Does cutting aid create instability?
Voices | Activity for everyone
Does reducing aid risk making the world less stable in the long term, even if it saves money in the short term?
In this video, Hamish from The Economist explains how the UK has reduced its international aid spending in recent years. He describes how these decisions may save money in the short term, but could also have long-term effects on health, education, climate action and global stability.
Watch his video and share your thoughts in the comments below.
Video not working? Follow this link: https://vimeo.com/teef/hamish-clayton
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think reducing aid does / does not make the world less stable because [your reason]. However, others might argue that [an opposite opinion].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers and respond to someone whose opinion is different from yours.
Comments (4)
I think reducing aid doesn't make the world less stable because other countries are aiming for economic development and if aid is cutting out of it then there would already be instability because there would be many weak economies although some will argue that people in aid won't be helped leading to collapse and outbreak in the once aided regions.
I sincerely think that reducing aid does make the world less stable because in fragile states, foreign aid often supports essential systems such as healthcare, education, food and security. So when aid is suddenly removed, these systems can collapse. Aid also contributes to political stability. In post-conflict or developing countries, international aid can strengthen institutions and support peace building efforts. So cutting aid can weaken governments that are already struggling to maintain legitimacy. However, others may argue that long term reliance on aid can itself create instability because poorly managed aid can create corruption and weaken local accountability but I think that it is not the issue of whether aid should exist but how it is delivered and withdrawn and the question we should all ask ourselves is that are we using aid to delay stability or to make it possible without us.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic philosophical_fox. Can you explain what you mean when you raise the question about whether we are using aid to delay stability. Can you share an some evidence that this may have been the case?
I think reducing aid does make the world less stable, even if it saves money for now. When countries get less help, problems like hunger, sickness, and climate disasters get worse. This can make people feel desperate and angry, and desperate people sometimes start conflicts or move to other countries. For example, when people lose their homes because of war or disasters, they become refugees and need support. If aid is cut, more people may be forced to leave their countries, which can create more tension and instability.
Some people say we should spend money on our own country first, which makes sense. But the world is connected, and if other countries collapse, it affects everyone. We can also see this with the situation in Palestine, where the conflict has caused many people to become refugees and rely on aid for basic needs. If aid is reduced, the situation could get worse and affect more countries through increased migration and conflict. That’s why I think cutting aid is risky and can make the world less stable.
These are really good points resplendent_blueberry. Can you explain why you think refugees can create more tension and instability?
International aid directly impacts communities that are often in nations under conflict, war, and health crises. For donor governments and other helping organizations, their aid is the very same that can change the condition of communities at risk. I think reducing aid does not make the world less stable because it does not stop or lessen the strain on nations that are suffering. In Hamish Clayton's video, the idea that politicians are now acting based on power rather than service is examined. I agree with this statement, and especially today, it seems that the action based on self-interest creates a weary relationship that allows for even greater conflict to ensue. The decrease in aid, following this conflict arising, would only add to the lack of advocacy each nation deserves to have.
However, others might argue that reducing aid leads to lessened interference and ultimately the ability of a nation to develop on its own. For many, this form of 'wishful' thinking isn't possible, especially when the nation is poverty-stricken and hit with years of political corruption. For example, it's not as easy for nations, such as Mexico, to completely resolve their issues in drug trafficking by changin adminstrations and relying solely on law enforcement, known to be connected with the cartels themselves. Although this nation is large and capable of introducing reform for other issues, not everything can be immediately mediated by the nation itself.
Thus, it's international aid that provides a better footing for nations to recover from their issues.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts dazzling_solution. Can you explain what role you think international aid might play in helping countries to resolve their issues.