Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: International Aid

  1. #1

    Default International Aid

    In the UK the previous government spent so much tax payers money we were spending 4 pounds for every 3 we actually had, so this government is having to find massive reductions. Which luckily since the last government was wasting so much of that expenditure its not as difficult as if it was spent efficiently. Still there are plenty of difficult decisions and all governmental departments bar two have been told to find savings averaging about 25% of their expenditure each. Even at a time of war the MOD is being told to cut spending by 20%, the Education Department has had its budget cut. The only 2 departments saved from the axe are the NHS and International Development (aid).

    In real terms as the population ages more needs to be spent on the NHS anyway so even if spending is maintained its still a bit of a cut. So the one major ringfence is International Development.

    Now I'm quite happy for international aid to be sent overseas, I've never been one to believe the spending all has to be at home (quite frankly we spend too much on welfare etc at home). However I don't understand why we send aid to certain countries.

    Why for example should the UK spend aid money going to India, when the Indian government spends its money on nuclear weapons, space exploration and has its own international aid spending? We also spend aid money going to China, Russia and plenty of other nations which are frankly big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves.

    If we are to be spending taxpayers money on development overseas should it not be on nations that at the least don't have nuclear weapons? Even if the level of expenditure doesn't get reduced, should it not be moved elsewhere?

    For whichever nation you're from, which overseas nations should your government be spending money on - if any.

  2. #2
    Any sense of what kind of aide money is going to countries like China and India? Money is a tool of diplomacy that can open up other avenues for revenue after all...

  3. #3
    http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Fi...evelopment-go/

    http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Fi.../Tables-index/ Go to table 13 for Indian amount.

    India is getting 400,000 million (more than Iraq), but I think it's a bit naive to think that if India wasn't spending its money on its nuclear capability, it would redirect all that money to the same areas Britain is helping now. And isn't it like blackmail to tell a country you'll help it only if it underfunds its military? India isn't exactly in a tranquil part of the world.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #4
    India is getting 400,000 million (more than Iraq), but I think it's a bit naive to think that if India wasn't spending its money on its nuclear capability, it would redirect all that money to the same areas Britain is helping now. And isn't it like blackmail to tell a country you'll help it only if it underfunds its military? India isn't exactly in a tranquil part of the world.
    Why does India deserve aid? Its better off then a lot of other countries.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    India is getting 400,000 million (more than Iraq), but I think it's a bit naive to think that if India wasn't spending its money on its nuclear capability, it would redirect all that money to the same areas Britain is helping now. And isn't it like blackmail to tell a country you'll help it only if it underfunds its military? India isn't exactly in a tranquil part of the world.
    If India can afford nukes it can afford it's own development - and it's not blackmail, more like with a teenager/young adult "ok if you're going to be independent then get a job and buy your own playstation"

  6. #6
    UK to cut foreign aid to 'rich' India
    on 12-07-2010 09:16


    Britain is to review its £250 million annual development assistance to India amid a growing sense in Whitehall and among independent experts that a country which spends millions on its nuclear programme and is seen as an emerging economic giant does not need foreign aid any more.

    India is the single largest recipient of British overseas aid, mostly tied to specific projects, and in recent months ministers have struggled to justify this at a time when Britain itself is facing sweeping cuts in public spending following its worst post-War economic crisis.

    The Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell on Sunday indicated that the aid package to India could be reduced as part of an overall review of British assistance to fast developing major economies. Funding to China and Russia is reported to have been already withdrawn.

    "India is more complex and more difficult than China. But this is a programme I am looking at in detail," Mitchell told The Sunday Times.

    Recently, his Conservative Party colleague and The Financial Times' former South Asia bureau chief Jo Johnson called for Britain to stop funding India saying that it was "no longer a natural aid recipient".

    "India can now fund its own development needs... it has a defence budget of $31.5 billion, plans for a prestige-boosting moon-shot and a substantial foreign aid programme of its own," he wrote, adding that "a bit of tough love in the new special relationship should end this anachronism".

    The pressure to review funding to India has grown following allegations of misuse of millions of pounds of British educational grant by Indian authorities. Mitchell described them as "shocking allegations" and promised an investigation.

    Officially the line until now had been that despite progress India still needed assistance to deal with the "scale of its needs".

    The entry on India on the Department for International Development's website features a photo of a "family group in a slum" in Patna and notes: "The country has accomplished a great deal since independence in 1947, making slow but steady progress. However, despite its strong economic growth, the scale of its need is huge. Today 456 million Indians - 42 per cent of the population - live in poverty, comprising one-third of the world's poor."

    Recently, in an article in The Hindu, Mitchell wrote that Britain would continue to support "the millions of Indians who are battling against poverty and disease".

    "Our message is this: the people and Government of Britain are on your side, and we will use every tool in our policy armoury - aid, trade, climate policy, diplomacy, business investment, and more - to champion fairness and prosperity for you," he wrote, pointing out that a "fifth of global child and maternal deaths, and cases of TB occur in India" while over 40 per cent of children in India were underweight and a child died every 15 minutes from easily preventable diseases.

    - Agencies
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  7. #7
    As I understand it, the UK hasn't given aide to the US in...ever? So seems silly to keep on going it even if they have high poverty rates. Their issue seems to not be a cashflow issue but a distribution/access to opportunity issue.

