“Stop sending foreign aid to countries that hate us and use that money to rebuild our tunnels, roads, bridges and schools.” That was Donald J Trump – then an almost laughable long-shot for US president – .
As a share of its national income, US spending on overseas aid is tiny () – less than many other nations (Sweden spends 1.41 per cent). But Trump’s message was simple: .
In the UK, with 0.7 per cent of income going to overseas aid, a similar debate has been playing out, but now with a focus on using the money to bolster post-Brexit trade with the rest of the world. To appease critics, the country’s international development secretary Priti Patel this week about how money is used. She has for the department she now leads to be scrapped and combined with international trade.
Advertisement
In both countries, the is not difficult to find. They argue that money is often wasted on programmes that don’t work, in countries that are rich enough to look after their own. What’s more, they say, much of the cash is siphoned off through corruption. That’s one view. At the other end of the spectrum are those who see aid as a moral obligation for rich nations, or as a tool for soft power.
Population peak
Sure, supporters can too often be blinkered to criticism. Incompetence and corruption can lead to waste. Robust but fair-minded scrutiny is a good thing. But the growing chorus of critics who hold up every failed project as a reason to slash aid budgets to the bone is short-sighted.
Doing so could unleash a key driver of the thing they usually rail against: uncontrolled migration, which would likely result from rapid population growth.
One of the key aims of the UK’s current aid budget is to support the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals on problems including poverty, health and the environment. Approved by heads of state at the UN General Assembly in September 2015, these encompass 17 goals with 169 specific targets.
Population is not explicitly included, but several of the big targets, such as those on education, child-mortality and reproductive health could have a significant impact on demographic trends. But how much?
To find out, a team of researchers in China and Austria has modelled the potential impact of the goals. They predict that achieving them would cause the world’s population to peak in 2060 and drop back to between 8.2 and 8.7 billion by the end of the century (). That’s far lower than the UN Population Division’s .
So by increasing the chances of success, foreign aid money is helping to create a future world with less strain on natural resources and potentially less human conflict as a result. That in turn will mean less uncontrolled migration – one of the key drivers of political discontent in developed countries. Any global problem you care to mention – climate change, poverty, disease – becomes easier to solve in a less populous world.
Even if you don’t accept the moral case for foreign aid, in this context the relatively small amounts involved start to look like a bargain of enlightened self-interest.
