Should the UK end International Development and foreign aid ringfencing?

When David Cameron and the Conservatives promised to ringfence foreign aid at 0.7 per cent of the national growth income, most people thought it a decent and honourable thing to do. It’s very British to give and help those in need, plus at the same time international aid makes good economic, business and security sense. Long term, its benefits will by far outweigh its cost. This fraction of the national income realises more than its tangible amount – because a pound Stirling in the developing world achieves ten times and in some cases even hundreds of what it can achieve in the UK and the developed world.

Besides being a small portion of the UK’s overall spending, overseas aid also puts us in a favourable position with those that receive it. By giving aid to these states we help them grow and support their own economies while at the same time it allows us to be the first in line when these economies need investors, partners and begin trading in the global market. Add to that, it is a huge security and crisis management protocol. The more economically stable developing states are the more secure they become and the less risk they pose to us and the rest of the developed community.

So all in all, foreign assistance is positive all-around for all concerned. And although the percentage ring-fenced is a very small amount, for many in the UK its significance is causing a great deal of debate. Which is very understandable, when all other services paid for by taxpayers are being frozen or cut, many feel tax funded International Development ought to be treated equally and reduced during times of financial strain.

Particularly as they feel some of the money paid in aid finds its way to individuals and fat cats at the top of these states, rather than the venerable and the projects needed to advance these nations. That might have been true in the past, but as we saw recently, nations who don’t need or misuse our help lose that help. However, putting to one side the notion of funds misuse until it is proved, International Aid’s benefits by far dwarf its cost and subsequent harms.

Nonetheless, the question still remains. In this particularly austere times, should the UK not ringfence its International Aid budget and end its commitment to spending a fixed 0.7 per cent of the gross national income on aid come what may? Or should we look at the bigger picture, the developments, the economic stability in aid receiving nations and the security that affords them and us?