British Aid for India

[clerriehibs]

Anyone know why we're spending nearly £1bn over three years in aid in India, whilst they're spending god knows how much on a space program?
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/india-gets-rs12-bn-british-aid-for-education-health_10059133.html

[steakbake]

aid, in the way we currently pursue it is totally pointless.

however, india has every right to a space programme, nuclear missiles and all the scientifict programmes that many western countries have.

the space programme has provided jobs, attracted back and developed expertise etc as well as providing work for industries in India.

development takes many forms, not just giving bags of gruel for the fly-pestered masses.

ps - who is the dame in your avatar?

[joe_hfc]

aid, in the way we currently pursue it is totally pointless.

however, india has every right to a space programme, nuclear missiles and all the scientifict programmes that many western countries have.

the space programme has provided jobs, attracted back and developed expertise etc as well as providing work for industries in India.

development takes many forms, not just giving bags of gruel for the fly-pestered masses.

ps - who is the dame in your avatar?

looks like the wifey from eastenders :drool:

[steakbake]

looks like the wifey from eastenders :drool:

She scrubs up well. :agree:

[alex plode]

aid, in the way we currently pursue it is totally pointless.

however, india has every right to a space programme, nuclear missiles and all the scientifict programmes that many western countries have.

the space programme has provided jobs, attracted back and developed expertise etc as well as providing work for industries in India.

development takes many forms, not just giving bags of gruel for the fly-pestered masses.

ps - who is the dame in your avatar?

Think the OP has a perfectly valid question.
Whilst India has every right to a space & nuclear programme; why is it necessary to seek outside aid for health & education ?

ps Lacey Turner

[CropleyWasGod]

Think the OP has a perfectly valid question.
Whilst India has every right to a space & nuclear programme; why is it necessary to seek outside aid for health & education ?

ps Lacey Turner

...probably as repayment for the resources that good old Empire has taken from them over the years.

... can of worms smiley...

[Mibbes Aye]

While it is tempting to reduce this issue to one of "Why are we giving them aid when they are spending money on a space programme", that is far too simplistic a reading of it IMO.

That's not to say there isn't an issue around how one of the emerging superpowers faces up to the sheer scale of poverty present within its borders - there is and it's one that is and needs to be debated, not least in India.

I suppose it raises a couple of questions about the nature of aid and how conditional we choose to make it. If, for the sake of argument,all that money was targeted solely on water purification programmes then are we saying that we're not prepared to spend that money, humanitarian aid, if the government of the receiving country commits expenditure to things we disagree with? That instantly throws up questions of sovereignty. It also throws up questions around what our goals are. Is it to support access to clean drinking water or is it something deeper?

There's also the potential charge of hypocrisy of course - we haven't eradicated child poverty in this country yet we spend billions on something like Trident.

Perhaps the biggest thing for me around aid like this is the little attention paid to just exactly what the aid is meant to achieve. IIRC at least tens of millions (and possibly a nine-figure sum) of UK government aid is spent on Western privatisation consultants, sent in to 'advise'. An agenda of deregulation firmly favours Western (including UK) business interests, particularly in a country like India which for years operated a semi-protectionist regime that allowed its post-independence economy to develop.

Aid is rarely given for altruistic reasons in this world - it tends to serve the broader economic interests of the donor as much as, if not far more than, the recipient IMO.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Aid is rarely given for altruistic reasons in this world - it tends to serve the broader economic interests of the donor as much as, if not far more than, the recipient IMO.

I'd say almost never, figures like 1bn in aid sound great, in reality most of the figure will likely be a subsidy to promote the neo-liberal agenda, the benificiaries will not be the poor of India.

[steakbake]

I'd say almost never, figures like 1bn in aid sound great, in reality most of the figure will likely be a subsidy to promote the neo-liberal agenda, the benificiaries will not be the poor of India.

Much of it will be self-serving. Keeping UK businesses in India, fostering Indian businesses to do business with the UK, employing UK experts etc etc.

I am doing research into aid and development as part of what I am doing at the moment and I was amazed to hear that of all the aid that the UK gives to Malawi more than 3/4ths of it returns to the UK in some form or other. So, for example, you buy an incubator for a hospital... but the incubator is made in Sheffield, so you've given a Malawian ministry money to buy your own kit.
Genius.

A classic case of this is the money the UK sank into Zambia to boost infrastructure to eventually lead to increased economic activity. The money went to a company based in the UK who sent their own experts and engineers to build a road to a British owned mineral mine.

The classic example of it is Halliburton rebuilding Iraq.

[alex plode]

Agree with much of above......two issues really.
Firstly...it's not really "aid" per se, but UK economic development.

When Brown was in India announcing the deal - he was accompanied by representatives of UK universities & trade bodies ! No secret was made the visit was an aid package and trade mission rolled into one. That said, there's no doubt India's poor will benefit, which leads to the second point:

India's one of the fastest growing and wealthy world economies but new wealth seems only to be accelarating inequality. Only 5% of India's GDP for example, is allocated to helping children, and they remain the most racist and apartheid country in the world ?
Apart from self-serving reasons, is it right to give money to a country with suspect credentials who are more than able to help their own poor ??