The Case for Aid in Fiscally Constrained Times: Morals, Ethics and Economics

Abstract

Aid (Official Development Assistance – ODA) is under pressure as fiscal constraints

mount in OECD countries following the 2008-2009 global financial and economic crisis. The

arguments in favour of ODA commitments from donor countries have been articulated by

several writers over the years, but have consistently been challenged. This paper briefly and

critically assesses the main arguments in favour of, and against, continuing substantial

international aid programmes and makes a distinction between arguments relating to the

short-term and to the long-term. The long-term is considered in the context of the cases for

and against sustained ODA programmes. The short-term is discussed in the context of

potential adjustments in ODA volumes due to economic decline, reduced tax revenue and

public expenditure cuts in OECD countries.

1
1. Introduction

The financial and economic crisis which beset advanced industrial countries in 2008

and 2009 has led to significant reductions in real GDP in OECD countries, implying

reductions in tax revenue and a perceived need to reduce public expenditure. This raises the

issue of whether Official Development Assistance (ODA) should be reduced in line with

public expenditure cuts.1 Such reductions could be consistent with holding ODA at the UN

target of 0.7 per cent of national income if that target had been achieved in every ‘donor’

country, but in many cases ODA still remains below the target. 2 In the United Kingdom (UK)

– for example – a consensual agreement has emerged between the main political parties to the

effect that the 0.7 per cent target should be achieved before 2013 (i.e. within the time span of

the current Millennium Development Goals) (HM Treasury, 2010: 6).3 In the UK, with an

active public expenditure reduction programme (with recurrent public expenditure set to fall

significantly across all sectors other than health and ODA (HM Treasury, 2010: 5) the

coalition government has explicitly ring-fenced ODA with the achievement of the 0.7 per

cent target still being an objective. This position has been maintained despite substantial

criticism from sections of public opinion and UK media which is antagonistic, or at least

1
ODA is defined in the Glossary to the annual report of the Development Assistance

Committee (DAC) of the OECD (OECD-DAC, 2010a: 273) and the “grant element” which is

a critical component of ODA is defined in the same Glossary (OECD-DAC, 2010a:272).

Refer also to OECD-DAC (2010b).

2
Statistics are presented in Table 2 below.

3 We have taken the United Nations target as ‘given’ for this paper although it is open to

question. A comprehensive background on this target can be found on the UN Millennium

Project website (United Nations, 2011) and an independent view is provided by Clemens and

Moss (2005).
2
agnostic, about the consensual ODA commitment. Over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15 the

real cumulative reduction in UK government recurrent expenditure is scheduled to be 8.3 per

cent, while in the same period the real cumulative increase in ‘international development’

expenditure is to be 37 per cent (HM Treasury, 2010: 10).

We distinguish between long-term and short-term considerations relating to ODA,

and to discussion of ODA in the context of donor public expenditure constraints. ‘Long-term’

considerations are taken to refer to periods of ten, fifteen to twenty years (i.e. in terms of

generations or periods over which changes in international socio-economic structures take

place). ‘Short-term’ considerations are taken to refer to periods of three to five years during

which fluctuations in national income, taxation and public expenditure occur. This distinction

is important for a careful assessment of the case for maintaining or increasing ODA

commitments during the recent global financial-economic crisis.

We have not attempted a comprehensive review of the ‘aid literature’ for two reasons.

First, the ‘aid literature’ is vast and has several distinctly different foci, so that – for example

– the literature assessing developments in aid architecture or evaluating aid effectiveness

would only be peripherally relevant to discussion of the arguments for and against ODA at a

time of global financial and economic crisis. Second, our main focus is on the relationship

between the contemporary global financial-economic crisis and the pressure which this has

placed on the allocation of public expenditure to ODA in traditional ‘donor’ countries.

Our focus is on ODA by governments to developing countries, with the emphasis on

‘official’, including neither aid contributed by NGOs nor non-ODA development assistance.

No distinction has been made between bilateral and multilateral ODA since this would not be

directly relevant to the discussion. We have also excluded consideration of interventions by

private foundations which are not directly related to ODA. In addition it may be noted that

ODA is increasingly a smaller proportion of international transfers – private remittances for

3
example, from developed market economies to developing countries now exceed ODA in

global terms (Commission on Growth and Development, 2008: 154).

