International aid shake up

The Conservatives have announced plans to shake up the way the Britain gives overseas aid.  Good.

It's right that rich countries look to foster development in poorer nations.  But too much of our aid budget gets spent on big 4x4's and never-to-be-implemented strategy documents.

Worse, in some countries where Britain has given direct budget support, UK taxpayers have been subsidising kleptocracy.  Recipient governments are able to spend money on the things that they want (big 'planes and Mercedes Benzs) because they are able to beg for the things that their people need (education and health care).

Sitting on the Public Accounts Committee, I recently quizzed some DfID officials about the way that budget support is being spent.  Deeply unconvincing.

Budget support also undermines democratic development in Africa.  With such a large slice of government revenue coming from the donor community, ministers and officials in recipient countries answer to outsiders, rather than to the communities that elected them.

Recalibrating the way we target aid give us an opportunity to use our aid budget to protect the natural environment.  For example, in Uganda, where Britain spends £billions, we should be looking to help establish fishing conservation areas on overfished Lake Victoria.  Doing so would mean fewer 4x4's, but it might just help local people and preserve the environment.

Posted on 1 January 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

How about asking Dambisa Moyo, the author of Dead Aid, for her thoughts on aid to Africa?

Posted on 1 January 2010 13:49 by John Walters

The first thing I'd do about international aid at the moment is look at home much money we've got spare and adjust the aid budget down. Given that most of it currently goes, as you say, to undeserving causes, that should be a big saving we can make.

Posted on 1 January 2010 17:20 by David Hough

Is it really "right" that rich countries look to foster development in poorer nations? The UK can't even foster development in its own country, let alone in anyone elses.

Posted on 1 January 2010 19:08 by Tyler

Is there any democratic mandate to take money by force from poor pensioners in this country, and transfer it to Africa? If so, when did it happen?

I would suggest that these policies of 'aid' need to be rethought. It is immoral to rob Peter to pay Paul. Why should we do so?

Most of the African states are notoriously kleptocracies. They will continue to be so, until their rulers have some incentive to rule well. "Foreign aid" is a disincentive to do so.

Consider the cancellation of third-world debt. Thieving rulers borrowed and squandered huge sums. Responsible rulers did not. Thieves had money for bribes; honest rulers did not. But when the band began to play, and the money to be repaid... instead of virtue and vice reaping their consequences, the "World" decided to give the thieves all the money instead. In other words, we made it foolish to be prudent, foolish to rule well.

The best thing we can do for Africa is to stop throwing money at it. A one year moratorium on all aid would probably kick-start some responsibility.

The existing system doesn't work. Let's do something else.

Posted on 1 January 2010 20:15 by Roger Pearse

I worked for the Australian Government in London for a short period maybe 50 years ago. At that time any aid they gave was in the form of goods or services. Goods had to be things that were not marketable, I was involved in the purchase of some radio transmitters. All equipment had to be engraved with a statement "This equipment is a gift from the people of Australia to the people of XXXX". Wherever possible it had to be Australian made. Service were provided by the government placing and overseeing the contracts. "Want an airport runway built?" "We will arrange the contractors."
At least less of the money got attached to sticky fingers, and wherever possible the money was spent with their own companies, helping their own businesses at the same time.
Don't know if this is what they still do, but it seemed a very sensible idea.

Posted on 1 January 2010 23:08 by English Pensioner

Scrap all aid. If people want to give (and many do) they will give via the charities. If they don't want to give don't force them to give by taking their money and giving it to corrupt leaders (two wrongs don't make a right).

Besides which government giving fools people into thinking that we don't need to give ourselves (meaning that overall aid is probably down).

If you really want to help, scrap the CAP, allow free trade and give impoverished farmers a chance to earn their way out of poverty.

Posted on 1 January 2010 23:51 by Jamess

giving so much money to India as "aid" is wrong and should be stopped, its borrowed money and they can borrow it just as easily as we can, they are in competition with our economy and undercutting us by playing unfair (no pollution controls, no fair employment practises, no health and safety, etc)

it is complete nonsense to give them so much money when we are in so much debt

to say nothing of the floods of indian nationals in this country on visas abusing the rules and working for less than brits and europeans, this should be stopped immediately

aid for places that need it where we can afford it fair enough, floods of borrowed money to the modern india no way not in my name

we need to stop being so stupid

Posted on 2 January 2010 00:19 by Iain Gill

Destroy the British Council. It has been taken over by the likes of Neil Kinnock and used as a Trojan horse to spread Internationalist Socialist doctrine.

Douglas, I hope you are keeping an eye on Richard North's EU Referendum blog?

Revelations there about the graft and corruption in the AGW racket.

Seems much of it is paid for by the UK government.

Posted on 3 January 2010 10:54 by APL

Trade not aid is the way forward. Policies that benefit <i>people</i> rather than Governments.

British consumers buying developing country products would put our money in the hands of productive people *by choice* rather than having two Governments and God knows how many quangocrats carving off something for themselves. It would enrich the lives of the people in developing nations and lower our cost of living. The only thing Governments would have to do is make sure imported products met certain quality and safety standards.

Within the EU we cannot leverage the power of trade unencumbered. Unless that is, the EU could be made to see some sense...

Posted on 3 January 2010 13:57 by Gareth

Patronage tends to corrupt:

"Thus we learn that, earlier this year minister for International development Douglas Alexander launched a partnership with TERI-India, pledging up to £10 million to support the work of TERI over the next five years.

Amongst other thing, the money would enable TERI "to focus on building its own institutional capacity, helping it to become an even stronger organisation than it is already." Dr R K Pachauri was very pleased."

And much more - http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-3.html

Posted on 5 January 2010 20:46 by John Page

Solve; Poverty, Food shortages, Agriculture, Health & Climate problems in one hit with...
Contraception!
Reduce population growth to NIL and BINGO many problems solved.

Posted on 5 January 2010 22:02 by Eric of Walton

Overseas aid should be stopped, it never reaches the people who need it.It goes to corrupt governments who always talk this country down.

Posted on 4 February 2010 08:16 by W.J.Leitch

Make A Comment