Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Uhm, because we're better than they are?
    The problem these is you enter a never ending cycle where corrupt foreign leaders see their countries make small improvements funded by the Western world, decide they do not need to help their countries develop, and choose to do nothing to improve things. If there is no incentive for corrupt leaders to attempt to make a reasonable level of development in their country to maintain their power over the country, or the threat the country can claim to pose on the world stage, the West cannot perpetually throw money after countries that will not develop. The biggest hurdle to lots of these underdeveloped countries is the lack of political, legal, and social systems that allow development to happen, for example, a country can have all the water pipes, sewers, desalination plants, schools, and hospitals it desires, but if the systems to maintain control over the infrastructure, maintain property rights for companies wanting to operate the infrastructure, and operate a criminal justice system, the country is not going to develop.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This is a sensible set of reforms. The current distribution of foreign aid is inefficient and wasteful.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    A very sensible bill which properly defines parameters for foreign aid. I would ultimately prefer that we get rid of the budget entirely and let the foreign secretary donate money on a case by case basis, but foreign aid spending has been out of control for too long and too often has been misspent on projects which do not help the poor.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    By investing in other countries we improve their economies and raise their poorest who they buy our goods and make jobs here. Foreign aid is an investment in ourselves

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And to what extent has years of a now ringfenced foreign aid budget actually delivered material economic improvement to any of the countries we've paid it for? Foreign aid's been doled out for years and as far as anybody can see, it's domestic political and economic reforms which lead to enhanced prosperity not taxpayers half away across the world. As good as the intentions behind it are, the fact of the matter is that the budget undergoes some extraordinary misuse. Some of these countries are authoritarian regimes where money inevitably ends up in the wrong pockets. Have you also considered that we subsidise flawed political systems and disincentivise reforms because intransigent leaderships are made more intransigent when you pay them? It's saddening that there are people across the world who live in horrific conditions but starving 0.7% of our GDP isn't the solution to that. Ideally foreign aid should be scrapped, but this bill at least tries to regulate foreign aid which is a good thing for both the taxpayer and the countries which receive it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The problem these is you enter a never ending cycle where corrupt foreign leaders see their countries make small improvements funded by the Western world, decide they do not need to help their countries develop, and choose to do nothing to improve things. If there is no incentive for corrupt leaders to attempt to make a reasonable level of development in their country to maintain their power over the country, or the threat the country can claim to pose on the world stage, the West cannot perpetually throw money after countries that will not develop. The biggest hurdle to lots of these underdeveloped countries is the lack of political, legal, and social systems that allow development to happen, for example, a country can have all the water pipes, sewers, desalination plants, schools, and hospitals it desires, but if the systems to maintain control over the infrastructure, maintain property rights for companies wanting to operate the infrastructure, and operate a criminal justice system, the country is not going to develop.
    You would rather put stability at risk? - the sorts of improvements we're looking for aren't brought about by revolutions and I do not believe tyrants will fill the vaccume left by us if we were to ever decide that the plight of the world's least fortunate meant nothing to us. Nor will our not helping with infrastructure development improve any nation's ability to enforce the rule of law as you seem to suggest.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    And to what extent has years of a now ringfenced foreign aid budget actually delivered material economic improvement to any of the countries we've paid it for? Foreign aid's been doled out for years and as far as anybody can see, it's domestic political and economic reforms which lead to enhanced prosperity not taxpayers half away across the world. As good as the intentions behind it are, the fact of the matter is that the budget undergoes some extraordinary misuse. Some of these countries are authoritarian regimes where money inevitably ends up in the wrong pockets. Have you also considered that we subsidise flawed political systems and disincentivise reforms because intransigent leaderships are made more intransigent when you pay them? It's saddening that there are people across the world who live in horrific conditions but starving 0.7% of our GDP isn't the solution to that. Ideally foreign aid should be scrapped, but this bill at least tries to regulate foreign aid which is a good thing for both the taxpayer and the countries which receive it.
    For the record, on TSR it's 0.5% that is mandated by law.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nigel Farage MEP Really, Dev Aid should be given in a way that incentivises nations to meet international targets for human rights and development.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Nations are not individuals. Something a liberal should appreciate. You can't 'incentivise' a nation the way you might do a person. And just because something is said often does not make it meaningless.
    Proping up nations via aid is one of the worst thing we can do, it makes them used to filling gaps and keeping going based on the contribution of others instead of pushing them to not needing it, changing to a system to aid via trade (for instance giving better better prices which reduce in advantage over time) actually pushes them to improvement, the support they get has strings attached.

    The current IRL aid structure is particularly bad because come the end of the year money is almost literally thrown away to hit the targets, and while it's lower on TSR the problem still stands.

