General Chat

Just to keep swerving Eeyore13 ... ;)

"No point giving laptops if they don't know how to generate electricity.I still feel that more aid is achieved by helping to build an infrastructure for a country to stabalise & then move forward itself."

I think you may have a slightly skewed view of aid.

First, everybody knows how to generate electricity. All these countries we're talking about, they all have universities, and corporations, and all that. What they are lacking is the capital to build the infrastructure.

And that's where the problems come in.

The World Bank demands that money be invested in big infrastructure projects when sometimes, it's the small local investments that are really needed, in terms of improving people's lives -- things like wells and water pumps, or pipe systems, so the women don't have to spend half their lives fetching water miles away and can be more productive, and child vaccination and mosquito nets, and the small loans/investments I mentioned. The World Bank makes other demands too, that are in the interests of the developed countries, not the countries supposedly being helped. Privatization, for instance. Just look:

http://www.whirledbank.org/development/private.html

"In March 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) threatened to cancel promised loans and to sever relations with Moldova if the former Soviet Republic failed to privatize key agricultural industries. Likewise, Mozambique in Southern Africa was awarded debt relief in 1999 by the World Bank after it agreed to **privatize the water supply** in Maputo to SAUR [a giant French corporation]. These bullying tactics are emblematic of the manner in which the two global financial institutions force countries to sell off public industries to multinational corporations. Yet there is little evidence that privatization is the perfect solution for ailing state enterprises.

In fact, privatization often results in inferior services at higher rates. For-profit companies often cut services to poor and rural areas (because they are "unprofitable"), or raise fees to prices that the poor can no longer afford. In addition, when state enterprises are sold to foreign multinationals, the money collected from the local population flows out of the country, and the government is deprived of a steady revenue source."

Sell off the water supply in a poverty-ridden country to a foreign corporation?? First you can't afford the school fees (because the country just doesn't have the resources to provide free schooling), now you can't afford drinking water for your kids?


And that's where the corruption comes in too, of course, in the large-scale aid.



suzian, you're doing better than I am at understanding things ...

Good evening,

I've just done what I should've done before my previous post - ie read the whole thread

Firstly Joy - I still don't agree with you, but I understand your views better now. My apologies.

Eeyore - sorry for my part in the swerving. How this Government can pretend (and I DO mean pretend) to believe in the "Big Society" and at the same time penalise charities I don't know.

Or perhaps I do. I'm a trustee of a local CVS (a charitable organisation which supports small, voluntary groups with practical help). We'll be very lucky to survive another year. We've always had a bit of financial support from our local authority, but they won't be able to provide anything this year, since this caring government has cut local authority expenditure by about a quarter.

Sue x

Thus surely people in developing countries would benefit from the wisdom of "developed" countries?
No point giving laptops if they don't know how to generate electricity.I still feel that more aid is achieved by helping to build an infrastructure for a country to stabalise & then move forward itself.
If the Govts won't hand the money over (ie we suspect they're corrupt) surely it's better to provide "hands on" help & keep the people out of deeper debt?

Hi Suzian this thread is swerving a bit-it was really to do with the 3% Gift Aid charities will lose thanks to the powers that be.(re Jeremy Kyle very valid point!)

Good evening, everybody

I have to confess, I have jumped four pages after finding this

"while this counrtry is in such a state
its foreign aid that should be cut
why should we pay for other countries to breed
more kids so more mouths to feed
it goes on in a never ending circle
if they want aid give them contraception"

I don't normally do that - I usually take the time to read all the debate, but this has made my so very angry (sorry, whoever posted it)

In answer to the question - I like to think of myself as a citizen of a civilised country, and one of the obligations we have as a part of the affluent world is to give to those less well off. I personally have no problem with a part of my taxes going to help people who are in a much, much worse situation that I can ever imagine.

As for the rest - we already pay far too much for people who continue to "breed" and have no clue about contraception. And they don't live in third world countries. However, they do go on the Jeremy Kyle show on a daily basis.

Well, that's that off my chest

Sue x

Yes, but you can't use blades of grass to buy the supplies for your small crafts business, or the seeds for your small farm, or pay your child's school fees ...

