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 (24)
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local accountability but I think that it is not the issue of whether aid should exist but how it is delivered and withdrawn and the question we should all ask ourselves is that are we using aid to delay stability or to make it possible without us.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?
Hi, resplendent blueberry
I totally agree with you that if aid was reduced, it can make the world less stable. First of all, aid can be extremely significant since it helps a lot of poor countries who have wars, conflicts, tension or even natural disasters. It is the humans' rights to have a shelter, food, clean water, medicine and education. If the support was reduced, many citizens can be in a horrible mood moreover they will begin thinking about migration and most of them will eventually migrate (illegal). For example, the country, Sudan, has large civil wars. Aids are provided in the country, yet it is not enough for all the citizens. This contributed to massive amounts of migrations to my country, Egypt. Did you know that until now, there are 1.2 million Sudanese people that are living in Egypt including 600,000 people that registered in the UNHCR? This is so terrible. Young people barely find jobs easily because of the Sudanese people. Everything also increased in price like the loaf of bread, goods and the rent. All of this was because of that the amount of the people in Egypt increased. If we are able to service Sudan with more aids, Sudanese people will stop coming to us.
To conclude, I am so sad because of the increase of Sudanese people in Egypt. While I am walking in the streets, I see them everywhere. I am not sad because of them. Humans are all the same However, what I am sad from is the situation that they are living in, and it is getting worsen by the migration of citizens. All of this was because of only decreasing the amount of aids given to countries.
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.
I think that aid can help countries resolve issues like poverty and displacement of individuals take for example, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) which helps to refugees. They a role of acting as the guardian of refugees in order to protect them from going back to danger zones and are generally responsible for welfare of refugees. This is because these refugees are displaced and may have possibly lost their properties and valuables, with them having no source of income, they are left to be helped by this organisation. This just shows how international aid can help people by reducing the effect the aid may have on the country's budget and offering immediate help to those in need.
Thank you for your reply! I think international aid might serve as an external factor that can step in when deemed necessary. An analogy I think of is a young child's parent on the side, making sure the child doesn't hurt themselves while playing. A separate government's presence in matters can help with counseling advice, the protection of residents, and, if necessary, the defense of the nation. By having this form of backing, nations are better able to mediate and exercise change in reform, in turn allowing for its development. Both nations would be able to develop a mutualistic relationship.
I think reducing aid does make the world less stable because many countries depend crucially on these aids and cutting them can cause huge unpredictable severe disasters.
In Sudan aids were crucially needed but the international aids have failed which caused many disasters such as displacement. About 10 million person was outside the country trying to find a safer place to live and 25 million (which is over about half of the population needs help and need to be saved). The country even faced famine and about 19 million faced famine due to the war and conflict. What is even worse is that 70% of the hospitals are not working and also many diseases like cholera and measles are spreading rapidly.
However, others might argue that these aids are non-sense because most of the times the corrupt people and gangs steal the aids and sell it with high prices to people who actually need it and affect the country budget and reputation.
I think reducing aid, does in fact make the world more stable, but only in certain situations.
When countries are struggling, they aren’t able to provide enough supplies or resources to other countries, without risking their own people and country. As such, it becomes a cycle of suffering and need if both countries are trying to provide while sending their own provisions away. Because of this issue, and the issue of needy countries, I think that countries facing a decrease in economic stability, or facing their own major issues should not be obligated to provide aid to other countries to ensure stability for them. During that period I believe that countries facing an increase in economic stability, or stable in economic stability should provide for the missing aid.
As an example, Venezuela provided oil to Cuba for years, and when Venezuela’s economy began to decline, it still sent oil to Cuba at low prices because Cuba relied heavily on them for support, and cutting them off would mean putting many at risk. As a result, billions were lost in revenue for Venezuela, and contributed to inflation which worsened Venezuelas situation and left them struggling.
Some may argue, that if we cut off aid just because we’re struggling, then we’re essentially abandoning our allied countries for selfishness, but giving someone else the only ground you had to stand on, does not solve all issues. It solves one, and creates another.
As such I believe it’s crucial for successful countries to take their roles to provide aid when other countries are unable to.
