鈥淪top sending foreign aid to countries that hate us and use that money to rebuild our tunnels, roads, bridges and schools.鈥� That was Donald J Trump 鈥撀爐hen an almost laughable long-shot for US president 鈥撀�.
As a share of its national income, US spending on overseas aid is tiny () 鈥� less than many other nations (Sweden spends 1.41 per cent). But Trump鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 work, in countries that are rich enough to look after their own. What鈥檚 more, they say, much of the cash is siphoned off through corruption. That鈥檚 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鈥檚 current aid budget is to support the UN鈥檚 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鈥檚 population to peak in 2060 and drop back to between 8.2 and 8.7 billion by the end of the century (). That鈥檚 far lower than the UN Population Division鈥檚 .
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 鈥� one of the key drivers of political discontent in developed countries. Any global problem you care to mention 鈥� climate change, poverty, disease 鈥� becomes easier to solve in a less populous world.
Even if you don鈥檛 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.