Section two of the paper will review some of the main long-term arguments in favour

of, and against, ODA, giving particular attention to the moral-ethical case. Arguments

relating to the self-interest case have largely been omitted for reasons of space, although they

are referred to in the third section.4 Section three considers the implications of the recent

global financial and economic crisis for ODA from ‘traditional’ donor countries. Section four

summarises the main conclusions of the paper.

2. The Long-term Cases for and against ODA

2 a The case for ODA

The case for aid can be placed within two distinct areas: firstly the ethical or moral

case, and secondly the self-interest case. 5 The bases of these cases are summarised in Table 1

below. Controversy has never been far away from the literature on ODA and well-known

authors have argued the case for and against throughout the last half century. Bauer (1972)

and Easterly (2007 and 2008) exercise robust arguments which are critical of ODA (neither

are totally against aid), while some of the most supportive arguments have been articulated

recently by Sachs (2005) and by Radelet (2003 and 2006). Further significant contributions to

the literature are by Riddell (2007), Cassen (1994), Lancaster (2000 and 2007a), Lancaster

and Van Dusen (2005) and Tarp and Hjertholm (2000). Riddell’s recent book is almost
4
And in a longer version of this paper, forthcoming.
5
This paper is mainly concerned with the arguments for and against the commitment of ODA

contributions by donor countries. There is an obverse set of issues concerning why recipient

countries accept (or do not accept) ODA which is not much touched upon in the literature. A

recent paper by Nixson takes a broader overview of ODA than is found in much of the

literature (Nixson, 2007-2008).

4
unique in discussing ‘why aid is given’ in four substantial chapters, albeit in the middle of the

volume rather than at the beginning (Riddell, 2007: Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9). 6 Baulch (2006:

933-4) suggests that there are many factors determining donor decisions about ODA

including: historical and commercial ties, governance and institutions, absorptive capacity,

recipient government attitudes towards donors, and geopolitical considerations. Baulch’s

discussion is supportive of the findings of Alesina and Dollar (2000) that in practice donor

allocations are driven as much by political and strategic considerations as by recipients’

economic needs and policy performance. They argue that allocation patterns – commonly

inconsistent with the ‘demand side’ of aid markets – are partially responsible for why aid has

not had more of an impact on growth and poverty reduction, presumably because the patterns

have not lined up with ‘poverty efficient’ allocations. They find that three major donors (the

USA, France and Japan respectively) allocate significant amounts of their aid to strategic

allies, former colonies, or in ways highly correlated with UN voting patterns. They also

report a clear trend for ‘democratisers’ to benefit from more generous ODA allocations

(Alesina and Dollar, 2000).

Recent contributions to the literature on ODA have questioned the rationale for ODA

without challenging the underlying need for donor transfers. For example, Severino and Ray

(2009 and 2010) have argued that a wholesale reconsideration of the role of aid in the context

of 21st century international development is needed, taking into account increased complexity

in the relationship between advanced industrial countries, newly emerging economic powers,

and more ‘conventional’ developing countries. They discuss a ‘triple revolution’ in ODA in
6
Most ‘development texts’ include substantial discussion of ODA. From the more

‘economic’ direction these include Todaro and Smith (10th edition, 2008: Chapter 14) and

Thirlwall (9th edition, 2010, Chapter 14). More multidisciplinary ‘development studies’ texts

covering ODA include Desai and Potter (2008: Chapter 10), Clark (2006: Chapter 29) and

Chari and Corbridge (2008: Part 6).

5
terms of goals, players and instruments, questioning the validity of the current definition of

ODA and foreseeing an eventual end to ODA as conventionally understood. Key issues of the

moment, and possible future ‘game changers’, include: the emergence and rise of non-DAC

donors (accounting for an increasing proportion of global ODA) (Manning, 2006),

contributions from significant private foundations, new financing and delivery mechanisms,

and the possible dwarfing of traditional ODA by climate-change financing. Others have

focussed on aid governance, aid effectiveness, aid architecture and the relationship between

development policy formulation and the aid system – with Barder (2009b), Birdsall (2009),

Brainard et al. (2003), Fischer (2009), Hudson and Mosley (2008), McGillivray et al. (2006),

and Mavrotas (2010) being particularly notable in this respect. Easterly has also contributed

to this discourse through an edited book (2008) in addition to his more polemical book

(2007).

