obviously what China has been doing for the past 30 years, while conservative and neo-liberal Governments have progressively cut our overseas aid budgets. Only now are they acknowledging that in some of our closest neighbors, our parsimony has allowed China to build substantial and worrying influence.

    How much should be spent? I wouldn't link it to GDP. I'd link it to a country's defense budget.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    How much should be spent? I wouldn't link it to GDP. I'd link it to a country's defense budget.
    Why would you do this. I don't understand the need to connect it to any budget

  • Does not a percentage of what’s available make sense? Surely every donor considers what to give depending on the funds to hand....
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    And Walla Walla in the Riverina; they pushed east from South Australia. There was a Lutheran boarding school; not sure whether it is still going.

    Yes, I forgot about them. The township is well off the beaten path. AFAIK, the college is still going but must surely take in students not Lutheran - Walla Walla would have well under 1,000 residents in town and the surrounding area.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    How much should be spent? I wouldn't link it to GDP. I'd link it to a country's defense budget.
    Why would you do this. I don't understand the need to connect it to any budget

    If you use the Machiavellian argument to justify foreign aid, rather than the altruistic argument, then it is really 'soft power'. It achieves influence in recipient nations so that potential enemies do not use their influence to establish infrastructure that could be used against the donor country in wartime, or worse still actual bases.

    This might seem strange in a European context, but in the South-east Asian context we are in a battle for influence in many countries. It is absolutely in our national interest to give foreign aid to our neighbors, because as we scaled back our donor programmes over the last 30 years, the slack was taken up by the Chinese Communists.

    Linking foreign aid to defence budgets emphasises the connection between it and national defence. My real reason for supporting foreign aid - it is a moral imperative because of our relative wealth - is not one that many people find compelling. Its better to appeal to people's self interest.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    How much should be spent? I wouldn't link it to GDP. I'd link it to a country's defense budget.
    Why would you do this. I don't understand the need to connect it to any budget

    If you use the Machiavellian argument to justify foreign aid, rather than the altruistic argument, then it is really 'soft power'. It achieves influence in recipient nations so that potential enemies do not use their influence to establish infrastructure that could be used against the donor country in wartime, or worse still actual bases.

    This might seem strange in a European context, but in the South-east Asian context we are in a battle for influence in many countries. It is absolutely in our national interest to give foreign aid to our neighbors, because as we scaled back our donor programmes over the last 30 years, the slack was taken up by the Chinese Communists.

    Linking foreign aid to defence budgets emphasises the connection between it and national defence. My real reason for supporting foreign aid - it is a moral imperative because of our relative wealth - is not one that many people find compelling. Its better to appeal to people's self interest.
    Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Personally I would prefer all foreign aid go directly to charities in the area where the aid is needed.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Personally I would prefer all foreign aid go directly to charities in the area where the aid is needed.

    Bearing in mind that this is taxpayers' money, how would you set about monitoring how it is spent and assessing the results achieved?
  • Telford wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    How much should be spent? I wouldn't link it to GDP. I'd link it to a country's defense budget.
    Why would you do this. I don't understand the need to connect it to any budget

    If you use the Machiavellian argument to justify foreign aid, rather than the altruistic argument, then it is really 'soft power'. It achieves influence in recipient nations so that potential enemies do not use their influence to establish infrastructure that could be used against the donor country in wartime, or worse still actual bases.

    This might seem strange in a European context, but in the South-east Asian context we are in a battle for influence in many countries. It is absolutely in our national interest to give foreign aid to our neighbors, because as we scaled back our donor programmes over the last 30 years, the slack was taken up by the Chinese Communists.

    Linking foreign aid to defence budgets emphasises the connection between it and national defence. My real reason for supporting foreign aid - it is a moral imperative because of our relative wealth - is not one that many people find compelling. Its better to appeal to people's self interest.
    Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Personally I would prefer all foreign aid go directly to charities in the area where the aid is needed.
    that’s already happening; courtesy of individual/ institutional donors who mostly don’t have a political axe to grind

  • Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>Bear in mind that we are not giving away our spare money. We are actually borrowing money to give it away.
    We’re borrowing money for a whole raft of things (including the biggest military spending boost in 30 years). Overseas aid is only a tiny proportion of what we spend. Nearly three times as much already goes in defence spending alone.
    But the defence budget is for our benefit. Foreign aid is for the benefit of others.

