Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Would the UK flood situation be so bad if we didn't help those in other countries?

Scroll to see replies

It is true that Africa in particular is growing now quite rapidly but that growth has coincided with less protectionism, lower taxes and fewer publicly owned industries. The west has been providing Africa with this aid for years and it has only just started working in the last few decades. Of course there are other factors involved such as a reduction in the number of wars, but it would appear that Africa is going to lift itself out of poverty the same way the west did in the 19th century. If we take away foreign aid gradually, it is my belief that it would help because it would promote the wider use of Capitalism and Free Trade by giving more of an incentive to create wealth.

If we took away money for flood defences, those affected by flooding would be able to deal with the flooding better.

Just applying your logic there.

Reply 41

MatureStudent36

Original post by silverbolt

Which then refuses to pay out if a second incident of flooding occurs. And may not pay out in a first instance.

OP the people who receive foriegn aid are not responsible for the flooding in the UK or the adequate lack of services to respond. Considering how much money is in the UK the two do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Not true. Insurance companies will only not pay out of the insurer is negligent. If you're told to do something by the insurance commonly and then don't do it then the insurance company won't pay out.

Providing you have flood insurance, the insurance company will pay out.

Reply 42

username402722

Noticeably lower cut in the Thames area, whose river flows past the Houses of Parliament.

Reply 43

viddy9

Original post by zigglr

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/this-man-in-a-flooded-yorkshire-village-has-an-excellent-message-for-those-who-say-the-uk-should-help-its-own-first--WkmTZE95sg

Would the UK flood situation be so bad if we spent more money protecting people in our own country rather than spending it helping those who live thousands of miles away?

It's not an either/or situation. As a country, we're rich enough to spend money on foreign aid and ensure that people in Britain are protected from severe flooding. Currently, however, our government operates under the ideologically motivated and utterly incorrect assumption that a national budget is like a household budget. Governments can, have and always will spend when they're in debt: a single household cannot.

Instead of cutting flood defence spending and spending on vital public services, we should instead invest in them. Given the scale of the economic damage, it would probably pay for itself anyway. Furthermore, we should stop building houses on flood plains as far as possible, stop subsidising farmers to engage in practices which increase the risk of flooding, and, most of all, the government should listen to its climate change and environmental advisers.

If you really want to cut something useless out of the national budget, there are plenty of much better contenders (Trident, for example).

Also, the well-being of those living thousands of miles away matters no less than the well-being of people living in this country, unless you seriously believe that the physical location in which you were born somehow makes your suffering more worthy.

Original post by djh2208

Most foreign aid is completely counter-productive: It does not help third world countries, it hurts them. This is because of two main reasons.

Your position isn't too unreasonable. It's true that some foreign aid is ineffective and possibly harmful, but some foreign aid is effective and does work. The solution is not to simply cut the foreign aid budget; it's to ensure that the aid is well-targeted and effective. In Poor Economics, Banerjee and Duflo detail how aid can be improved. Even the harshest critics of aid will concede that well-targeted aid, particularly in the field of global health, has worked, and many of the recommendations (based upon evidence from randomized control trials) in Poor Economics are recommendations for health aid. For example, subsidising Western farmers to produce more grain to ship over to developing countries is ineffective: the problem for most in extreme poverty is not that they don't have enough food - it's that they're not getting the right micronutrients. It's a lot more effective, therefore, to target aid at programs conducting micronutrient fortification, for instance.

I'm more skeptical about pure economic aid, however. I'm in agreement with you that free trade will do much more to promote economic growth than aid, but it's also unrealistic to think that the aid we give will do much good for developing economies anyway, unless we give a lot more. In 2012, the total amount of aid from developed countries amounted to just $33 per person in developing countries, and it's also the case that some aid is politically-motivated meaning that it doesn't go to those countries really in need (Israel or countries we've invaded, for instance, become large aid recipients from the US).

There may be some signs that our foreign aid budget is becoming more well-targeted when it comes to the interventions, though, and in particular their focus on Neglected Tropical Diseases is encouraging.