Capital - credit, even - really is needed for most development.

Maybe you can use a stick to catch fish, but I couldn't use a quill pen to do my job, unless I felt like trying to live on the few dollars a day I could make at that speed. Many small businesspeople in our countries borrow (or get government aid) in order to start or improve their businesses, or get the training to do the job. People in developing countries are no different.

Any Country how ever big or small, can only do it's best under the circumstances it finds itself in when a crisis occurs either at home or elsewhere. Money is not the answer to everything, Knowledge is the real power. You don't have to have a fishing rod to get fish, you can use a stick.

Most NGO (non-governmental organization) aid is definitely development aid. Think of Oxfam, Unicef, Care. They work at the local level most of the time, on small local projects.

Usually, showing people how to do things isn't considered the best approach these days. They know how to do their own things. Giving them sources of clean drinking water is important, for example -- but again, letting them do the work and take responsibility for the facility.

What they often need is ways to reach markets, or small loans to enable them to do that. Some women, for instance, can support their families very well with products they grow or make and sell at local markets, but they spend their lives in debt to local loan sharks, who lend them the money to buy supplies, and then when they sell their product, all the money goes back to the lender and they start over again; it's like the company store. A tiny interest-free loan gives them a chance to keep more of their earnings each time, and buy more supplies, and then send their kids to school, and so on.

Disaster relief is another thing, of course. Both NGOs and governments are involved in that.

Government-to-government aid does many things: big infrastructure like roads, training for judges and lawyers to establish a judicial system that is not corrupt and impossible for ordinary people to use, training for all kinds of government functions. For instance, there is talk of Canada helping Cuba create its income tax system. ;)

NGOs are usually in a better position to do development aid. They can work with NGOs in the country in question, to deliver the services "on the ground" as they say, and buy the material and hire the labour locally, which is efficient and cretes local jobs.

It also makes sense for governments of the donor countries to contract with or fund their own NGOs or international NGOs to deliver this kind of aid, because they have the contacts and know-how.

There are a whole lot of problems with how aid is delivered, no question.

One is what's called "tied aid" -- where the money donated is conditional on the food, for instance, being bought in the country that donates the money. Say, Canada donates money to buy wheat, and it has to be Canadian wheat. (This stopped in 2008, for food.) That isn't just expensive, it means the country getting the aid isn't developing its own agriculture more, to meet its own needs.

They're getting fish instead of fishing rods indeed, and the donated money is coming right back to the donor country. They know how to fish already -- they just need money for the rods and the bait to start with. ;)

So it isn't just the governments getting the money that cause problems. It's the governments giving the money, too.

I have no problem with overseas aid to any country that needs it but as has been stated some Govts are corrupt & I think when any country sends people to show the population how to irrigate their land,manage crops etc it can be far more beneficial.
As the saying goes:-

Give a man a fish....he eats for a day
Give him a fishing rod...he'll eat for life

I agree with Cat in that what Janey said was on topic. I also believe we not only can afford it, we have an obligation to afford it. We in the affluent west cannot just let people die and ignore the suffering of our fellow human beings just because they live on another continent.

Some government officials overseas are corrupt but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to help the ordinary people who suffer. Most of the aid does get to the people who need it.

Yes, our country is in a financial mess, but the bankers will still get their bonuses, despite being the architects of the current problems. I'd rather the money went where it is really needed than lined their pockets further.

As I said, no one in this country is suffering in the same way as the poorest of the poor overseas, I don't begrudge a single penny of the overseas aid. I'm surprised that a Tory government sees it that way as well but very pleased.

Gwynne

So we should leave people to die.

Its all very well saying the amount given in aid is "Small" Not if you have,nt got it it is,nt. Its Borrowed Money on which interest has to be paid,and at this moment we cannot afford to do that.We should put our own house in order first, then help others when it is.**M**.

Eeyore don't worry about the inflections, they're just there because they look nice :-)

I found Janey's posts interesting, informative and relevant seeing as overseas aid was mentioned. It's all too easy to criticise the government for giving overseas aid but the amount is small and it's easy to forget that we're talking about human beings who are living in absolute poverty. Why should they suffer further because of their government's actions.