I think reducing aid doesn’t make the world less stable, at least not in the short term, but rather the countries that are affected:
The country that gives out the aid saves money on the short term, and often times puts their own need before the needs of the other country, which is not a negative thing on its own.
But the importance is in the long term effects:
The people in the countries that are being less supported can die of thirst or injuries, starve or develop hatred against the country that stopped supporting them.
In my opinion,reducing the aid makes the world a less stable plac eto live in.I believe that this will create more of hatred and greed since people of different classes and from different countries will feel envious when they see the other countries living a better life. I think it is the duty of the rich countries to help the poor ones especially in the time of crises. However others might argue that the rich countries should reduce their aid to the poor ones and invest these aid in their own benefit for their own people. I think the world leader can reach a compromise if the countries can donate of the resources that they have a lot of.
reducing foreign aid can risk making the world less stable in the long term, even if it appears to save money in the short term.
In the short term, cutting aid may help governments reduce spending and focus on their own economic or security needs. This can be politically popular, especially during times of financial pressure. However, foreign aid often supports essential services such as healthcare, education, food supply, and disaster relief in poorer countries. Without this support, poverty and inequality may increase, which can lead to conflict, migration crises, and the spread of disease—problems that can eventually affect the whole world and become more expensive to solve later.
Furthermore, aid can help build strong international relationships and promote peace. When countries invest in development and stability abroad, they reduce the chances of war, extremism, and humanitarian emergencies. These long-term benefits often outweigh the short-term savings from cutting aid. Therefore, while reducing aid might seem financially sensible at first, it may create greater instability and higher costs in the future.
Overall, maintaining well-planned foreign aid is an important investment in global stability rather than simply an extra expense.👍🏻
I feel that reducing or cutting of aid has a chance of causing instability yes, because weak and fragile countries might not have the strength, ability and resources to provide, take South Sudan for example, this is a country that is in a serious level of crisis, poverty and insecurity, if rich and more powerful countries help in providing aid for countries like these, they would have helped reduce the current problem, but the cutting or reducing of aid will cause major devastation to those countries except if the country finds it,s own way to step on up to the matter at hand.
I think reducing aid does make the world less stable. It's true that nowadays, mainly because of the different crises we've faced in the last twenty years, countries tend to focus on themselves and ignore others. However, this doesn't mean this is correct and as human beings we should try to think more in others' wellness indepently to our own one.
It's quite sad that international aid well-intentioned has decreased but as I said before there's a reason for it. The world is less stable each day, so each country wants to save itself.
I believe it makes the world less stable because all countries that depend on others' aid are going to suffer a lot and the fact that countries are going to leave them behind is also what will make it less stable. In addition, countries stopping helping between them is quite a bad sign of our current situation.
In conclusion, although I understand the reason why this is happening I strongly believe this is making our world less stable and even human.
I think reducing aid will not make countries less stable, since foreign assistance must not be taken as the main development to any country. Countries must save money with higher budgets to develop themselves. Imagine if we were living in a world were aid is the main process in our life, so there were not be any developments in our world, because this country will rely on the other...... then there is no development. Also, Wealthier countries must aid but not in an exaggerated way.
I believe that, were a country to reduce aid to such a drastic extent, it would have negative effects in the long run. If this country is ever in need and is forced to rely on the aid of other countries, there won’t be as much trust and compassion as there would be for a country that did supply aid. It may have a positive outcome in the beginning - not much money is lost, and the money that is lost ultimately supports their own interests - but the social benefits of this will nearly always be negative. It is important to offer aid, as this can form alliances between countries and build trust. More countries will be willing to offer aid themselves if/when the time comes.
Can you say more on what you mean by "the social benefits will nearly always be negative"?
I think reducing aid does make the world less stable in the long-term even if in the short term, less money is spent. Why I believe this is because aid functions very similarity to an investment. Aid is not about charity (or at least, aid's primary motive is not charity). If funding for things such as health and education are cut, some states may fail entirely (look at Sudan; aid wasn't the cause of its collapse but Sudan is an example of a failed state). These failing states become hotspots for unmanaged migration, extremism and regional conflicts which will now need to be solved by much more expensive humanitarian (or military) efforts. If you weaken health aid to countries then the risk of pandemics popping up is increased and due to how interconnected the world is (with planes coming in and out), one disease could have disastrous consequences. So, simply backing down and giving up usually just delays the inevitable and causes more money to spent.
