Ship of Fools: Foreign aid - charity begins at home?

Thread: Foreign aid - charity begins at home? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029128

Posted by Fool (# 18359) on :

Given that there is poverty and deprivation in the west should we be giving foreign aid?

My answer is yes. I'm not sure why being born pale on an island off the coast of Europe (non-Brits can change this to suit their own geography) makes you more deserving of other people's money than being born in the middle of Asia or Africa etc.

We in the west should acknowledge that our relative prosperity is a matter of history not of our doing and the poverty of many in the world is also a matter of history and not of their doing.

That said, except in emergencies, I think our aid should be directed at good governance and investment in infrastructure. Giving nets rather than fish as it were.

I find it difficult to justify giving aid to India which has Aircraft carriers and a space program although spending money there on good governance would probably pay off.

[decapitalized thread title]

[ 03. April 2015, 05:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
Given that there is poverty and deprivation in the west should we be giving foreign aid?

My answer is yes.

I agree!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed. But not to India: if they can afford aircraft carriers and a space programme, they can afford what we were giving them aid for. But I think we've pretty much stopped giving them aid, haven't we?
Don't knock Indian governance, btw. They may not be perfect but managing to run a nation of a billion people and I don't know how many cultures while still staying some kind of democracy is, in the overall scheme of things, pretty magnificent. And they have some extremely able people at the top of their civil service. (I taught one: we each of us constantly had to bite back the impulse to call each other Sir, him because that's how you show respect to your teacher in india, me because he was so scarily impressive.)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The USnal argument for foreign aid is to Save Trouble Later On. It is easier to give money to, say the Egyptians, and so have an influence upon what they're doing, than it is to just let them subside into their chaos and then have to cope with a full-out war in the Middle East. There is of course many, many times this is a total flop.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Worked with Marshall Aid, though.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

And we need to distinguish between foreign aid and charity. Most US foreign aid is not charity-- as noted before, it is primarily about buying friends where we think friends would be useful. If you're starving to death in some isolated, non-strategic locale, well, good luck with that.

But charity is something else all together. So when you say, "why should we give $$ to Counrty X when they're buying Large Ticket-Item Z?" the answer is: because there are people in need."

Some countries are corrupt. Some are ineffectual. Some are dealing with threats to nat'l security that are bigger than the humanitarian concerns, at least in the administration's eyes. And a 1000 other possibilities. But no matter how f-ed up the government is, if there are people in need, we're called to respond with help.

Now, to the "fishing nets" question, you wouldn't want to give your $$ directly to the f-ed up govt (as foreign aid does) but rather to NGOs that are doing good, effective, long-term development to give people the means to become self-sufficient.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

US Foreign Add last year was about 72 Billion--which is a drop in the bucket when it comes to our overall budget. 2/3rds of the aid is military. The four highest recipients are Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq and Egypt, Of the four, I think we need to look at reducing the aid to Israel.

Now, if you are talking about NGO aid, what do you want to give up?

Helping people recover from Typhoons? Lutheran World Relief has been working with Filipinos in their recovery. It is not about throwing money at the problem, but investing in local people's effort in their own recovery.

Stopping the work to limit Ebola in West Africa? You do that and it will definitely spread to other places in the world.

Canceling the Malaria Project? Malaria is still a major killer in third world countries--remember when the commandment says do not kill, it also implies that we do everything possible to help improve our neighbors' lives.

How about reducing educational programs? Nope, girls in Africa and Asia don't need to know how to read, write and do arithmetic. They don't need to have the ability to start their own businesses.

Digging wells? Let them go thirsty.

Don't need to teach third world farmers how to care for their animals.

If you really want to reduce poverty at home--encourage your governments to stop making war. The money saved there will be more than cover all the needs of the people at home.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Point of information

American Private Aid to foreign countries through NGOs is roughly $35 billion dollars. UK is much less.

There are over 71,000 grant-making foundations in the United States, responsible for $4 billion of aid – The majority of grants went into health programmes, with other causes including international development and relief and the environment.

- America corporations gave $5.5 billion in aid to developing countries.

- American private and voluntary organisations gave $10.6 billion.

- American universities gave $3.7 billion in scholarships, grants and other support.[8]

- American religious organisations gave $8.8 billion.

- In terms of volunteer time, Americans donated an estimated $2.2 billion of their time to development assistance causes abroad.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Point of information

American Private Aid to foreign countries through NGOs is roughly $35 billion dollars. UK is much less.

There are many more Americans, Do you have the per capita figures?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Accroding to the Charities Aid Foundation, individuals in the UK gave £9.3 billion in 2012, with 10% of that to 'overseas'. That's £930 million to overseas, or about £15/$25 per person. That $35 billion works out at about $140 per person.