Table 1 summarises the range of arguments which together make up the case in

favour of ODA. Inevitably there are overlaps between some of the categories. For example,

the moral-ethical argument relating to poverty reduction can be applied to ODA focused on

stimulating economic growth in developing countries, which can also be linked to the self-

interest case for ODA. A number of the elements of the ‘security’ case for ODA might also

be linked to economic growth, socio-economic development and the moral-ethical case. Such

‘overlaps’ are common in attempts to set up logical categorisations. The following sub-

section of the paper focuses on the moral-ethical dimensions of the case for ODA focusing on

the theme of this special issue of the journal.

Table 1 about here

2 b The moral-ethical case for ODA

6
 Poverty and International Socio-Economic Justice: In an article published in the

1980s Riddell made it clear that public opinion gave ethics a major role in the justification for

aid (Riddell, 1986:24) at that time. A recent study found that, depending upon the nature of

the question asked, between 50 percent and “over 6 in 10” of a sample supported the

moral/ethical stance on aid in the UK (Henson and Lindstrom, 2010). This public view

appears to transcend aid-weariness, international security threats and ideological shifts in

developed market economies which might have been expected to change public opinion

somewhat more. Riddell’s more recent major overview of aid highlights the moral case for

aid (Riddell, 2007: Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9) but other specialist ‘aid’ literature gives little

attention to the ethical case.

A fundamental argument in favour of richer countries giving aid to poorer countries

relates to the application of moral, ethical or humanitarian principles to the phenomenon of

global poverty and is analogous to the intellectual basis for income transfers from richer to

poorer people within any one country. Economic theory relating to inter-personal welfare

comparisons within any particular society has tended to be very restrictive, avoiding moral or

ethical judgements.7 However, it is logical that the arguments on which income transfers

within a country are based should be extended to the global society. This extension raises

7
The conventional Paretian approach within economic theory is that one welfare position

cannot be said to be ‘better’ than another unless at least one person is better off and nobody is

worse off. However, there is a substantial literature which extends Paretian optimal

redistribution principles to provide theoretical support for re-distributive public finance

systems based particularly on the work of Hochman and Rodgers (see for example Hochman

and Rodgers, 1977). Political scientists have focused considerable attention on the concept

and practice of global social justice and a recent books by David Miller (2007) and by

Richard Miller (2010) for example.

7
questions of legitimacy because there is presently no system of global governance involving

conventional forms of democratic consent. The decision-making of many international bodies

is based on a form of derived legitimacy through representation of member governments, and

this lies behind acceptance of the 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income target for ODA by

the international community. The principle of the more privileged in – global – society giving

some of their income through ODA to those who are less privileged is a form of international

socio-economic justice comparable with the adoption of progressive taxation and public

expenditure programmes by national governments.8 Since most richer countries have

elements of poverty within their societies, and poorer countries have elements of privilege

within theirs, it is logical that international aid programmes which have poverty reduction

objectives (such as the adoption of the MDGs) would not aim to enrich the more privileged

groups within developing countries.

ODA as Compensation: One aspect of the case for ODA as compensation from richer

countries to poorer countries case is based on past ‘transgressions’ of the former colonial

powers, including the slave trade. To the extent that imperialism/colonialism exploited or

immiserated former colonies it may be argued that transfers should be made from the former

colonial powers to the countries which suffered from the exploitation. The economic impact

of the slave trade can be compared to that of the extraction of mineral wealth (i.e. plundering

rather than commercial transactions recognising the property rights of the indigenous

population) in its immiserating effects.

It would be extremely difficult to place a value on the level of transfers which might

be associated with this ‘exploitation’ element of the case for aid, and many people within the
8
Tribe and Lafon (2010) report the view that ODA transfers should become, at least partially,

automatic in the form of ‘international taxation’ and this view received support from a

thousand economists in a letter to the G20 and its adviser, Bill Gates in April 2011

(Europeans for Financial Reform, 2011).

8
richer countries would reject these arguments for compensation either on the grounds that

‘exploitation’ simply reflects legitimate market forces, or that their country was not involved

in the slave trade or in past imperial/colonial exploitation. Equally, not all developing

countries were involved in these forms of colonial exploitation, and of those which the

impacts were diverse. Fair and equitable compensation would be difficult to achieve even if

basic principles relating to the impact of exploitation were to be accepted.