    I think this is a false dichotomy. Both defence spending and aid are tools used to support alliances, to influence global affairs, and to (in theory at least) improve the lot of people across the globe. Consider UK military actions over the last 30 years. How many would you say had tangible benefits to the British population? 2 Gulf Wars, various actions in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, probably more I've forgotten.
  • Anthony wrote: »
    Anthony wrote: »
    Anthony wrote: »
    European colonialism certainly changed the world, but there is no way of knowing if the world would have been any better or worse if it had never happened, and there is certainly no need to feel we have debts to re-pay.
    Actually there is. Europeans actually bought human beings sold human beings. They appropriated the resources of countries,. They exterminated people. Even within my lifetime we're dealing with cultural and language genocide (yes it's called that) from European derived policies. Billions of dollars have already been paid. There's a lot more to do.

    The usual counter to this is that human beings and their societies have always done this. Which is true. People have always invaded and done some degree of exterminated the local populations. Except we don't do that any more and we decided after the 20th century world wars that it wasn't okay, and that we should, as a world , take responsibility to behaviour of nations in other countries, and between countries. So we don't accept such things. It is quite reasonable that if the effects of such behaviour are still being felt- the biblical 3rd and 4th generation isn't a bad time span to consider- that it is appropriate to feel responsible for debts. This takes us to at least most of the 20th century.

    It gets more complicated of course, when the colonial country left or was partly kicked out, but retained control of the economy and did things like organized a coup or two to indirectly control the country but pretend they're not. Things like the IMF, GATT, WTO also come to mind.

    I disagree - believing you to be confusing criminal behaviour with cultural behaviour, or more simply behaviour either 'in keeping' or 'out of keeping' with the mood of the time.
    Cultural genocide, deliberate action by one cultural group to destroy the culture of another, is either criminal or highly undesirable, and compensation may well be appropriate, but that should not be conflated with the historic progress of humanity and the global state of the world today.

    I'm sure it is of great comfort to those remaining in the colonised countries, some of which continue to be bombed or expropriated via other means, that you've deemed concepts like the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius to be criminal.

    I fail to see what on earth the link is between my comments and 'terra nullius" or any doctrine of discovery?

    Those were among the concepts that were in their time used to declare colonial activities (which people continued to profit from long after they had become obsolete) of all kinds completely lawful (and therefore non-criminal), just as other concepts are used these days to continue extraction of wealth from many of the same companies.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Personally I would prefer all foreign aid go directly to charities in the area where the aid is needed.

    Bearing in mind that this is taxpayers' money, how would you set about monitoring how it is spent and assessing the results achieved?

    I would not be in a position to do any of this work.
    Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    <snip>Bear in mind that we are not giving away our spare money. We are actually borrowing money to give it away.
    We’re borrowing money for a whole raft of things (including the biggest military spending boost in 30 years). Overseas aid is only a tiny proportion of what we spend. Nearly three times as much already goes in defence spending alone.
    But the defence budget is for our benefit. Foreign aid is for the benefit of others.

    I think this is a false dichotomy. Both defence spending and aid are tools used to support alliances, to influence global affairs, and to (in theory at least) improve the lot of people across the globe. Consider UK military actions over the last 30 years. How many would you say had tangible benefits to the British population? 2 Gulf Wars, various actions in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, probably more I've forgotten.

    You make good points. I guess that the two main benefits would be to provode employment and to provide us with a well trained, experienced, disciplined and flexible armed services who are able to do a job for us home and abread.

  • Telford wrote: »
    You make good points. I guess that the two main benefits would be to provode employment and to provide us with a well trained, experienced, disciplined and flexible armed services who are able to do a job for us home and abread.

    Fighting a war might well do those things, but they'd be pretty shitty reasons to go to war.
  • Curiously, one of my go to websites when I am planning a liturgy is the Lutheran Church in Australia Commission on Worship. Yes, the LCA is quite conservative, but they do have some of the best contemporary prayers available for worship.
Sign In or Register to comment.