The $35 billion seems to be a 2008 figure. The corresponding UK figures from the same report is $1.6 billion which is similar to the CAF number (with appropriate currency conversion etc).

Per capita, US citizens give 5-6x the amount of cash as we do in the UK.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Accroding to the Charities Aid Foundation,

Per capita, US citizens give 5-6x the amount of cash as we do in the UK.

Well, to be fair, some of the cash given (that has been allocated above to) the US citizens is the result of foundation investments. I'm not sure that the British Charities Aid Foundation is really measuring the same thing.

[ 03. April 2015, 08:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

True, like much else we don't measure and report the same things. And, it also looks like the US figures include gifts from other private institutions (eg: churches), I'm sure if the cash collected by UK churches that then goes to overseas work was counted then that would boost the UK figure. I doubt it'll be enough to completely close the gap though. We have to face it, for whatever reason US citizens are more generous in giving cash to overseas aid than we are in the UK.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I am not sure it is such a great surprise: as the US is essentially a country built on immigration, large numbers of people send funds back to their families abroad.

Also a lot more money gets sent to dubious 'foreign aid' recipients in (for example) West Bank settlements than comes from the UK.

clicky

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

We also need to remember that quite a lot of foreign aid money actually benefits the "donor" country - i.e. by providing employment within the charity/NGO sector (those employees pay taxes etc.) and also through the companies which make the "stuff" (from pumps to Land-Rovers to food supplies).

Nothing wrong in that ... but it gives the lie to any suggestion that Foreign Aid money simply leaves our own economies and is thus a "drain" on them.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Baptist Trainfan - tied aid is certainly an issue and is frequently associated with the pay of nationals from the donor country and the outworking of foreign policy.

But we are talking about two different things here: foreign aid as given by government and personal donations.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Thanks for that clarification - it'll teach me to read the whole thread!

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

What is not counted in the figures I gave above is money that a family member in the United States sends back to their family in other countries. I don;t know that figure.

However, in today's Seattle Times there was an article that talks about how difficult Somali expatriates living in the US are having difficulties sending money to their families in Somalia. Basically they have to send money to an agency in the UK which sends the funds through a third country and then routes it into Somalia.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

US government rules , enacted supposedly to stop "informal" remittances going to "terrorists" , make it very difficult to remit funds back to one's family unless it goes through a bank - which is awkward as many of the folks back home don't have a bank account (or the means to open one).

These rules have recently been extended to Australia, at the special request of the USA Government, which will simply force most migrants to do it "illegally".

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
What is not counted in the figures I gave above is money that a family member in the United States sends back to their family in other countries. I don;t know that figure.

That would also not be counted in the UK figures. Though, there would be a large number of people who either don't have immediate family in whatever country they have an association with or no means to get money to the directly, and so do the next best thing - they support some organisation working in that country. And, that is counted in the figures quoted (for both sides of the Atlantic).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
US government rules , enacted supposedly to stop "informal" remittances going to "terrorists" , make it very difficult to remit funds back to one's family unless it goes through a bank - which is awkward as many of the folks back home don't have a bank account (or the means to open one).

These rules have recently been extended to Australia, at the special request of the USA Government, which will simply force most migrants to do it "illegally".

And, they don't just apply to US citizens. When I opened a bank account here in Japan I was asked if I'd ever had a US bank account, every worked in the US, or visited for more than just vacation. A 'yes' answer to any of those questions would have required the bank to go through the procedures set out by the US government. My 'no' to all the questions resulted in evident relief, since the relevant paperwork is evidently time consuming to fill out.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When I opened a bank account here in Japan I was asked if I'd ever had a US bank account, every worked in the US, or visited for more than just vacation. A 'yes' answer to any of those questions would have required the bank to go through the procedures set out by the US government. My 'no' to all the questions resulted in evident relief, since the relevant paperwork is evidently time consuming to fill out.

The US government produces huge amounts of paperwork which require a great deal of time to fill out.

Moo

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Governments produce lots of paperwork. It was just that there appeared to be a certain amount of irritation expressed by staff at a Japanese bank that they needed to consider filling out US government paperwork when opening an account for a non-Japanese and non-US citizen.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, they don't just apply to US citizens. When I opened a bank account here in Japan I was asked if I'd ever had a US bank account, every worked in the US, or visited for more than just vacation. A 'yes' answer to any of those questions would have required the bank to go through the procedures set out by the US government. ...

Why? How? On what basis? Japan is governed by Japanese law, not US law. Was it a subsidiary of an American Bank?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

No, an entirely Japanese bank. I guess that, like most companies, they do a lot of business in the US (I'd be surprised if they didn't have money invested in US companies for example). And, probably if they fail to carry out the checks on anyone that the US government considers someone with financial interests in the US before letting them open an account then that might have repercussions on their US investments. And, presumably if there was a pattern of Japanese banks ignoring the regulations then the US government could bring diplomatic pressure on the Japanese government to bring the banks into line. All in the name of "national security" and the "war" on terror.

