The Student Room Group

Should the UK maintain a foreign aid budget in times of austerity?

What are your thoughts and justifications?

Scroll to see replies

Yes.

cos I'm a filthy Chomsky loving commie and there aint nothing you can do aboot it.


Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky ChomskyChomsky Chomsky ChomskyChomsky Chomsky Chomsky

Isn't Chomsky just wonderful? :flutter:
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by G8D
I'm not convinced we should have any amount of automatic aid in any instance. If people want to give to charity, they can. It shouldn't be our responsibility to regulate the third world.


But we can profiteer out of them either way. I like your thinking. :wink:
Every intelligent person who's done their research knows that our aid is only a bargaining tool anyway; a sort of alternative potential sanction to utilise whenever. We used to give aid to India...right up until they decided to buy France's aircraft instead of ours... India - who have space and nuclear capability programmes !
Very little aid is actually just money we give out for free. A lot of it is 'conditional' or 'tied' - this usually means that with the money they have to spend it on British goods,or similar conditions that benefit us in some way.
Original post by Abdul-Karim
What are your thoughts and justifications?

whats your opinion on the matter?
Reply 6
Avatar for Turquaz
Turquaz
18
This question has been asked many times before so thread closed.
Original post by Edo123
This question has been asked many times before so thread closed.


You better close like every thread on here then :mad:
Reply 8
Avatar for SirMike
SirMike
Sadly this sort of discussion is usually dominated by those who have been indoctrinated by the Daily Mail. 'Why the **** should we be sending money over there when they can afford their own space programme?'. The same sort of people who will moan about immigrants but celebrate wildly when their football club signs a foreign star.
Original post by trustmeimlying1
whats your opinion on the matter?


I think although there is much controversial debate on the subject we should take into account that there are numerous forms of aid, from humanitarian emergency assistance, to food aid, military assistance, etc.. A number of factors come in to play when considering to whom and how much aid is distributed to. Many people have a misconception on the objectives of giving out aid and do not realise that the foreign aid programme isn’t just about giving away money to other countries to do as they please; but objectives include creating a sense of stability to less economically developed country in aims to achieve long-run domestic benefit. For instance increasing exports and gaining political influences within foreign nations; also in helping reduce global inequality and raising living standards.


Original post by G8D
I'm not convinced we should have any amount of automatic aid in any instance. If people want to give to charity, they can. It shouldn't be our responsibility to regulate the third world.


I see your point. However the argument which arises through the question posed is whether the benefits of giving out foreign aid exceeds the social costs to society, especially in a time where the UK has seen a double dip recession and has witnessed a state of economic instability. While the UK government is making cutbacks, it is unclear as to why there’s an increase in foreign aid investment. There are however many benefits for both the global and UK economy. Conditions (As Alex-Torres suggested) can be made to the country aided in whereby they must import capital equipment or services from the UK, which helps domestic suppliers and has a multiplier effect for increasing our national output in hopes of export led growth, however the chances of this happening from a less economically developed country with minimalistic funding is very unlikely in the short-term. However through investing in foreign countries, they may be able to better their own economy through their increased spending in education and training to increase their own national output and raise standards of living. This helps with tackling global inequality and to better the quality of life. The initial aid investment could have great benefits for instance the UK could gain a potential trading partner. The long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs given the recipient country is developing.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SirMike
Sadly this sort of discussion is usually dominated by those who have been indoctrinated by the Daily Mail. 'Why the **** should we be sending money over there when they can afford their own space programme?'. The same sort of people who will moan about immigrants but celebrate wildly when their football club signs a foreign star.

So they can build even better rockets, duh. Screw the hundreds of millions of starving people and extra trade, it's all about the rockets.
Original post by G8D
You really like to chat.

How many countries that have received aid in the past have emerged as important or relevant trading partners? How 'long-term' is the long-term? The image of aid countries is that of moochers. If they can barely stand on their own two feet with aid, why should we continue to support that to our own detriment?

Also, did you describe Britain buying things from itself by using 3rd world countries as agents? :s-smilie: How is that beneficial? Why not just cut aid and improve the lives of people in our own country? Cut aid, reduce tax OR increase domestic tax expenditure.


No doubt, there are many variables. Is it really a detriment though? We already have an ongoing budget deficit £108bn (2013 fig.) It's really all political influences which could be a potential benefit to the UK in the future (something like an IOU), it's nearly impossible to say exactly when such benefits can be reaped.

Who do the UK give aid to though? It's mostly developing countries (BRIC nations), countries with vital commodities so you can see where the motivation lies. Of course the UK need to maintain their image of integrity, besides it's estimated that only 0.56% of our national income is spent on aid and I believe that investment is worth the risk.

If used correctly, aid can help with infrastructure costs in these undeveloped countries. It could be argued aid is the capital which is initially used to fund investment projects to help better a country. Through multipliers a country is able to improve their economic performance and due to a lot of aid being tied, there is a strong likelihood that trade may occur between the UK and recipient.

As to your last point, expansionary fiscal policy contradicts the whole idea of the implementation of austerity measures.
Original post by Jammy Duel
So they can build even better rockets, duh. Screw the hundreds of millions of starving people and extra trade, it's all about the rockets.


:lol: Although, I do agree that monetary aid should go to fund investment projects rather than be given to the poor.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
But we can profiteer out of them either way. I like your thinking. :wink:


That's the aim! :rolleyes:
Original post by Abdul-Karim
:lol: Although, I do agree that monetary aid should go to fund investment projects rather than be given to the poor.

I expect that nobody who complained about India's space program costing, IIRC, $300m p/a understand just how much the industry is worth to India's economy.
Original post by Jammy Duel
I expect that nobody who complained about India's space program costing, IIRC, $300m p/a understand just how much the industry is worth to India's economy.


Right now, we need to develop a stronger alliance with India, to be honest.
Original post by Abdul-Karim
:lol: Although, I do agree that monetary aid should go to fund investment projects rather than be given to the poor.


'Aid' is in reality bribe money to dictators to carry out the disgraceful abuse of the native population as it suits western agenda. Keep your money, keep your policies, leave the poor countries alone. Your empire days are over, get a grip, or you might get another 7/7.
Original post by Abdul-Karim
Right now, we need to develop a stronger alliance with India, to be honest.

Which is partly done with trade agreements, possibly including international Aid. Aid to places like India, where it is part of brokering deals, is good; aid to a disaster zone outside of Europe, especially places like Somalia and I should think South Sudan, is just bad, too little money goes where it's intended, most of it is just siphoned off by one corrupt official or another, this militia that militia.
Reply 18
Avatar for samba
samba
6
Original post by Jammy Duel
Which is partly done with trade agreements, possibly including international Aid. Aid to places like India, where it is part of brokering deals, is good; aid to a disaster zone outside of Europe, especially places like Somalia and I should think South Sudan, is just bad, too little money goes where it's intended, most of it is just siphoned off by one corrupt official or another, this militia that militia.


Just gonna say I agree with this as I'm not educated enough on the subject to give a more informed opinion :p:

I will say I think aid to things like hurricanes etc is a good thing (feet on the ground, a CSG, whatever), and probably a moral duty. But not annual aid that just goes into blackholes.
I have no problems with it but do believe that it should be better managed and used more effectively with better returns in mind.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you