Getting rid of the 0.7 percent aid target
Daniel Korski 9:05am
A leader in yesterday’s Times concentrated on the Conservatives’ aid policy – and, in particular, their commitment (shared by the government and by plenty of developed nations) to spend 0.7 percent of gross national income on development assistance. There was much to like in the article, but it misses a few key points and trains too much fire at the Tories.
The key points to make about the 0.7 percent commitment is that it is not based on any assessment of how much money is needed to achieve any defined set of objectives, and has not been revised since it was set forty years ago to take into account new trends – such as remittances from migrant workers, a rise in philanthropic giving, or the role of China and India.
Global philanthropy, remittances and private capital investment continued account for something like 83 percent of the developed world’s economic dealings with developing countries. Total remittances from industrial countries to the developing world were $145 billion dollars in 2007—nearly one and one-half times larger than all governments’ Official Development Assistance ($103.5 billion), and three times larger than private philanthropy ($49.1 billion). This by itself ought to have led to a revision of the 0.7 percent of GNI target – but has not.
Then, there is a point that the Tory aid spokesman, Andrew Mitchell, has made well: some countries like China have, over the past few decades, become debt-holders and aid-givers, rather than aid-receivers. This should probably also be reflected in any global target for development assistance – but is not.
But the target is off, even when you just look at need. A 2005 report by aid guru Jeffrey Sachs and ex-UN boss Kofi Annan said $195 billion (in 2015 figures) would be needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals (the world’s global aid objectives). This works out at between 0.44 and 0.54 percent of rich countries’ GNI. That is, a fair bit lower than the 0.7% target.
Though The Times leader gets at some of these issues, it is too tough on the Tories. The recent Conservative proposals on aid acknowledge that economic growth is vital, and make clear that they want development aid to be spent better. It comes up with lots of different ideas, some of which are gimmicky, but others of which are solid – e.g. the idea of an independent aid watchdog to scrutinise the impact and outcomes of British aid. All the signs are that a Conservative-run DfID would opt for more control over the taxpayer pound.
Finally, with polls showing Tory support still to be “soft”, it would be an odd kind of politics if the party declared that it would get rid of the 0.7 target – thus opening itself up to (irrational) scorn by many, and praise by a few.
Previous
Chuck Unsworth
January 14th, 2010 9:33am Report this comment'Aid' is often an extension of diplomacy (diplomatic warfare). Aid which is provided by countries such as China is particularly so. It is a means of establishing a presence and securing long-term trading relationships. I do not believe that the Chinese offer their support out of any sense of altruism - nor do many other countries, including our own. USAID in many countries is clearly conditional.
Historically, British aid was used for such purposes - and proved very effective. But we no longer have the necessary capital resource, so must either withdraw or find unique abilities which will make British aid more valuable to recipients than that from other countries. Any ideas?
Grumpy Optimist
January 14th, 2010 9:38am Report this commentI remember from my time as a young man in Swaziland in the early 1970s seeing just what aid was used for - to prop up the ruling elite at that time. No aid ever really works. Professor Bauer at the LSE was arguing this at the time. Apparently Tanzania has received more aid per capita then any other poor country. You wouldn't know it. And what part did aid play in the development of South Korea, China and India? I think we know the answer.
Humanitarian aid to help with natural disasters is different. But aid - government to government or quango to quango - forget it.
It would be nice to think that there were Tories who understood this even though they cannot bring themselves to act on it pre-election.
David Ossitt
January 14th, 2010 10:10am Report this commentA family who are short of cash have to prioritize spending.
At the top of this ordered; sequential list, of what is to be spent must come all debts, mortgages etcetera, next all of the essential services, such as gas water electric, for everything else savings have to be made.
Good quality basic food must take preference to expensive luxuries; spending on anything else must be cut to the bone.
A country that is short of cash should do likewise; to give to some of the recipients of our charity is foolish and verges on the obscene, almost all of our aid should be suspended.
Sacre Bleu
January 14th, 2010 10:28am Report this commentAll aid should be conditional from giving handouts or tax credits for example to large capital sums to the likes of China or India who may well use the aid to buy up British industries. Steel and motor industries have hardly done a lot for the UK since we paid someone else to buy them.
Pete-s
January 14th, 2010 10:38am Report this commentWhat about all the money that is going to the unions from the int dev fund. What a fiddle; they cloak it in names like, training union members in the use of int aid. My AR*E: this is just a crooked way of funding the unions.
David Burns
January 14th, 2010 10:41am Report this commentDoes anyone know why we give aid to India who can afford a larger space programme than we can?
JohnPage
January 14th, 2010 10:44am Report this commentThe Cameroonn commitment on aid is typical of their shallow gesture politics.
Ed P
January 14th, 2010 10:58am Report this commentWhen a few million of Aid money is given to the TUC, which then "finds it way back" as union donations to the Labour Party, it's time to re-evaluate this 0.7%.