Which, of course, has nothing at all to do with foreign aid.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, an entirely Japanese bank. I guess that, like most companies, they do a lot of business in the US (I'd be surprised if they didn't have money invested in US companies for example). And, probably if they fail to carry out the checks on anyone that the US government considers someone with financial interests in the US before letting them open an account then that might have repercussions on their US investments. And, presumably if there was a pattern of Japanese banks ignoring the regulations then the US government could bring diplomatic pressure on the Japanese government to bring the banks into line. All in the name of "national security" and the "war" on terror.

How much of this did the bank tell you, and how much is your supposition? Did they say there were "procedures set out by the US government," or that it had anything to do with national security or the war on terror?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is making life so difficult for US expats that increasing numbers are giving up their US citizenship. Apparently some European banks just refuse to let US citizens have bank accounts as the paperwork demanded by the US Govt is so onerous.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, an entirely Japanese bank. I guess that, like most companies, they do a lot of business in the US (I'd be surprised if they didn't have money invested in US companies for example). And, probably if they fail to carry out the checks on anyone that the US government considers someone with financial interests in the US before letting them open an account then that might have repercussions on their US investments. And, presumably if there was a pattern of Japanese banks ignoring the regulations then the US government could bring diplomatic pressure on the Japanese government to bring the banks into line. All in the name of "national security" and the "war" on terror.
How much of this did the bank tell you, and how much is your supposition? Did they say there were "procedures set out by the US government," or that it had anything to do with national security or the war on terror?

Well, the bank staff (via one of our international administrative staff acting as interpreter) said that they needed to ask the questions about whether I'd ever worked in the US to make sure that they'd got the forms filled in for the US regulations. When it was clear they wouldn't need to fill in those forms there was a "oh, good" reaction. While the bank woman was off filing paperwork, I asked our international administrator what that was about and she told me what she knew about the US law - that it was supposed to allow the US government to track money sent out of the US presumably in case it was being used to support terrorism, movement of drug (and other criminal) money or simple tax evasion. They had had to look into the regulations when an Austrian currently working in the US had applied for a short term position, and in the end had found other means to fund his stay with his salary still getting paid by his US university into his US account because the paperwork and delays involved in setting up a Japanese bank account were too substantial.

We have one US citizen currently working with us, and as I understand it the paperwork was processed quite quickly, it only took a couple of weeks to open the account (cf: a couple of hours in my case). But, part of that was that the identity checks by the US government are much simpler when someone has all those id numbers memorised. I have a US tax payer identity number (it was needed when we got married so Flausa could fill in her US tax returns properly), but I've no idea what it is and didn't have the letter informing me what it is with me (who'd have known I might need it in Japan?).

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

As JoannaP suggests, that does sound like FATCA, one provision of which is that (according to Wikipedia)

quote:
It requires foreign financial institutions, such as banks, to enter into an agreement with the IRS to identify account holders suspected to have indicia of being a US person and to disclose the account holders' names, TINs, addresses, and the transactions of most types of accounts.

Apparently it's meant to be part of the war on tax non-compliance, not the war on terror.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Let's get back to the OP, namely, given the poverty in our own countries, should we be giving foreign aid?

My argument is yes for several reasons. I pointed foreign aid, both public and private are a very small proportion of our respective GDP's; and I suggested simply reducing our military spending would be sufficient to cover both domestic and foreign aid.

This Sunday we had a special appeal for the ELCA World Hunger Program. Over 898 million people go to bed hungry world wide every night. The purpose of ELCA World Hunger is to create sustainable programs which will alleviate hunger in the communities it serves. This includes US communities as well as world wide communities.

Posted by Will H (# 4178) on :

quote:
Charity begins at home

I've heard the phrase plenty of times, usually trotted out as some kind of axiomatic truth that one can't argue with. But to be honest I don't even know what it means, I only know that I usually hear it from someone who doesn't give a stuff about foreigners.

My brain just does not compute, what does it mean, what is the argument behind it, what it's origin, why do people treat it as some kind of given?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I think it comes from a time when wives were given a portion of the weekly pay packet as "housekeeping" money

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

According to Phrases.org, the origin is evolutionary rather than singular and means

quote:
A proverb that expresses the overriding demands of taking care of one's family, before caring for others.

And this is what I've always taken it to mean.
In other words, don't step over the homeless on your way to drop a foreign charity cheque in the post.
IIRC, Mother Theresa made a similar statement.
ETA: Not that I am comparing myself to her.

[ 06. April 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think I like the way phrases.org puts it "'Charity begins at home' isn't from the bible" but I'm not so sure about the extension "but it is so near to being so that it is reasonable to describe it as biblical." It depends a bit on how you use the phrase.

I suppose it could be that we are called to love our neighbour as ourselves, and so therefore inorder to love others we also need to love our own. Which is near to being Biblical.

If you take it as it's usually used IME, that you should give what you have to support your family and make sure they are well cared for first and foremost, and then give to others out of what is left over is much further from Biblical. Even more so when we give far more to our own family than they actually need.

"Charity begins at home" is a worldly phrase (as a lot of my old evangelical friends would put it), which denies the call on us to give sacrificially to others even ahead of our own family.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I don't know it's origin, but it's aimed at the likes of Mrs Jellaby (Bleak House) who was obsessed with good causes on the other side of the world but neglected her own husband and children.

IMHO, that's a valid criticism. If we can't, don't, don't like to or can't be bothered to look after those who are our closest and primary responsibility, we can't compensate for that by doing good to some other group of people who don't happen to be inconveniently under out own noses.

Incidentally, I'm also uncomfortable with the notion that it might in some circumstances be virtuous to expect our family to make sacrifices that we choose for them, rather than that they choose of their own free will.

[ 06. April 2015, 22:20: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know it's origin, but it's aimed at the likes of Mrs Jellaby (Bleak House) who was obsessed with good causes on the other side of the world but neglected her own husband and children.

IMHO, that's a valid criticism. If we can't, don't, don't like to or can't be bothered to look after those who are our closest and primary responsibility, we can't compensate for that by doing good to some other group of people who don't happen to be inconveniently under out own noses.

Certainly giving to overseas charities can not be a form of compensation for failings elsewhere in our lives. And, there is a strong case for saying that we need to care for those near us.

But, IMO, the use of the phrase "charity begins at home" to mean that you need to take care of your family first, and that means paying the mortgage on a four bed house for two children (well, you want to have a spare room for visitors, don't you? Even if you need to spend a week clearing away the stuff that accumulates in it) with a garden that's so big you need to employ someone on minimum wage to cut the lawn, and it means getting the children the latest x-box and playstation, and you need to have a completely new wardrobe every year (creating lots of spare clothes that clutter up the spare room). And, what do you have left for charity? That jar of coppers in the kitchen can go to Christian Aid when they come around in May.

quote:
Incidentally, I'm also uncomfortable with the notion that it might in some circumstances be virtuous to expect our family to make sacrifices that we choose for them, rather than that they choose of their own free will.

But, we do that all the time. Get an offer of a much better job that will require the family to move and how often do we upsticks with just the minimal discussion - you know, the kids will settle in and make new friends, there may even be a better school there. How many people have gone overseas to serve God? Or entered the ministry? These decisions all impact our families.

The question isn't will this potentially affect my family? The question is one of why we're making the sacrifice, for our gain or others?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Will H:

quote:
Charity begins at home
I've heard the phrase plenty of times, usually trotted out as some kind of axiomatic truth that one can't argue with. But to be honest I don't even know what it means, I only know that I usually hear it from someone who doesn't give a stuff about foreigners.

Put it another way, it appears to have become a stock phrase for the sort of person who, in an amazing feat of extension, takes it to mean "and it should bloody well end there!"

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I wonder if maybe the origin is about charity in the other sense: kindness, caring, compassion. As in "don't go out and be a wonderful person in the world, and a horror at home".

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Put it another way, it appears to have become a stock phrase for the sort of person who, in an amazing feat of extension, takes it to mean "and it should bloody well end there!"

You do get the feeling, at least a few times that the people that say CBAH are also the people who also argue against actually doing anything at home on the basis "it's not as bad as X"

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I don't think charity is an either/or question. It is a both/and assertion. If people insist "charity begins at home," it has been my experience they are really playing scrooge. They are even tight wads when it comes to helping the needy in their own community. They end up playing mind games insisting that the beggar on the street corner a block away from their abode is "not my problem." Or they will argue that person just needs to get a job.

On the other hand, those who work to alleviate suffering in a third world country are very much likely to do the same for the needy person on the street outside their place of abode.

When the lawyer asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus did not answer that question. Rather he turned the question around and asked what is the neighborly thing to do.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

I think there is a psychological issue, highlighted by an argument that goes back at least to Hume: if a child is drowning in a pond most people would wade in to save them even if, in doing so, they ruined their expensive clothes. So why not send the cost of a suit of clothes to help a child in a developing country?

It's a crude argument in that form but it makes the point that compassion works best when it is about something close to us that we can immediately identify with.

I suspect religions may be better at cultivating "longer range compassion" by encouraging their members to identify with suffers.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Charity may begin at home but it doesn't end there.

Who is my neighbour? Everone made in God's image.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0