Gwynne,That is exactly the sort of thing I mentioned earlier. Its such a shame that there was a lot of retoric from" Janey",totally uncalled for and completely out of context to the original posting.However it might be a good idea if the millions given in charity to places like China,India and even Russia were stopped and diverted to other places ( Including the UK ) after all they are Capable of taking care of themselves (Which they do)first and foremost. **M**.

It is always going to be a personal choice which charities we give our own money to. Our governments decide whether or not to help other countries with tax revenue.

I am happy that they do so. This planet *is* my home not just this very small corner of it. I know of no one in this country in as dire straits as some in Haiti, for example. No one in this country experiences the kind of abject poverty experienced in some other countries and, as fellow human beings, the affluent nations have an obligation to help those in need.

Some charities in this country could save a great deal of money, if they chose to do so. My OH was treasurer of a local branch of a large national charity and resigned when said charity opened huge new offices in London and held a royal reception for the launch. He (and I) considered that a huge waste of resources that members worked hard to raise. We spent an entire Saturday running a jumble sale and the money we raised wouldn't even have covered the wine bill of that reception.

So now I pick and choose which charities I work for and which ones I give to. It's not hard to find out which ones waste huge amounts of money with flash offices in London and huge salaries for their staff. They obviously don't need my money.

Gwynne

Sadly that is very true Cat (sorry don't know how to put the inflections on your "a").

The size of countries does kind of influence the response & I do think usually the UK will step up for overseas issues with a "grand gesture" & it does tend to ignore or underfund problems at home.
That is the Govt & we elect them,however,I personally never imagined things could be so bad.I just hope when they sort out this "mess" they get policies in place that are effective & get this country back on its feet.

Jackinthebox how do you know Janey doesn't?

--------------------------------------------

You can't blame foreign aid for the reduction in gift aid. That is the fault of the Coalition alone. Even if the coalition did reduce foreign aid it wouldn't help the British charities one bit, the government wouldn't switch the money to British charities, it would go on something else like the deficit, for example.

Janey, in reply to what you have said to me, not anyone else, maybe its time you got off your high moral ground, if you are so in agreement with us giving our money away, maybe stop googling, and copy and pasting, and get out there and start helping them who (in your opinion) need it. Spend your time doing something constructive!!!!!

One just thinks thats a good idea, doesnt one????

My post was in reply to someone's question about whether international aid was sent for the Cumbrian floods.

(For one thing, international aid is generally only sent when it's requested -- which is why Canada couldn't get aid to New Orleans until %$#@ George Bush finally asked, despite the fact that we had planes sitting on runways ready to go.)

The impact of the Cumbrian floods would be just like the impact of the floods we get in small towns Manitoba or Quebec, no question. Local, but devastating.

We tend to call out the military for things like this -- even when Toronto got itself snowed in a few years back, the army was there digging it out. In the States, they won't have any of that, of course. The military could be sitting around doing nothing, but they can't have them interfering.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you about the cuts.

But I wonder where people thought a right-wing government wsa going to make its cuts?

I do acknowledge that compared to the UK any crisis in your Country is going to seem more significant taking into account the size,weather etc in Canada,however,in the UK which is tiny in comparison the floods in Cumbria were huge to us & the support was not there for those people.

We to have teams we send overseas to help in major catastrophes,dog teams for earthquakes etc but seem unable to deal with a flood in our own back yard.

I can't speak for the UK but we are in a bit of a mess here at the moment & as I said initially-how can it be fair to save money by taking it away from Charities.

Ah, okay, so it's backwards to here.
Here, we deduct it from our taxable income, so in theory we can afford to give more.
There, you pay taxes on it and the charity gets the tax you paid. ;)

Complicated -- I was just trying to find info about rates, and I could only find scholarly papers by economists about what works best, tax deductions, matching grants ...

The tax deduction system is considered to be kind of cheating on the part of governments -- since so many people don't claim the deduction, the government isn't paying what it "should".

Your direct transfer, where the charities keep the books (so the transfer is based on how much money was actually donated, not on how much was claimed on tax returns), is a more transparent way to do it.

So it's the 3p on a pound that's being terminated. Got it.