Charity begins at home, doesn't it?

[Alec John Moore]

I was at a conference the other week where the keynote speaker was the International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell. He countered the criticism from the media and some in Whitehall that the coalition governement is coming under for ring fencing DFID's budget and maintaining Labour's commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid by taking the moral high ground and allying it to the national interest. Simply, it is wrong that 8.8 million children die before the age of five each year to quote his speech to Oxfam in June this year. It is also in the national interest, in his view, to prevent the rise of radical elements in fragile states by facilitating the economic and social development of those countries.

Only a small proportion of DFID's budget goes to international development charities but I wondered what forumites think about Andrew Mitchell's moral and practical stance and whether it is acceptable in these straitened times for UK taxpayers' money to go to developing countries and how do you make decisions about which charity/ies to support with your disposable income.

[????]

I think we have to aspire to this whatever circumstances at home

[Bellenden Belle]

It is such a relatively small amount we are talking about - to cut it would actually render it useless. And yet as quids so rightly puts it I think it is vital that we continue to do so. Not even because it is in "national interest" but because in the midst of our economic downturn, it is worth remembering there is suffering beyond our imagination out there.

[david_carnell]

We should be giving more. Now is NOT the time to stop aid giving.

[giggirl]

On a personal level, I don't start penny-pinching with my charitable donations because the economy is in a downturn and I don't expect the Government to do the same.

[Marmora Man]

Keep the level of spend - improve the targeting of the spend.

[Huguenot]

This is a no brainer.

UK exported $200bn last year, and imported around $230bn. The UK is the sixth largest economy in the world, with only 1% of it's population.

International relations are vital to the UK's economic, security and cultural interests. Overseas aid is a key component of that relationship.

[louisiana]

I think Mitchell is right on both counts.

I would have thought that even Daily Wail readers would understand/accept the self interest argument.

But as we know, just spending is not the answer. As MM says, ensuring spending is carefully targetted is key. Too often, development spending seems to be tied to UK interests. (Or has that been changing? I'm happy to be put right on that...)

[Michael Palaeologus]

A few years ago I did some work for DFID and had the opportunity to travel to a number of their offices in the developing world.

It isnt until you some face to face with dire proverty and its degrading impact on people that you truly understand the need for development aid. It is this level of proverty that provides a breeding ground for the politics of hate and extremism.

Thankfully now that aid is given is a focused and thoughtful way which is more about capacity building and relevant (low) technology solutions rather than just giving food and tractors; an approach that generates long term dependency and solves little.

I would go as far as to say that the levels of poverty in the UK are as nothing to those found in Ethiopia, Bangladesh or Nepal. All things are relative.

[binary_star]

I agree that we should be giving more but not to maintain international relations, just because. Huguenot, I'm surprised at your argument that it's a 'no-brainer' - yes, yours is a logical analysis but it doesn't exactly embrace the concept of charity! More callous than, ermm, Christian??

[Huguenot]

Well I'm not Christian - but I'm more responding to the fact that the OP was questioning the priorities of UK charitable giving. Specifically he questioned the balance between overseas and local giving.

In this context an argument about whether charitable giving in general is good or not would be redundant, the OP has not challenged this.

Instead I chose an alternative perspective - that overseas giving actually supports local causes by improving local economic conditions.

The choice of charity should be down to where it does 'most good for the most people for the longest time'. This would include concepts such as the needs of the recipients, the efficiency of the organisation (how much cash reaches the root cause), its ability to meet its goals (for example local corruption), and an assessment of short term and long term benefits.

There's nothing black and white about the answers to any of those questions, so I imagine the final choice of charities would include a good spread of organisations and causes.

[Alec John Moore]

On targeting of funding, the overriding objectives for DFID (and, as far as DFID funding goes, the charities/NGOs they fund) remain the Millenium Development Goals. Under the new government the off-track MDGs, particularly those that have indicators related to the needs of women and within that, maternal health. Interestingly, with regard to the national interest "pillar", most of the countries which are unlikely to meet their MDG targets are failing or fragile states in sub-Saharan Africa.

The MDGs are a bit problematic in my view since they can contribute to distortions in development trajectories. For instance, Kenya and some other African countries introduced free primary education a few years ago with the result that enrolment increased dramatically. However, the class size increased and the school infrastructure was not put in place to maintain a quality output in terms of educational attainment. Although education is free - there are no school fees - families still have to provide food, books, uniforms and transport for their children to attend. One of the unintended consequences, perhaps, is that the private sector in education has grown.

A related concern within the NGO sector in the UK is that DFID may reduce its commitment to the rights-based approach to development in favour of service delivery, certainly where the funding of NGOs is concerned.

Alongside all of this can be heard DFID's value for money mantra which is expected to bring greater accountability, I think, and fend off the concerns of tax-payers that funds aren't going to line the pockets of warlords in Somalia or civil servants in Kenya.