A more tangible aspect of the ‘compensation’ argument relates to contemporary,

rather than past, ‘exploitation’ either through movements of the international terms of trade

against developing countries (and in favour of the richer countries), or through the process of

richer countries receiving merchandise imports from countries which have significant

reserves of cheap labour in an international variation of the ‘Lewis model’ (Tribe, Nixson and

Sumner, 2010: Chapter 2). This has been recognised in two particular instances relating to

distinctly different logical arguments:

i) In a review of the impact of Structural Adjustment Programmes on six sub-Saharan

African countries it was found that during the “adjustment period” ODA had been at a level

which offset income lost through deterioration of the international terms of trade, implying

that ODA had not made any net contribution to these economies (Husain, 1994: 7). Although

this link to a compensatory principle is uncommon in official discussions of aid policy the

fact that it appeared in a World Bank source is of great interest. These arguments relate to

secular deterioration in the net barter terms of trade and its impact on the international

purchasing power of developing country exports, essentially based on the well-established

arguments of the Prebisch-Singer thesis and its derivatives (Tribe, Nixson and Sumner, 2010:

Chapter 2).

ii) The EU’s STABEX programme was devised in order to cushion the economic

impact of fluctuations in export earnings due to changing world market conditions (Aiello,

9
1999). The STABEX scheme was never intended to relate to the deterioration of international

terms of trade, but was explicitly focussed on the uncertainties created by fluctuating export

revenues – focussed on instability rather than on secular and sustained changes in

international trading relationships.

Poverty Reduction through Economic Growth: A more dynamic framework relating

to the positive relationship between economic growth and poverty reduction in developing

countries would emphasise the role of ODA in contributing to sustained economic growth

and to poverty reduction. This contrasts with an alternative approach emphasising static

income redistribution from high income countries to poorer countries. The link between

economic growth in developing countries and poverty reduction is provided by the ‘poverty

elasticity of growth’.9 ODA which supports agricultural, industrial, infrastructural or trade

development as part of the economic growth and development programmes of recipient

countries is directly related to objectives of long-term sustainable poverty reduction through

the link between economic growth and reduced poverty.

Historically there has been emphasis on a ‘two-gap’ approach to analysis of the

contribution of ODA to economic growth in recipient countries, dating back to a paper by

Chenery and Strout (1966). The intellectual basis for this approach consists of the notion that

ODA provides funds which supplement domestic savings (and private capital inflows) and

therefore increases the capacity to invest, which should have the result of increasing the rate

of economic growth. However, investment in recipient countries tends to be foreign exchange

intensive, so that the binding constraint may not be savings per se but rather foreign exchange

availability. Through providing foreign exchange, ODA was viewed as easing both these
9
The poverty elasticity of growth links economic growth to poverty reduction (Heltberg,

2002; McKinley, 2009), and is a more sophisticated approach to the growth/poverty

relationship than that provided by Dollar and Kraay in their ‘Growth is Good for the Poor’

(Dollar and Kraay, 2002 and 2004).

10
savings and foreign exchange constraints – or what are referred to as the ‘financing gap’. This

‘financing gap’ is based on the difference between the levels of savings and investment

required to sustain the rate of economic growth which is aspired to, and the levels available in

the absence of ODA. The ‘financing gap’ approach has been criticised robustly by Easterly

(1999) and, more recently, by Clemens and Moss (2005). Such papers do though implicitly

omit reference to the role which ODA can have in the context of contemporary economic

growth theory. This ‘modern’ growth theory emphasises the roles of technology change,

institutional change, labour force quality and the ‘economic environment’, in addition to

savings and investment rates, within what is referred to as ‘endogenous growth’ (Pack, 1994;

Romer, 1994; Tribe, Nixson and Sumner, 2010: Chapter 4).10 Although there has been little

research on the contribution of ODA to ‘endogenous growth’ there can be little doubt that it

is probably quite substantial and that it needs to be incorporated more fully into discussion of

the relationship between ODA flows, economic growth and poverty reduction. White (1992)

provides a systematic review of many of the macroeconomic issues associated with the

impact of ODA on the economies of recipient countries and Killick and Foster (2011) have

recently revisited such arguments for Africa in depth.

One implication of all this is that for aid to have a poverty-reducing role it does not

necessarily have to be committed to explicitly poverty-related projects, programmes or

policies. Equally, a broader definition of poverty which extends beyond income poverty

means that public health, water and sanitation and other social infrastructure development

programmes usually have clear poverty-reducing impacts – being evident in improvements to

Human Development Index or Human Poverty Index composite indicators. These

programmes often involve a ‘public goods’ dimension in the sense that benefits to the

individual arise through community-based services.

