Browse > Home / Election, International Development, UK Politics / Aid spending targets are simply wrong

| Subcribe via RSS



Aid spending targets are simply wrong

bono_brown_415Politicians generally disagree. Don’t be fooled by Brown’s recent nauseating sycophantism towards Clegg – in reality cross party consensus is very difficult to achieve. Banker-bashing aside, there are very few things that all three parties actually agree on and even fewer that they’d be prepared to admit.

But, there is one idea on which all three parties do agree on, and unfortunately it’s a shocker. All three parties have agreed in their manifestoes (Cons, Lab, Lib) to make it a legal obligation to spend 0.7% of national income upon foreign aid by 2013. This will cost an extra £2bn a year, according to the latest figures, and so nearly slipped under the election radar. However, thanks to The Times who picked up on report released today by International Policy Network, the stupidity of this proposal has now been exposed.

Now, before all the “pro-aiders” choke on their organic soup and reach for their recycled tissues, please wait. This isn’t an anti-aid rant. In fact the report doesn’t offer any recommendation on how much should be spent, but instead focuses on the stupidity of fixing aid spending to a specific target- any target.

It makes no sense whatsoever: Using input targets to determine spending is backwards. If a funding shortfall is the issue, it would be logical to look at how much money is needed rather than how much the UK can afford to give. As the The Times notes, “the oddity of deciding how much a poor country needs from the size of a rich one on the other side of the planet.”

What’s more, as the report comprehensively explains, the 0.7% target itself  was formulated as a lobbying tool almost half a century ago using now discredited methodology. The same method with today’s figures shows a capital “need” far below current UK spending on aid. And this highlights another problem with using targets- the developing world is always changing. Since this target was first proposed India and China have pulled half a billion people out of poverty, the economic landscape of the ex-Soviet republics has changed beyond recognition and Geldof has had at least one hair cut. Fixing aid spending denies the reality that people can, and do, pull themselves out of poverty and away from aid dependence.

Unfortunately it looks as though all three parties have neglected to scrutinise this particular lobbying tool, touted by that bellwether of bad ideas- Bono, and have blindly agreed to fix to an arbitrary target. At least one of them should know better.

4 Responses to “Aid spending targets are simply wrong”

  1. Jock Says:

    Now, before all the “pro-aiders” choke on their organic soup

    Tsk! Fair Trade is not *necessarily* organic!


  2. Realist Says:

    One thing really puts me of Liberals, I dont know one
    who has a proper job. They all seem to be in jobs
    watching others work and busily telling others what to
    do and what not do.May I suggest they continue to flutter
    around the Celtic fringes where political awareness is
    in short supply.

    Realist


  3. Jock Says:

    Huh? “Fantasist” more that “Realist” Id’s suggest.


  4. Jack Hughes Says:

    Bono’s sunglasses cost $400 per pair – this would buy enough mosquito nets to cover Benin and Togo.

    Why not dump ‘aid’ altogether? people who want to send money to Africa can arrange it themselves.