[Alec John Moore]

On the unting of aid, this, and other items on the effectiveness agenda, is covered by The Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action:

http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html

Specifically: "Untying ? donors will relax restrictions that prevent developing countries from buying the goods and services they need from whomever and wherever they can get the best quality at the lowest price."

[louisiana]

And to what extent do you think the UK complies wht that?

[Alec John Moore]

DFID has recently appointed soemeone to head the newly established ICAI - Independent Commission for Aid Impact - "which will function completely separately from DfID and will use a 'traffic light system' to rate aid program effectiveness and undertake around 20 major evaluations, reviews and investigations per year."

There is also UKAN, a network of UK NGOs which lobbies for more and better aid:

http://www.ukan.org.uk/index.php?id=6

I don't have the willpower to wade through the aid statistics to form a view on the extent to which UK aid is untied.

[Ridgley]

I think as a country, we are good at digging deep in our pockets to help any country in need and that is what make's us great but in these economic times can we still afford to do this I am not saying to stop giving aid but we might have to take a step back and look what this is costing us and now that Ireland is in trouble we might have to help them also.

[louisiana]

AJM, thanks for that info.

Ridgely, as someone who has one Irish parent (who lives in Ireland), I feel compelled to reply on this. And all I can say is no. The Irish govt. decided to spend humungous amounts of money bailing out its banks, which are still looking decidedly ropey. I'm not at all convinced that we should be footing the consequent bills (as opposed to helping completely blameless people in further-flung locations who have much more basic needs). I saw the frenzy of consumption in Dublin at its height, and it was not pretty. I have no wish to underwrite that. There are more deserving causes.

[Ridgley]

Ok understand what you, are saying but I thought we are obligated to do so as we are part of the EU please correct me if I am wrong?

[Tarot]

Charity does begin at home, I support, Help the Aged. Heart Foundation, Mind, St Christophers Hospice,B.L.I.SS.M.S.Lupus.R.S.P.C.C.,R.C.P.C.A. Blind. The people who are still exploiting these countries,(crop growing, coffee, fruit and veg,) child labour, abuse of women working their fingers to the bone,to make clothes for the west. etc etc, They are the ones who should provide charity, we are struggling ourselves, and we have never seen the end product of past donations. Mumbai, land of Bollywood , runs a parralel with acute slums, No water pipes there, they hold big fim premiers. What are we expected to think. Other places have spent their money on nuclear bombs Pakistan India, next Iran. Things didnt really move fast after the sunami. the funds that were sent got sidetracked somewhere. We are not fools. there are so many scams now we must be careful No high falluting figures or words will convince me to not divert my money from our own causes.

[Huguenot]

Hi Ridgley, we're not 'obliged' to help as part of the EU. However, Ireland do receive a net income from the EU, have done for years, and the UK pay into EU funds.

In general, the term 'bailout' is poorly used in these scenarios. It's mostly about underwriting loans made by financial institutions, it doesn't actually mean money is changing hands. It's important that you don't perceive this as handing over 10 quid to a beggar. Where money does change hands it's a loan not a gift.

Louisiana makes a very good point about responding to real rather than perceived need in foreign aid. However, financial support for Ireland doesn't come out of foreign aid budgets, it's another thing entirely.

Ireland is a major trading and cultural partner of the UK, so the best way of thinking about it might be as the UK as a supplier who lets a shopkeeper delay his payments for a month because the shopkeeper's having a bad couple of weeks.

[Alec John Moore]

You touch on some interesting points, Tarot. The Tsunami is an exceptional case and I hope we never see something on that scale again. There were many "wrong" decisions, in my view, in sending money in rsponse to a massive natural disaster that touched the lives of millions, many of whom were "us" - relatives of the victims who live in the UK and British citizens who were on holiday or lived in the affected region. The Big Lottery Fund, for example, decided to allocate millions of pounds to Tsunami projects despite the massive amounts that governments and individuals had donated. Why? Because the disaster affected people in a fundamental way. It wasn't necessary to allocate those funds and NGOs had difficulties spending the money appropriately. But, you can't regulate closely people's motivations or, in a free society, how they act on their feelings. That's one of the interesting things about Andrew Mitchell's speech, the moral justification for aid is equal with the more practical national interest justification. You also point to the differences in wealth in some countries. This is true of the UK where we continue to have a homelessness problem, for instance. The picture is complex and not bound by national boundaries. Although it is difficult to get an accurate figure for it but DFID's estimate of the remittances (funds sent by people working in the UK to their families in developing countries) that the UK sends is ?2.3bn. To some extent we have the opportunity to address some of the issues you mention such as child labour etc by learning about how the choices we make - around what we consume - can affect the lives of people on the other side of the planet who are also our brothers and sisters.