Aidan
January 14th, 2010 11:07am Report this commentThe best thing we could do to help developing countries is to remove all the trade barriers which prevent them exporting to us. We should not support any grandiose infra-structure projects. Instead we should support small businesses with soft loans, to build up a middle class with a vested interest in stability and the rule of law
Snowman
January 14th, 2010 11:09am Report this commentHow about doubling the size of the aid policy budget then? What Africa desperately needs is more millionaires.
Grumpy Optimist has my vote. Unreservedly.
In 1984, a well known British journalist travelled to Ethiopia, and sent a message to the world: ‘please help, there are over 4mn people starving here’. The country population stood at roughly 50mn. Aid of one sort of another poured in, billions of dollars worth, and an Irish pop idol shouted ‘give us you fugging money’. I chipped in, too.
The same journalist visited the country again in 2004. Ethiopia had 60mn people then. And his new message to the world? Please, help over 12mn people starving here’.
This true case just about sums up the effectiveness of Western aid programmes for the starving unwashed of the continent that has seen food production decline even though it has the most fertile soil of any other continental mass.
luke
January 14th, 2010 11:26am Report this commentIf the answer is really another new quango i suspect the tories have got the question wrong
DavidDP
January 14th, 2010 11:33am Report this commentThe Times also missed the point that the Tories would no longer be sending aid to China.
I agree that aid needs to be approach a littel more professionally, but it is more crucial than it seems. It's an expression of soft power, which if wielded well can produce long term dividends, and at a cheaper price than more traditional hard power expressions.
John Moss
January 14th, 2010 12:09pm Report this commentAid is the way that money from poor people in rich countries is transferred ot rich people in poor countries.
Start by reducing subsidies and lowering tariff barriers so poor countries can grow through trade. Then invest in infrastructure, education and buinsesses.
Then you can stop because they won't be poor any more.
Nicholas
January 14th, 2010 12:43pm Report this commentI am getting slightly concerned by Tory pledges to create more quangos and watchdogs when they have not yet pledged to get rid of any. I know they have made noises about it but I have not yet seen any preliminary target planning or criteria. If I am wrong and any of the quangos, New Labour front organisations or fake lobbying charities that Brown & Gang refer to as "the public" have been targetted perhaps someone in the know could set me straight.
Alexander Pelling
January 14th, 2010 1:16pm Report this comment".. an independent aid watchdog ..."
NO!
NO MORE QUANGOS!
PLEASE!
djw2009
January 14th, 2010 1:28pm Report this commentWhy are all the Spectator writers pinkoes? No conservative can accept that we should be sending so much abroad as pure charity without gaining any other advantages for the national interest. We don't run the 3rd world - and so we are not responsible for their problems. The foreign aid budget should be zero. That would attract the praise of many and the scorn only of a few leftwingers in the media bubble that the Spectator inhabits.
Verity
January 14th, 2010 2:42pm Report this commentI can see the logic in some of the comments above, but instinctively, I am with djw2009.
There should be no outflows of money from the UK unless for the purchase of something definite, rather than phantom good will and influence. (Who cares if we can influence Tanzania and Ethiopia?)
The days of the struggle for influence against the USSR and the communist philosophy are gone.
Not only would I slice overseas aid right out of the budget, but I would put conditions on humanitarian aid for natural disasters, as well. (As an example, because Pakistanis believe dogs are dirty and somehow against allah, we shouldn't help out in any more earthquakes with our wonderful, intelligent, alert rescue dogs.) The meme should be "conform to our norms or carry on without our money".
In other words, Britain should be responding to things the way they are today, rather than 20 years ago, and today, the guide should be that direct American phrase, "My way or the highway." Their choice. They're free to say "no".
Vettekulla
January 14th, 2010 8:30pm Report this commentToo tough on the Tories? Nonsense. In addition to Easterly's books, Cameron and his team should read Paul Collier and Dambisa Moyo. Then make those phone calls Ms. Moyo advocates to all aid recipients to inform them that the Tory Government will take the lead in shutting off the aid taps in five years time. Then move DFID's budget to Defence to be used exclusively for humanitarian and security operations.
Noa Zrk
January 15th, 2010 1:04am Report this commentAid should be voluntary and any decision to give should be at the discretion of individuals.. Instead it has become a part of the nanny state.
The ability to nominate whether he is prepared to give aid and to whom he is prepared to give it, (persecuted Christians in Pakistan, rather than the Pakistani or Indian nuclear programmes) should be within the absolute gift of the giver and not the false generosity of Brown or Cameron.
djw2009
January 15th, 2010 3:27pm Report this commentThis is yet another issue where the Spectator columnists are well to the left of their readers. Do Spectator writers cringe when reading these posts? Has anyone an explanation for the divide that there is between Telegraph/Spectator readers and Telegraph/Spectator writers? Do the journalists in fact really agree with us, but feel forced to "tone it down" in their articles? Or do they really feel a sense of disgust at their audience? Fraser, can you reply?
Back to top