10
A more elaborate criticism of the financing gap approach to ODA is contained within a

forthcoming paper by Sumner and Tribe (2011 forthcoming).

11
 While ‘poverty reduction’ is often used as a short-hand for promoting widespread,

poverty-reducing economic growth, in reality there are a series of trade-offs and sacrifices

which come at the expense of facilitating such growth. If the focus of donor objectives is

simply on the growth aspect of poverty reduction there is a risk of marginalising other

legitimate objectives, such as reducing chronic poverty or providing social services (Barder

2009a: 1-2). In contrast, by adopting too many diverse objectives, donors risk negatively

affecting the performance of ODA (Edgren 2002). Indeed, Easterly (2002: 39-40), for one,

has argued for a reduction in our expectations: “Aid agencies should set more modest

objectives than expecting aid to launch the takeoff into self-sustained growth”.

Climate Change and the Environment: Another form of compensation linked to ODA

recognises the negative economic role which the demonstrable global environmental impact

of high developed country consumption levels (and global warming emission levels) has on

developing countries, and on their agricultural production in particular (for a detailed review

of studies of climate related poverty impacts see Skoufias et al., 2011). This is an example of

the transmission of international external diseconomies. However, the forms of compensation

which have been suggested, for example in documents produced at the time of the 2009

international conference in Copenhagen (UNFCCC, 2008), have not usually been

conceptualised as being part of ODA. However, in the new, wider, view of ODA reflected in

Table 1 this type of financial flow does need to be included although whether ‘climate

finance’ is additional to, or part of, ODA has been a source of considerable discussion.

Conflict and Stress: One of the most challenging issues within international

development has been the role of conflict and civil strife in dislocating economies and

societies over long periods of time. This has been notable in sub-Saharan Africa and South

East Asia in particular, but extends to other regions as well. The response of the ODA sector

to this problem has involved two strands: efforts to control and resolve conflict, including

12
provision of international armed forces (which also relate to the international security

argument for ODA), and contributions to the recovery and rebuilding of fragmented

economies and societies. It is the second of these which properly belongs within the

ethical/moral argument for ODA through the application of the principles of international

social justice (Fukuda-Parr, 2010).

Responses to Disasters: The final element of the moral/ethical case for aid relates to

international responses to disasters. This argument has an illustrious record and has become

considerably more sophisticated over the years and now involves significant collaboration

between bilateral aid agencies, international institutions and international NGOs.

Governmental institutions contribute not only funds but also a coordinating and emergency

response role (see for example DFID, 2010b).

2c The Case Against ODA

There have been considerable arguments marshalled against ODA over the years from

a diversity of political perspectives. Bauer (1972), Moyo (2009), Hayter (1971) and Escobar

(1995) approach the issues from a range of radical positions across the political spectrum.

Others, and Easterly (2007) in particular, have launched their criticisms from a more

apolitical stance.11 Essentially these negative perceptions are of a long-term nature, and

shorter-period fiscal constraints are not directly relevant. Be that as it may, those who take a

negative overall view of ODA would be likely to welcome short-period cuts in ODA

commitments and would wish to convert them into long-term reductions. It should be

apparent that, to a considerable extent, negative views of ODA do not place a high priority on
11
A very good summary of some of the main arguments for and against ODA can be found

in a recent working paper by de Haan (2009). Discussion of the diverse views of the nature of

‘development’, including the position of the ODA donor community, can be found in Chapter

2 of Sumner and Tribe (2008).

13
the moral-ethical case in favour of ODA.

Broadly the case against ODA might be broken down into six elements: First, ODA

has consistently under-achieved its objectives, and the record of aid effectiveness is not good.