As for your second point, I doubt that citizens of countries with higher foreign aid budgets give less to charity. I doubt it even crosses their minds as to whether their country is giving foreign aid and how much it gives.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 44

djh2208

Original post by Chrissy.98

You put forward a good argument here. However the UK's foreign aid is rarely given directly to governments. It is given to organisations like the UN and NGOs who implement specific projects directly to the people, which is a way to avoid money falling into the hands of corrupt individuals and avoids aid money from just topping up country's GDPs, while instead it directly helps those who are in poverty. Of course aid doesn't increase growth without other government reforms, and as you said in your other post, growth in Africa has been driven by other initiatives. There is still an incentive for countries to grow and improve their development with aid going to the poorest people. It is in the country's interest to grow and combat poverty as well.

I agree that drawing back aid in the long term is a good idea so states don't become too dependent on it, but it can't just be pulled back if the country legitimately doesn't have the capacity to reduce poverty, which is the case for many African countries at the moment. Drawing back aid won't necessarily mean that countries will immediately withdraw protectionist barriers: many poor countries simply cannot compete with heavily subsidised primary goods from the US and EU and cheap manufactured goods from countries like China which can kill their industries, and also poor countries are often exploited by the US and EU in order to obtain cheap goods. However a notable exception is Ethiopia who is desperate to become more self sufficient and is now making good progress in increasing its development itself, although having a higher GDP than many other African countries.
A good majority of aid money is also used in emergency situations, so this must be taken into consideration.

Some of the foreign aid money is indeed given to organisations like the UN (known as multilateral aid), but that is about 40%, the remaining 60% is bilateral aid transferred to government officials in third world countries who then have control over the money.

I don't believe it is unethical for rich countries to get cheap labour in places like Africa. Although working conditions and pay is often dreadful compared to what we are used to in Britain, often it is better than what they otherwise would have. In the short term at least, Free Trade benefits them. In the long term it will most likely lead to sustained growth as long as political stability is upheld.

I do believe that if a country is completely torn apart by an earthquake or some other natural disaster then it is the right thing to do to provide them with assistance

Reply 45

MatureStudent36

Original post by barnetlad

Noticeably lower cut in the Thames area, whose river flows past the Houses of Parliament.

And also has the densist population in the UK

Reply 46

Jammy Duel

Original post by barnetlad

Noticeably lower cut in the Thames area, whose river flows past the Houses of Parliament.

And the metropolitan area containing a fifth of the population, produces 30% of our GDP and has a large portion of the government and its departments feet away from the river

Reply 47

Chrissy.98

Original post by djh2208

The UK gives more aid multilaterally than most other countries. The aid given bilaterally isn't just put into government pockets, there is accountability involved and the aid given is still tracked. If however there is evidence of corruption in a country, aid is channelled through other organisations.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 48

username1899909

Original post by Jammy Duel

And the metropolitan area containing a fifth of the population, produces 30% of our GDP and has a large portion of the government and its departments feet away from the river

Hold on that was cut ? London is our economic centre?

Reply 49

Jammy Duel

Original post by hazzer1998

Hold on that was cut ? London is our economic centre?

According to the 5 year old infographic given by somebody on the first page, over three years there was a £5m cut for London from £76 to £71m

Reply 50

StrawbAri

Original post by djh2208

Prsom

I think reducing foreign aid is the kick up the ass African countries need. It would teach them not to be so reliant on it.

Also I wish people would stop infantilising African countries and feeling guilty as though the west owes them something. The situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The continent is slowly but surely developing.
For example Nigeria is the 21st/22nd largest economy in the world according to nominal gdp and is predicted to be in the top 20 by 2020/30. And approx. 70% live above the absolute poverty line
(Now imagine where we'd be if leaders would stop stealing money :angry:

)

Anyway, the point is, rather than spending so much money in aid why don't the west try to teach third world economies how to manage their countries better? And it would also help if they stopped letting Third world leaders leave upwards of a billion dollars in foreign bank accounts.

Edit: I don't want aid to be cut completely but reduced gradually till the country doesn't need it anymore.