|
|
|
Wednesday, 07 November 2007
|
John Roskam of the Institute of Public Affairs pens this insightful piece on the reality and inefficiency of foreign aid. In the wake of the opinion piece bombardment of The Age by Tim Costello and Hugh Evans pleading with Australians to vote for a party that will increase Australia's commitment to foreign aid (read 'vote ALP'), this article is particularly relevant. This is a must read. Then debate the issue on the forum.
Development is not a dirty word
The Age, John Roskam, November 7, 2007
The Christian churches have lost sight of the facts as they try to remain a force in society. NO ONE has a mortgage on morality. But you could be mistaken for thinking otherwise if you've been following the argument over the past few days about whether we should increase the foreign aid budget.
A range of Christian organisations have endorsed Labor's proposal that Australia raise our foreign aid to 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 2015, in line with the targets of the Make Poverty History campaign. So far the Coalition has committed to lifting foreign aid spending only to 0.35 per cent of GDP. Unfortunately it seems that this debate has less to do with poverty, and more to do with the struggle of various Christian churches to remain relevant. If this was really a debate about poverty, we'd be talking about what works, not what makes us feel good.
The evidence is irrefutable. Free political institutions, free trade and free markets are the best way to get people out of poverty. The difference between the economic development of Africa and Asia is proof of this. In recent decades, as aid to Africa has increased, living standards have actually declined.
Foreign aid is usually only successful on a small scale and often provides marginal benefits. Foreign aid will not be the vehicle to improve the condition of the 3 billion people living on less than $2 a day. As the world's leading expert on the subject, William Easterly, wrote earlier this year: "Poverty will end as it has ended everywhere else, by home-grown political, economic and social reformers and entrepreneurs that unleash the power of democracy and free markets." The Prime Minister was right when in response to Labor's campaign promise he said: "The world, the rich world, can do more to help those starving people of struggling countries by getting rid of corruption in the governments of those countries and also by opening trade barriers …"
The sincerity of those attempting to overcome poverty is not in doubt. The mystery is why some Christian churches and others insist on foreign aid rather than free markets as the solution. And to this question there are at least three answers. First, the accusation that poverty is the result of insufficient foreign aid serves as a critique of Western consumerism and materialism.
The claim is that poverty in poor countries is the product of the failings of citizens of rich countries. This analysis coalesces with a theology of some Christian churches, which is hostile to free enterprise, profit-making and private gain. Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea that their desire to buy and enjoy the consumer goods made in the factories of China and Vietnam can be as effective in defeating poverty as giving away 10 per cent of their weekly salary.
Continue reading at the age
|
|
|