This argument is contentious but is significantly dependent upon empirical evidence, which is

itself open to question (see the systematic review by Doucouliagos and Paldam, 2009). Booth

(2011) reminds us of the limited role which external assistance can play in fostering or

developing political economy processes within recipient countries. Second, ODA is an

inefficient means of achieving long-term economic growth and poverty-reducing objectives,

and it is better to depend on market solutions in aiming for these objectives (this is the

argument of Moyo, 2009). This element is dependent upon ideological pre-conceptions to a

considerable extent, representing the neo-liberal critique of aid. Third, ODA suffers

considerably from the heavy hand of bureaucracy, making it unresponsive to democratic

pressures, and leading to a ‘donor-driven’ set of priorities and predilections. This is a variant

of the second element in many respects, but does not necessarily include the ideological

baggage of the neo-liberal view of the world (de Haan, 2009). Fourth, ODA has consistently

failed to tackle corruption, and has tended to reinforce privilege and power-relations in

recipient countries (de Haan, 2009). Fifth, a view which is found in domestic political

discourse in donor countries explicitly rejects ethical and moral arguments supporting ODA,

reverting to a myopic nationalism and taking the view that advanced industrial countries

should focus on domestic issues rather than commit resources to the reduction of poverty in

the rest of the world (see for example blog responses from the public to The Guardian, 2010;

or Scottish Daily Express, 2011). This position is not directly identified in de Haan’s (2009)

review paper, but needs to be recognised explicitly. Sixth, ODA perpetuates a neo-colonial,

or imperialist, relationship between ‘recipients’ and ‘donors’ (former metropolitan powers –

vide the views of Alesina and Dollar, 2000) which is mainly to the advantage of the donors

14
and to more privileged groups in recipient countries (Hayter, 1971 and Escobar, 1995).

Set against these longer term arguments against aid are those which take the view, in

the shorter term, that ODA should take its ‘fair share’ of public expenditure cuts at a time

when a serious economic and financial crisis has occurred in the developed market

economies, comparable with (and probably more serious than) the East Asian crisis of 1997.

In many respects this argument for short-term, temporary, cuts in ODA do not necessarily

imply an antagonistic view of ODA in the longer-term, but at least represent an ‘agnostic’

view.

15
3. ODA and fiscal constraints associated with the global financial/economic crisis

A major issue for this paper is whether fiscal constraints, and public expenditure cut-

backs, which are currently being experienced across developed market economies should be

the basis for reductions in allocations of ODA. This is essentially a short-term preoccupation,

rather than being within a long-term perspective of the appropriate position of ODA with

public expenditure commitments by donor countries. In this section, in addition to attempting

to identify the extent of the economic contraction in OECD countries caused by the 2007-

2010 global economic crisis, a series of arguments in favour of maintaining, or even

increasing ODA, in this time of economic crisis will be elaborated, followed by a series of

arguments for reductions in ODA at this time.

Table 2 presents data taken from the OECD online statistical country profiles (OECD,

2011) for fourteen developed market economies. The main limitations of this data are that for

key variables they end at 2008, and cannot provide any indication of the intentions of the

governments of these countries with respect to ODA commitments beyond the end of 2008.

Five of these countries experienced a decline in GDP between 2007 and 2008, and the

remainder experienced a reduction in the rate of economic growth. Between 2008 and 2009

twelve of the countries experienced a decline in GDP ranging between 5.6 (Ireland) and 0.5

per cent (France). However, by the end of 2010 thirteen of the countries were again

experiencing increases in GDP, the exception being Ireland, suggesting that most of these

economies are resilient and that the decline resulting from the crisis was only a temporary

phenomenon.12
12
Some of these OECD countries have experienced economic setbacks which are not directly

associated with the main financial-economic crisis of 2008-2010 which are likely to delay

recovery, and to influence public expenditure levels and allocations. Examples include the

sustained impacts of the very considerable Irish financial sector crisis and of the Japanese

earthquake and tsunami of early 2011. There is also a possibility that the current UK
16
 Table 2 about here

From the perspective of this paper the incidence of fiscal constraints are manifested

by a combination of reductions in GDP and reductions in the proportion of GDP received by

governments in the form of tax revenue. For the eleven countries with data on tax revenue

available from the OECD, only one has an increase in the proportion of GDP taken as tax

revenue between 2007 and 2008, although some of the changes are comparatively marginal

and are within the context of fluctuations rather than distinct trends.

The data in Table 2 on the percentage of GNI committed to ODA is of special

interest. To some extent countries fall into clusters – some having around 0.2 per cent, some

around 0.4-0.5 per cent, and others having around 0.8-0.9 per cent committed to ODA. The

first group includes Italy, Japan and the USA; the second includes Australia, Canada,

Finland, France, Germany and the UK; and the third includes Denmark, the Netherlands,

Norway and Sweden; Ireland represents a transitional case with an increase from about 0.3

per cent in 2000 to about 0.6 per cent in 2008. Eleven of the fourteen countries have either

attained, or are within reach of, the 0.7 per cent target: there is significant international

consensus in practice.

