Attacking overseas aid reveals a deep selfishness and even greed

Criticising aid is necessary, yes but calling for its abolition on the basis of such criticism is immoral.

In recent years, there have been growing calls for the reduction or elimination of overseas aid either because it doesn’t work or cannot be afforded or because it supports corruption. The weaknesses and failures of aid do not ‘excuse’ us from our obligations to those in great need; those arguing against aid on this basis reveal a deep-seated selfishness and greed; EU regional aid to other EU countries is characterised by similar failings but few Europeans argues for its abolition on this basis. Many of these arguments can be found at the ODI [19], the Poverty Matters Blog [20], on the New Internationalist blog [21] and in the case of Ireland [22].

We continue to have poverty ‘here at home’; this poverty should be our priority, especially in times of austerity.

This argument insists that priority is given to dealing with the realities and consequences of poverty at home – especially amongst groups ‘at risk’ (e.g. long-term unemployed, older people living in poverty, the homeless etc. Poverty in Europe is a problem [9]. In fact, 16.4 % of the European population is poor [10]. This view often holds that aid overseas is not good value for money and is a luxury while we have poverty at home; some also argue that we have a duty to help those in need at home as their poverty is our responsibility whereas this is not the case abroad.

Agreed, so our priority must be to make donor countries and aid agencies deliver what they say they seek to deliver. We need more and better aid, not less.

Given that aid has significantly contributed to the reduction of poverty internationally over the past 3-4 decades, its critical supporters argue for a radical overhaul of its systems, for a greater focus on human development and social issues, linking aid and debt issues and greater linkages to effective NGOs [25]. Delivering on aid targets (such as Ireland reaching the 0.7 per cent of total income) can hamper aid effectiveness when annual support is uneven and unpredictable as it undermines effective planning and budgeting [26].

[25] Does Aid Work? – for the MDGs (2007) by International Poverty Centre | briefing paper

[26] Irish NGOs welcome positive findings about EU aid(27 April 2012) by Dóchas | press release

Trade and financial transfers are a normal part of commerce and all countries need and pursue it including Developing Countries. Without them, the situation of the poor would be infinitely worse.

Some of the strongest arguments against the above view are provided in the 2006 World Bank World Development Report [12]. The core argument is that although the dominant world system needs strong regulation, it nonetheless promotes and strengthens economic development in poorer countries as witnessed by the recent ‘rise of the South’ [13]. This view highlights the fact that some of the strongest economic performance countries worldwide are now in the Developing World – a reality that benefits all in those societies.

This may indeed be often true but the West has never used the fact of ‘corruption’ to dictate policy towards recipient countries; in many cases the West itself is guilty of immense corruption in its dealings with such countries. When it comes to corruption, aid is not the priority issue.

The international NGO Transparency international has published many studies and reports that illustrate the scale and challenge that is corruption not simply as regards aid (this is small change in the corruption stakes). The corruption it chronicles annually involves states from across the world and not simply those in receipt of overseas aid. The ‘corruption’ critics of aid seldom if ever apply the same logic or principles to arms dealing, trade relations and other key economic issues dominated by the ‘West’. See https://www.transparency.org/

For a detailed debate on how to tackle corruption around aid, see the report by the Overseas Development Institute [31].

Aid to poorer countries in the EU is part of a much larger economic, social and political agenda. It cannot be compared to overseas aid – relations between EU states are very different.

All EU member states are party to a series of extensive and far reaching agreements covering a huge range of topics, of which aid is only one. EU states remain accountable to each other and face sanctions if agreements are breached. This is not the case as regards countries overseas. EU support to poorer states in the EU is part of the broader ‘equalisation’ process which underpins the EU itself and which does not exist internationally [16].

This argument smacks of political smugness; telling someone who is poor that aid or charity won’t solve their problem is both uncaring and arrogant. We have a duty to help others in need regardless of other issues.

Referring to the many weaknesses and failures of aid does not in any way diminish our duty and responsibility to respond to the needs of those that are hungry and in great and extreme need. Ethical and pragmatic arguments highlight our obligations to others and not simply ‘others’ within our own society. One of the most outspoken and challenging writers on the issue is philosopher Peter Singer who offers a series of challenging arguments on this issue [33].