Should ODA Be Discontinued?

Global Social Justice

(Word Count – 1,075 words)Justin Frewen15/Jan/2010

Despite donor country pledges in 1970 to spend 0.7% of GNP on overseas developmentassistance (ODA), this target is still proving elusive 40 years later. Now, as the chills of aglobal economic crisis whirl around us, ODA is actually being reduced and the possibilityof this target being achieved anytime in the near future appears ever more remote.However, many would argue that in this current global recession we should beconcentrating on taking care of those who have fallen on hard times closer to home.Others deny the existence of any moral obligation for those living in distant lands.Meanwhile, a considerable number of analysts reject the whole rationale of aid. Theyclaim it is the wrong mechanism to tackle the plight of those suffering from extremepoverty, hunger and other ills. Instead, inter-state trading structures and frameworksshould be improved to enable ‘developing’ countries participate more effectively in theglobal marketplace.What is beyond dispute is the fact that poverty continues to be a critical global concern.Approximately half of the world’s population of 6 billion live on less than US$2.50 a daywith 1.2 billion living on under US$1. Furthermore, despite significant reductions in childmortality, 8.8 million children under five died in 2008. At the same time, inequalitycontinues to increase exponentially. By 2005, 76.6% of total private consumptionworldwide was accounted for by the wealthiest 20% with the poorest 20% enjoying amere 1.5%.Given the persistence of such poverty, despite the expenditure of US$2.5 trillion over thepast 50 years, surely it is time to accept that ODA does not work? Moreover, as westruggle through a crippling recession, should available funds not be focussed onalleviating the economic woes of our own citizens? Does charity after all not begin athome?To respond to these issues, albeit in reverse order, we must consider the followingquestions. Firstly, the ethical one as to whether the lives of those in faraway regionsshould be considered less important than those of our fellow citizens? Secondly, if ourresponse is even a conditional ‘no’, is ODA the correct manner in which to proceed?The Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, strongly maintains the absence of any ethical justification for favouring those close to us when in doing so we expend resources thatcould provide equivalent or greater succour to a superior number of people elsewhere.Other commentators feel this is too high a standard to set and as such unrealistic forpractical purposes, irrespective of the validity of Singer’s ethical arguments. In thisrespect, Thomas Pogge is less demanding when he stresses that people in affluent statessurely have some ethical responsibility for alleviating the suffering of others, particularlygiven its low relative cost.Perhaps the British moral philosopher Ted Honderich best illustrates our ethicalresponsibility when he talks about the ‘half-lives’ suffered by those living in the poorestnations. While people in ‘developed’ countries enjoy an average lifespan of some 72years, a person in Malawi has just over 30 years to look forward to. Moreover, their half-lives are more likely to be plagued by ill health. For Honderich, the conclusion is clear.We have a moral responsibility to “try to save people from bad lives.” However, though this may be the case, is aid the best means to fulfil our moralobligations? After all, poverty is still widespread despite vast expenditure on ODA.Furthermore, while China has significantly reduced its incidence of poverty, was this notdue to its increased participation in the world marketplace rather than international aid?