Naomi Poltier discusses the state of Britain’s economy, and whether providing foreign aid is a positive move.
Last year I remember busking in the streets of Exeter for one of the university’s campaign groups, when an old man had me pause and asked me why I was raising money for another country, when England was in such a state of need. I politely replied that contrary to what most people believe, the UK only spends about 0.5% of their budget on foreign aid, and the conversation quickly died out.
The exact percentage figure of foreign spending for 2012 is 0.56% (BBC News). It turns out that even with this decimal percentage, the United Kingdom came second to the United States of America in overseas aid spending in 2012, paying out a total of £9 billion. Britain’s overseas aid spending has overtaken Germany’s, despite their GDP being approximately 30% greater than the UK’s.
Photo Credits: Matt Cardy/AP
Whilst for some this is bad news, for others it is an accomplishment of pride. George Osborne commented on the United Kingdom’s second place status in overseas aid spending by saying: “We should all take pride, as I do, in this historic achievement.” It is also very gratifying to look at some of the good the UK has been able to do in the world recently. Some most recent accomplishments include the government’s funding of £10 million to back the fight against Polio in Somalia and Kenya with vaccinations, where the first outbreak since 2007 has occurred.
Thanks to the UK, 285,000 civilians a month who are caught up in the Syrian crisis are also getting food. Moreover, during the G8 conference this summer, David Cameron announced that the UK will pledge a further £175 million for the Syrian crisis which is, according to the International Department of Development, the largest single funding commitment ever made by the UK in response to a humanitarian disaster. The department also claims that: “We know that help is getting through, that it is saving lives. The UK, as a G8 member, has one of the world’s largest economies. The government has a responsibility to aid poorer countries, especially during conflict.
Despite the vast benefits of supplying foreign aid, it has many drawbacks. As the Telegraph points out, the UK is facing a triple dip recession. The plans for the end of 2013 are to have increased the percentage of the budget spent on overseas aid to 0.7% from the previous 0.56%, while European countries often reduce money spent on aid during tough economic times. Douglas Carswell points out the negatives in this by stating that: “politicians hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to subsidise governments, but cut back on local services.”
The main issue of poverty in England is child poverty. In June it was reported that “one out of every six children in the UK lives in relative poverty” (BBC News). Relative poverty is a poverty line that is used in comparison to the UK average income, and approximately 300,000 more children fell below this line compared to the year before. With issues like these arising, it is logical for Carswell to point out that people living in the UK are unfairly paying taxes which are being partially poured to other countries’ governments.
Personally, I am a great supporter of foreign aid. I have travelled to several under-developed countries, and seen countless slums which we could never count as acceptable conditions of living. No matter how cliché it sounds, we are immensely privileged. I think that an extra 0.5% or 0.7% of a budget spent will make less difference to us than it will to the lives it improves and saves around the world.
Living among the world’s richest, it is our responsibility to give people access to basic human needs: food, health, and if possible, access to stimulating aspects of life like education. However, it is not right for people in the UK to suffer in relative poverty, especially as this number is growing and those people cannot be forgotten due to comparison with extreme poverty.
The solution is not to be found in spending money, but in managing society and how money is spent. The little extra percentage of money the UK would get by eliminating foreign aid will not make much of a difference, and especially not as much as re-thinking social strategies.
Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in his book How to End Poverty that much of feeling ‘poor’ also lies in a man or woman’s dignity. This is why people who are relatively poor in the UK would feel ‘rich’ if they moved to a slum in Lima, Peru. But, this aspect of dignity is one of the rare parts of eradicating poverty which can come free of charge. Jeffrey Sachs argues that this is a crucial part of taking communities out of poverty: to dignify and power the human mind.
I agree, to a certain extent, and do not think that the UK needs to reduce the amount of money spent on foreign aid. Like Osborne, I believe it should be a point of pride. The Coalition has a similar point of view regarding the need for money in helping the UK, as they report they aim to end child poverty in the UK by 2020 by finding the source of the problem with further research rather than by primarily giving aid money.
While the UK has its own poverty problems to fix, it is far ahead of many of the developing countries of the world. When the old man in the street interrupted my street singing I quickly labelled him as narrow-minded. We have much to learn in terms of open-mindedness from providing aid to the rest of the world, as well as in learning to fix problems of poverty within the UK with other means than money. As is widely claimed today, fixing poverty is not a single follow-through recipe, there is rather a different one for every single community that must be investigated. Money can only go so far.
Naomi Poltier
exeposedev 