However, others might argue that reducing aid is a necessary act of responsibility to the civilian population of a country. There's also the fact that aid spending has fostered corruption, failed in its duties and have been wasted due to inefficient foreign programs. They might argue that trade, not aid, is the main cause of global instability.
I think reducing aid does make the world less stable because if a country is facing severe flood and the citizens of the country are in a situation where they are not able to get a proper food and in the other side due to the damages the country is in a situation of struggling to repair itself and in this place the international aid helps by giving aid in the way of food which make that country a bit more stable and now think of a situation where these aids are not given and that leaves the country in a critical situation this creates an instability and if this was happened on all other suffering countries then this will show a global instability. However, others might argue that reducing aid would not affect stability but will sure increase poverty and when a stable country reduce aid means indirectly saying that the country is not interested in helping other countries .
I believe that cutting aid budgets could lead to an unstable world because aid budgets are used to support healthcare, education, and climate change. If countries such as the United Kingdom cut their aid budgets, they might end up saving money in the short term, but in the long term, the consequences could be severe.
For instance, if they cut budgets that support healthcare, it could lead to the spread of diseases. If they cut budgets that support education, it could lead to poverty and unemployment.
But, of course, others could have a different point of view, and that is that governments should focus on spending money in their own countries, especially when faced with economic difficulties.
In my opinion, cutting international aid may look like a smart financial decision in the short term, but it can create serious instability in the long term. Aid is not just about giving money; it is about investing in stability, development, and global security. When wealthy countries reduce support, vulnerable nations may struggle with poverty, unemployment, weak healthcare systems, and limited education opportunities. These problems can increase social tension, migration pressures, and even conflict.
International aid often helps build schools, hospitals, clean water systems, and economic opportunities. When these supports disappear suddenly, the progress made over years can collapse quickly. Instability in one region does not stay there — in our connected world, economic crises, conflicts, and humanitarian disasters can affect global trade, security, and international relations.
However, I also believe aid must be used effectively and transparently. Simply giving money is not enough; it must empower local communities, strengthen institutions, and encourage long-term independence rather than dependency. The real question is not whether aid should be cut, but how it can be improved to create sustainable growth.
In conclusion, reducing aid may save money today, but the cost of instability tomorrow could be far greater. A stable world benefits everyone, and international cooperation remains one of the strongest tools to achieve that stability.
thank you topical talkers 🌹
I think reducing aid does risk making the world less stable in the long term because international aid is often connected to global health, education, emergency relief and even climate action. Cutting funding may save money now but it can lead to bigger problems later, such as disease outbreaks, more poverty, food insecurity and weaker education systems. These issues can increase migration pressures and conflict, which then affects global stability, not just the countries receiving aid.
However, others might argue that reducing aid is necessary to focus on domestic spending or to make sure money is used more efficiently. Some people believe governments should prioritize their own citizens first. Still, in a globalized world, problems like pandemics, climate change and humanitarian crises do not stay within borders, so cutting aid could create higher costs and risks for everyone in the future.
The debate over cutting International aid is complex, as it sits at the intersection of humanitarian ethics and geopolitical stability. While some argue that cutting aid encourages self-reliance, the reality is often the opposition: sudden withdrawal of support can creat a ‘power vacuum'. This instability often manifests in three ways: first, a social collapse where basic services like healthcare and education fail; second, economic migration as people flee poverty-stricken areas ; and third, the rise of extremism, as desperate populations become vulnerable to radical influence. However, a unique perspective is that ‘aid' itself can sometimes cause instability if it creates a dependency trap. Therefore, the goal shouldn’t just be to ‘not cut' aid, but to transition from emergency relief to structural investment, ensuring that when aid eventually scales back, it leaves behind a resilient and stable nation rather than a fragile one.
