ChatterBank1 min ago
International Development Aid.
Our leaders must know that it doesn't work, so why do they continue to throw public money at it? Despite the cuts, this once again remains ring-fenced. Isn't it a case of the poor of a rich country being forced to give their money to the rich of a poor country?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Evidence? recent hopefully.
ID money tends to go to agencies on the ground like the Childrens Investment fund foundation
or direct investments to get people likethe Agricultural Development Company in Afr
You can actually track what UK ID money is doing here
http:// devtrac ker.dfi d.gov.u k/
ID money tends to go to agencies on the ground like the Childrens Investment fund foundation
or direct investments to get people likethe Agricultural Development Company in Afr
You can actually track what UK ID money is doing here
http://
-- answer removed --
I think Khandro is implying the frequently heard accusation that Western aid is syphoned off by war Lords and Government officials in the countries that it's intended for and that the needy don't get it.
It's a handy accusation for those looking for a reason to justify not giving aid money to the poorest people around the world and it certainly was a major problem at one time.
To some extent it still can be a difficulty where law and order have broken down in places like Syria but generally Aid money is not these days just sent as a blank cheque and is given to Agencies on the ground or invested in organisations that have to account for it.
Even if you have a place where Emergency aid is neede due to a humanitarian emergency - if you have to spend 10 or 20% of your money to bribe officials you are still saving lives of hundreds or thousands of people who would otherwise die if you sat with your arms crossed saying we shouldn't help them because the money just gets stolen
Or they should cut their birth rate first.
It's a handy accusation for those looking for a reason to justify not giving aid money to the poorest people around the world and it certainly was a major problem at one time.
To some extent it still can be a difficulty where law and order have broken down in places like Syria but generally Aid money is not these days just sent as a blank cheque and is given to Agencies on the ground or invested in organisations that have to account for it.
Even if you have a place where Emergency aid is neede due to a humanitarian emergency - if you have to spend 10 or 20% of your money to bribe officials you are still saving lives of hundreds or thousands of people who would otherwise die if you sat with your arms crossed saying we shouldn't help them because the money just gets stolen
Or they should cut their birth rate first.
Laudable sounding sentiments jake, but simply wide of the mark; The DFID's claims that it is able to monitor corruption and waste are largely PR flimflam. After all, the House of Commons public accounts committee has told them so. Its chair, Margaret Hodge, has lamented DFID's inadequate bookkeeping, and 'poor understanding of levels of fraud and corruption'.
I think what is officially called 'foreign aid' is more than a charitable gift- it is often used as a sweetener to get foreign governments (e.g. Pakistan) on our side regarding terrorism, political and military issues. It is also used to help UK firms secure contracts in those countries.
Nevertheless I think that although there may be economic benefits I think the money should be trimmed in real terms for political reasons since it is bound to alienate voters here who are suffering (relative) hardship.
Nevertheless I think that although there may be economic benefits I think the money should be trimmed in real terms for political reasons since it is bound to alienate voters here who are suffering (relative) hardship.
-- answer removed --
jake; Read William Easterly and Robert Calderisi, who argue that the cash we dole out has enriched privileged Westerners and kleptocratic third-world rulers more than its intended beneficiaries.
'After 60 years and $3 trillion of development aid there is depressingly little evidence that official development aid has any significant benign effect on third-world poverty'.
'After 60 years and $3 trillion of development aid there is depressingly little evidence that official development aid has any significant benign effect on third-world poverty'.