    Oh. And while were at it, is this Labour lead government going to bother hitting the target or is it going to, like the last one, dip below the 0.5% and then act as if breaking their own regulations never happened?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You would rather put stability at risk? - the sorts of improvements we're looking for aren't brought about by revolutions and I do not believe tyrants will fill the vaccume left by us if we were to ever decide that the plight of the world's least fortunate meant nothing to us. Nor will our not helping with infrastructure development improve any nation's ability to enforce the rule of law as you seem to suggest.



    For the record, on TSR it's 0.5% that is mandated by law.
    Many of these countries fared better under British rule, but if they want to be an independent bongo-bongo land that is poor, let them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the majority of this bill. Obviously there is definitely room for improvement (and I do encourage improvement of this bill) but aye from me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Many of these countries fared better under British rule, but if they want to be an independent bongo-bongo land that is poor, let them.
    'bongo-bongo land'

    How can you actually sit there and refer to countries in this abhorrent manner? Stfu
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You would rather put stability at risk? - the sorts of improvements we're looking for aren't brought about by revolutions and I do not believe tyrants will fill the vaccume left by us if we were to ever decide that the plight of the world's least fortunate meant nothing to us. Nor will our not helping with infrastructure development improve any nation's ability to enforce the rule of law as you seem to suggest.



    For the record, on TSR it's 0.5% that is mandated by law.
    0.7% of 0.5%, it's still not a good concept.

    Are you seriously suggesting that withdrawing foreign aid will lead to instability and revolution because we would be leaving some sort of "vacuum"? Perhaps you're ignoring the fact that Libya under Colonel Gadaffi received foreign aid and a popular revolution took place regardless. Yemen too is another nation who received millions and today they are engulfed in a civil war.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    0.7% of 0.5%, it's still not a good concept.

    Are you seriously suggesting that withdrawing foreign aid will lead to instability and revolution because we would be leaving some sort of "vacuum"? Perhaps you're ignoring the fact that Libya under Colonel Gadaffi received foreign aid and a popular revolution took place regardless. Yemen too is another nation who received millions and today they are engulfed in a civil war.
    That is not what I'm saying - rather those I am arguing with are suggesting that we should rely on political pressure applying to tyrants the way it does to democratic leaders in liberal nations. I am highlighting how flawed that thinking is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You would rather put stability at risk? - the sorts of improvements we're looking for aren't brought about by revolutions and I do not believe tyrants will fill the vaccume left by us if we were to ever decide that the plight of the world's least fortunate meant nothing to us. Nor will our not helping with infrastructure development improve any nation's ability to enforce the rule of law as you seem to suggest.



    For the record, on TSR it's 0.5% that is mandated by law.
    Yes, if a removal of aids brings instability to a country there is more chance of the country collapsing, a civil war, and a new leader eventually taking over. Agreed, aid would be given to incentivise development, however, as development is difficult to bring about when the rulers have no incentive to make structural changes, permanent development does not happen when handouts are given, and development requires complex political structures, I would rather ignore the rest of the world to see Britain keep the money, than squander the money in countries making bad decisions.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Proping up nations via aid is one of the worst thing we can do, it makes them used to filling gaps and keeping going based on the contribution of others instead of pushing them to not needing it, changing to a system to aid via trade (for instance giving better better prices which reduce in advantage over time) actually pushes them to improvement, the support they get has strings attached.

    The current IRL aid structure is particularly bad because come the end of the year money is almost literally thrown away to hit the targets, and while it's lower on TSR the problem still stands.

    Oh. And while were at it, is this Labour lead government going to bother hitting the target or is it going to, like the last one, dip below the 0.5% and then act as if breaking their own regulations never happened?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm completely fine with aid via trade and aid with 'strings attached'. None of that means we should do away with the target.

    Rest assured this government will meet that target.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Yes, if a removal of aids brings instability to a country there is more chance of the country collapsing, a civil war, and a new leader eventually taking over. Agreed, aid would be given to incentivise development, however, as development is difficult to bring about when the rulers have no incentive to make structural changes, permanent development does not happen when handouts are given, and development requires complex political structures, I would rather ignore the rest of the world to see Britain keep the money, than squander the money in countries making bad decisions.
    Unfortunately Karl, the revolutionaries are not guaranteed to be better than the oppressors. And I do not thinking money spent to help people - and to do the things you list in this bill - building hospitals, providing food and shelter and investing in industries - is money squandered.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Unfortunately Karl, the revolutionaries are not guaranteed to be better than the oppressors. And I do not thinking money spent to help people - and to do the things you list in this bill - building hospitals, providing food and shelter and investing in industries - is money squandered.
    It does not sound like money wasted but if the country become dependent on handouts, I do think the money is wasted. The West cannot act as an international welfare system for countries incapable of handling their own affairs. The West can help with initial startups, however, if money is not generating a sustainable return it needs to be stopped.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I oppose the section on military aid, which turns an aye into an abstain.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain (sorry to bump).
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This bill is in cessation.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.