Reducing international aid may seem like a short-term cost saver, but in the long run, it can destabilize the world. When support for health, education, and climate action is cut, vulnerable communities suffer first—leading to more poverty, fewer opportunities for youth, and rising risks of conflict, migration, and disease. Over time, these neglected issues grow costlier for everyone, even wealthy nations.
As organizations like The Economist stress, aid is not just charity; it is an investment in global stability. Improving education and healthcare in developing countries boosts economies, reduces inequality, and fosters peace. In addition, governments in the UK and other developed nations shape progress on climate, humanitarian aid, and sustainable development. If funding is cut too far, vital long-term projects may fail, wasting earlier progress and slowing global improvement.
In short, while saving money now may seem wise, cutting aid too deeply risks deeper, costlier global issues in the future. A balanced approach—responsible spending paired with sustained aid—offers the best path to long-term stability and shared prosperity.
I think cutting aid does make the world less stable because aid plays a crucial role in preventing crisis from appearing and it makes long-term stability so cutting it would destroy everything.
Aid provides food, medicine, shelter and clean energy to many poor people; Cutting aid would lead to hunger and diseases. Furthermore, international aid can support refugees by providing a shelter and a care for their health.
Without aid, poor countries won't have strong, advanced military equipment and won't be able to defend in wars strongly. Also, aid isn't only about short-term stability; it builds schools, provides medicine, and helps in industry. This reduces the likelihood of FUTURE issues and creates long-term stability.
However, others might argue that aid can create dependency. They think countries would receive the aid and won't start new projects or try to solve main problems.
I think reducing aid does make the world less stable. Reducing aid gives the countries that need help some traits of independence, but are often ineffective. For example, take the abandoned PlayPump water systems in Africa which were Norwegian-funded fishing plants for nomadic people in Kenya. The very expensive project was wasteful, because the nomadic people of Kenya are dependent on milk and meat. The fish and fishing opportunities did not go along with their culture. Additionally, U.S. food aid has been known to undermine local farmers in India, Pakistan, and Indonesia.When food aid is distributed in other countries, local farmers cannot sell their crops, and may lose their farms. So, I think aid should not be reduced, but more research should be used before countries develop plans to help others. They should work more closely with the countries they are trying to help.
I think reducing aid does make the world less stable in the long term, even if it saves money at first. In the video, Hamish explains that cutting aid can affect health systems, education, and climate projects. These areas are not just about charity. They are about stability. When people lose access to healthcare or education, poverty can increase, and that can lead to conflict, migration, or economic problems that affect other countries too.
Saving money in the short term might seem responsible, especially during economic pressure at home. However, if problems grow in other parts of the world because support was removed, those issues can eventually spread. Instability does not stay in one place. It can affect trade, security, and global cooperation.
However, others might argue that governments must prioritise their own citizens first, especially during financial crises. They may believe that domestic issues should come before international spending. While that is understandable, I think long-term stability benefits everyone. Investing in global health, education, and climate action can actually prevent bigger and more expensive problems in the future.
In my opinion, cutting aid may balance a budget today, but it can create challenges tomorrow.
Cutting aid doesn’t just save a bit of money—it shakes up the whole system in ways that stick around. Aid isn’t just charity; it props up things like hospitals, schools, and basic food supplies in countries that really need the help. When the UK dropped its aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income, sure, they saved some cash right away. But that move put a lot of pressure on fragile countries that rely on outside help for vaccines, clean water, and the basics that keep people afloat.
When those services fall apart, poverty and conflict don’t just stay local. People get desperate. They move, tensions rise, and suddenly the ripple effect hits everyone—trade, security, even who’s showing up at your borders. In that way, aid is less about being generous and more about keeping the world from turning into chaos.
Still, there’s another side to this. Some folks say a government’s top job is looking after its own people, especially when times are tough at home. Inflation, debt, trouble with schools or hospitals—those are real problems, and cutting overseas aid might look like the responsible thing to do. Plus, there’s the argument that aid sometimes gets wasted or lost in bureaucracy, so slashing budgets could force everyone to shape up and spend smarter.
But in the end, saving money now can mean bigger headaches down the road. Weak health systems, kids out of school, governments on the brink—those problems don’t stay put, and they end up costing more, in money and in global security. That’s the real price of cutting back.