  8. #8
    Yes, access to opportunity seems to be the largest single destabilizing force in the world. The wealthy of the world (countries, corporations, and individuals) have 2 choices on how to prevent a world-wide "French" revolution: Spend a portion of their wealth on more police or spend a portion of their wealth on placating the multitudes with limited access to opportunity.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    If India can afford nukes it can afford it's own development - and it's not blackmail, more like with a teenager/young adult "ok if you're going to be independent then get a job and buy your own playstation"
    Oh gosh, how didn't we see the white man's burden weighing so heavily on your weary shoulders

    Serious reply: You didn't address anything Low-key said inasmuch as you went "hurp glurp help bad get ur own welfare (btw I hate welfare)" and then added some colonial master condescension to be safe.

    Loki said it'd be naive to think the help you're giving them would be afforded from their budget; well that's okay cuz they got nukes. It's entirely possible that your hilariously offensive former colonial master attitude was in fact your general loathing of money going anywhere but your pet projects; the casual poster will never know!
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  10. #10
    I knowed.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    If India can afford nukes it can afford it's own development - and it's not blackmail, more like with a teenager/young adult "ok if you're going to be independent then get a job and buy your own playstation"
    Why stop at nukes? If a country can afford to have tanks or airplanes, don't give them aid. In fact, why not just say that any country that has a military shouldn't get aid? Coincidentally, India spends 2.5% of its GDP on its military, compared to 2.4% for the UK, despite being in a far rougher neighborhood. In fact, if you go through the list of countries that spend more (https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...sas&rank=62#in), you'll see plenty who are receiving British aid.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12
    So. Does anyone foresee a point when the US might need international aid, or any nation stepping up to the plate to help us?

    Beyond China buying our Treasurys, or charitable contributions for our disaster relief, there is probably a tipping point which no one wants to contemplate. Especially not the US. After all, we have our pride as a Super Power.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    I would be quite ok with all 'aid' being scrapped. It mostly benefits the people from the donor countries who can play the good samaritan with other people's money. It's a huge ego-boost for them of course to be so important in some poor slob's life, but in the end it doesn't do much good for the local economy and back home it's just more money wasted.
    Congratulations America

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    I would be quite ok with all 'aid' being scrapped. It mostly benefits the people from the donor countries who can play the good samaritan with other people's money. It's a huge ego-boost for them of course to be so important in some poor slob's life, but in the end it doesn't do much good for the local economy and back home it's just more money wasted.
    Do you have the same opinion of welfare?

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Do you have the same opinion of welfare?
    Welfare, as it is in my country, pretty much is for people who really can't function in a job. I'd rather have them paid fromi my taxes than have them begging for money in front of my door. That isn't a principled answer I know.
    Congratulations America

  16. #16
    So if they're close enough to bug you then give them money, if they're not then you can safely ignore them?

    Is that your opinion basically?
    Last edited by RandBlade; 08-01-2010 at 05:18 PM.

  17. #17
    RB - I think your particular rationale is poor (looking at non-development spending, etc.), but the basic idea is not an unreasonable one. Certainly some of the traditionally large recipients of development aid (e.g. India) are now far richer per capita than some of their less fortunate neighbors (e.g. Bangladesh). Might that aid money be better put to use elsewhere? Quite possibly.

    Yet I think there are several things we need to consider. First, I know that at least US aid tends to give American foreign policy quite a bit of leverage in the developing world - whether we need a political concession, coordination on military matters, a trade agreement, or to lease a military base, we certainly use our leverage fairly frequently. Even if we won't use it directly on a government like India, there's always the implicit threat of a withdrawal of aid. The US probably has more leverage than most countries since the amounts are high (in absolute terms), but the same principle applies.

    Secondly, even if a country is developing faster than some of the other hellholes of the world, most of these countries are still quite poor (India's PPP GDP per capita is under $3k). Yes, their government allocation of funds might not be the best, but earmarking development aid may be an effective way to shape their development while improving our relationship with an emerging power.

    In reality, I think that aid should gradually be phased out as a country develops, but it should be replaced with other ties - economic, political, etc. It might seem paternalistic, but it also allows a country with global aspirations (e.g. Britain) to keep a positive and strong relationship with the other big players.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    So if they're close enough to bug you then give them money, if they're not then you can safely ignore them?

    Is that your opinion basically?
    No, there is a difference. Development aid is supposed to get countries back on their own feet. Which it doesn't so it's an utter waste of money. Welfare -at least- gives me the benefit of not having beggers hanging around my house, so it's not entirely a waste of money.
    Congratulations America

  19. #19
    Wouldn't it be cheaper to have a few very diligent guards around your house/gated community?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Wouldn't it be cheaper to have a few very diligent guards around your house/gated community?
    That would also very sharply reduce the area in which I can move around safely, so I wouldn't neccessarily consider the cheaper deal the better deal.
    Congratulations America

  21. #21
    Given the different economic conditions that Hazir has told us he lives in, where basically anyone who doesn't work can't work, I think it's safe to say that Hazir lives on Centauri Prime.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Given the different economic conditions that Hazir has told us he lives in, where basically anyone who doesn't work can't work, I think it's safe to say that Hazir lives on Centauri Prime.
    I would be very surprised if I ever said that.

    edit : ah, I and now I know why you would say something as silly as that; I don't know who gets welfare in your country, but here in Holland you'd have to be a pretty hopeless case to fall that far.

    I loved that series by the way.
    Congratulations America

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •