Decline in global aid

According to a statement released by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on 3rd March, 2013, rich countries applying budget austerity cut their aid to developing countries by four percent last year, with the poorest countries taking the brunt of cutbacks. In real terms (adjusted for inflation), development aid from OECD's 34-member bloc dropped by a higher margin of 6.0 percent since reaching a peak in 2010 and it was the first time since 1996-97 that aid had contracted for two consecutive years.
OECD members provided $125.7 billion in net official development assistance in 2012, representing 0.29 percent of their combined gross national income. The largest donors by volume were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan. Smaller countries Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, however, continued to exceed the UN target of 0.7 percent of their gross national income. Showing concern about the drop in aid, the OECD Secretary General said that "it is worrying that budgetary duress (in) our member countries have led to a second successive fall in total aid, but I take heart from the fact that, in spite of the crisis, nine countries still managed to increase their aid." Turkey showed a 98.7 percent increase in outside aid, through help to Syrian refugees and aid to North African countries following the Aid Spring. The UAE boosted aid by 30 percent and South Korea by 17.6 percent.
The biggest drop in aid was seen in crisis-hit Europe, with direct assistance from Spain halved and Italy down by 34.7 percent. So far as recipient countries were concerned, bilateral aid to impoverished sub-Saharan Africa fell by 7.9 percent last year to $26.2 billion and by 12.8 percent to least developed countries as a whole. On the other hand, aid for core bilateral projects and programmes that often benefit middle income countries rose by 2 percent in the previous year. The survey suggests a shift in aid towards middle-income countries in the Far East, and South and Central Asia, primarily China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
The drop in the global development assistance is disturbing for a number of reasons. First of all, the developed countries that had promised to increase their development assistance to 0.7 percent of their GDP on humanitarian grounds many decades ago do not seem to have only backtracked from their earlier pledge or simply forgotten it but appear to have taken the reverse course of reducing their aid commitment. The usual excuse of such a cause of action is the budgetary constraints but actually it is a symptom of general apathy towards other less fortunate human beings, domestic political compulsions and overall self-centered materialistic approach towards life. It could also be due to aid fatigue among the residents of developed countries. Unfortunately, however, poor countries do not have the necessary mechanism or the clout to successfully persuade the developed countries of their promise and force them to abide by it. Another interesting aspect has been that whereas bigger developed countries, including the US, have been less enthusiastic towards their commitments, Scandinavian countries have generally been very generous in disbursing aid and crossed the target of 0.7 percent. This shows that the level of compassion is not necessarily related to your hefty purse but the quality of your heart. Another very undesirable aspect is that global aid, which was supposed to give sustenance to the most wretched on earth, seems to be shifting from the poorest countries to middle income countries on one pretext or the other. For instance, aid to middle income countries like China, India and Indonesia is increasing whereas impoverished countries in sub-Sahara continue to be deprived of this vital source of assistance. Aid to Pakistan has also increased but it may be due to entirely different reasons like its support in war against terror and the existence of Nato supply routes to Afghanistan on its soil. It is quite possible that aid to Pakistan may also diminish with the change in policies of the developed countries. British lawmakers, for instance, already recommended to their government on 4th March, 2013 that their country should not increase aid to a nuclear-armed Pakistan unless Islamabad tries to make its wealthy elite pay more taxes. It means that aid would come with strings attached to it. Overall, however, we would urge upon the developed countries to fulfil their long-standing commitment to raise the level of aid to the target of 0.7 percent of their GNP, not to make international aid hostage to budgetary compulsions and continue to direct their assistance to the countries which need it the most. Needless to add, that the poor countries also have the obligation to distribute the aid money among those who need it the most and at the same time redirect their energies to ensure that their dependence on aid is reduced to a minimum with the passage of time.