If anyone supports foreign aid out of humanity, fine, but others should not be fooled by the "logical" arguments we heard from Blair and more recently from Andrew Mitchell that it is in our interests to provide aid to places like Somalia or Afghanistan because it reduces terrorism and immigration. Here are a few facts:
Studies indicate that, for poor but well governed nations, 1% GDP given as aid increases GDP by 0.5%. One effect of that "wasted" 0.5% is to increase the population, so the figure that really matters, GDP per capita, is even less.
"Well governed" is important here as the same studies also show little or no effect for poorly governed nations. Places like Somalia and Afghanistan, which do not even have generally recognised governments, make most sub Saharan nations look like models of financial rectitude.
Look at some figures. Somalia has a population of 10m and a GDP per head of $139 while Poland has a GDP per head of $11,273. You would therefore need to give Somalia $110 trillion and for that to be 100% effective to even raise their GDP to that of Poland and the Poles are still flocking here. To really stop it you might need to raise GDP per capita to nearer that of the UK, $35,165.
Even if aid was effective in raising living standards, why would that reduce international terrorism? There is a confusion here between religious conservatism, which does correlate to poverty, and international terrorism which does not. Most poor religious conservatives like the Taliban are more concerned with what goes on in their own backyard. International terrorism is very different - Bin Laden was from a very wealthy family and much international terrorism has come from wealthy Saudi Arabia. More terrorism has come from Pakistan than from much poorer Bangladesh and some would-be terrorists in the UK have been from wealthy backgrounds too.
Studies indicate that, for poor but well governed nations, 1% GDP given as aid increases GDP by 0.5%. One effect of that "wasted" 0.5% is to increase the population, so the figure that really matters, GDP per capita, is even less.
"Well governed" is important here as the same studies also show little or no effect for poorly governed nations. Places like Somalia and Afghanistan, which do not even have generally recognised governments, make most sub Saharan nations look like models of financial rectitude.
Look at some figures. Somalia has a population of 10m and a GDP per head of $139 while Poland has a GDP per head of $11,273. You would therefore need to give Somalia $110 trillion and for that to be 100% effective to even raise their GDP to that of Poland and the Poles are still flocking here. To really stop it you might need to raise GDP per capita to nearer that of the UK, $35,165.
Even if aid was effective in raising living standards, why would that reduce international terrorism? There is a confusion here between religious conservatism, which does correlate to poverty, and international terrorism which does not. Most poor religious conservatives like the Taliban are more concerned with what goes on in their own backyard. International terrorism is very different - Bin Laden was from a very wealthy family and much international terrorism has come from wealthy Saudi Arabia. More terrorism has come from Pakistan than from much poorer Bangladesh and some would-be terrorists in the UK have been from wealthy backgrounds too.
Comment