[twitter style=”horizontal” source=”@intlpolitical” float=”left”] [fbshare type=”button”] The Labour Party is now ramping up a campaign, backed by the Private Members Bill, to legislate for the government to spend 0.7% of GNI on international aid. Those in favour in legislating for the UK’s aid commitment talk about the duty or obligation help those who need it. Aid, the argument goes, is a public demonstration of our values which hold that a person should not be denied basic human needs by poverty.
Reductions in public spending in the UK require government to give a more detailed account of aid spending. The Coalition Agreement re-stated the election commitment to bring progress the legislation in this parliament, yet the recent DFID business plan again delayed this until at least 2015 apparently due to other parliamentary activity. Critics have pointed to this as delaying tactics by a government concerned about backbench rebels. Their concerns may be in prioritising other countries over our own at a time when cuts to public services are beginning to bite hard in local constituencies.
Pro-aid lobbyists cite in response the relative affluence of western society compared to developing countries and that we should not allow our values to be constrained by practical limitations. As Mark Hendrink MP, who is tabling the Bill in Parliament, ‘It is right that during a time of hardship, we continue the fight against poverty’.
In some cases however this gap is narrowing. Recent comments by Spanish President Rajoy about France ‘not being Uganda’ caused a flurry of offence. Subsequent commentary highlighted the gulf in recent economic performance. The official unemployment rate in Spain is 24% whilst World Bank data shows 4.2% in Uganda. Uganda’s GDP growth in 2010 was 5.2% while the Spanish economy retracted by 0.1%.
But these figures don’t tell the whole story. Per capita income remains over 25 times higher in Spain than Uganda in real terms. More shallow and limited social welfare programmes mean that life expectancy is between 20-30 years lower in Uganda. More localised emergencies routinely emerge from the ill consequences of political instability and poor governance, such as that seen in the East Africa at the moment.
The international development secretary Andrew Mitchell is right to enact reforms aiming to improve the effectiveness of aid. This is part of wider concerns about where aid money goes and accountability over its impact. But we should not let problems with the aid system hinder our willingness to lend a hand. We should strive to make assistance more effective – this is in the interests of both parties in a bilateral aid agreement – and part of this process is enabling development professionals in DFID or elsewhere in the sector to innovate and collaborate with developing countries. Taking aid contributions out of political debate by legislating for it is the right step.
This is why the private Member’s Bill to bring this forward this legislation is so important. The sooner the better.
About the Author