Table 3 about here

Table 3 provides some more easily comprehended statistics on the reduction in GDP

for six OECD countries from the beginning of 2008 until the end of 2009, taken from an

17
OECD table presenting comparative data for economic/financial crises since the 1970s13. For

these countries the reduction ranges from a low of about 2 per cent for the USA to a high of

about 6 per cent for the UK and Italy. The implication of this is that government revenues

would have been expected to have fallen by approximately the same proportion as GDP.

Table 4 about here

Table 4 presents some calculations based on an assumption that there is an

approximate equivalence between GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and GNI (Gross National

Income) giving an estimation for the proportion of total tax revenue allocated to ODA in

18
these fourteen countries.14 The proportion of Total Tax Revenue committed to ODA depends

in part on the ratio of tax revenue to GDP. For example, in Ireland tax revenue is about 30 per

cent of GDP, so that the 0.6 per cent of GNI contributed as ODA represents about 2 per cent

of total tax revenue and for the UK the equivalent proportion is about 1.2 per cent of tax

revenue. The UK’s GDP fell by about 6 per cent between the beginning of 2008 and the end

of 2009, so that if tax revenue fell proportionately, and for ODA to contract in line, it would

have to fall by about 0.07 per cent of the total tax revenue in 2008 (i.e. 6 per cent of 1.21 per

cent), a comparatively insignificant change in the context of public expenditure management

as a whole.

This review of the economic and public finance impacts of the global crisis suggests

that if ODA were to have been reduced in line with fiscal constraints the economic and

financial dimension would hardly have been significant, and would perhaps have been

regarded as nominal and symbolic.

We will now set out some of the issues relating to support for ODA in the context of

the current global financial and economic crisis. The first relates to the ‘0.7 per cent target’,

the second to a mutuality of interest, the third to the nature of the ODA commitment process,

the fourth to emergency and disaster-related aid, the fifth to security arguments, and the sixth

to environmental arguments.

The target 0.7 per cent of GNI as ODA from economically advanced countries is a

long term one, and several countries experiencing contraction of GDP and of tax revenues

during the current crisis have not yet reached it (see Table 2). For most of these countries

even with the contraction of GDP, holding ODA constant would still not lead to the 0.7 per

cent target being met. Indeed, for the UK even with a substantial increase in ODA over the

current spending review period the target will barely be met by 2013 (HM Treasury, 2010: 6).

This provides a partial argument for maintaining or increasing ODA despite the short-term

19
contraction of GDP.

One of the key ‘mutuality’ arguments supporting ODA has related to expenditures

from aid disbursements being made in the domestic economies of donor countries. The Accra

Agenda for Action committed donors to ‘untie’ ODA, potentially increasing the effectiveness

of ODA, but reducing the ‘mutuality’ element (OECD-DAC, 2008). However in practice,

even for donor countries which have most or all of their ODA ‘untied’, there are still

20
significant expenditures from ODA programmes which occur in their domestic economies.15

Expenditure on, for example, capital equipment, consumables, consultancy fees and

scholarships can strengthen the mutuality of interest in maintaining or increasing ODA

commitments. Recipients obtain tangible benefits from ODA, and donors benefit from

expenditure through its favourable impact on the ‘home’ economy and on recovery from the

crisis. One factor making short period cutbacks in ODA commitments dysfunctional is that

they would be made in a medium- to long-term context. Individual development programme

aid allocations are made for expenditures over a number of years ahead, rather than for single

years. Short-term cuts therefore run the risk of endangering the projected outcomes from past

expenditures in these development programmes, risking higher degrees of ‘waste’.

ODA which is committed to emergency and disaster aid could be subject to cuts

simply because the reasons for the expenditures are not foreseeable at the time of setting

budgets. Donor governments might therefore reduce budget commitments for emergency and

disaster relief, citing the significance of private contributions by the general public as one

form of justification. However, this type of ODA probably has considerable public support,

with media reporting of international emergencies and disasters being very visible and

eliciting great public sympathy.

Likewise, ODA linked to international security issues can receive significant support,

particularly where linked with domestic security threats in donor countries and to military

actions in countries where donors have committed armed forces (such as Afghanistan).

International peace-keeping actions, where linked to ODA expenditure, might also be

regarded as having a strong argument for ring-fencing.

Equally, the arguments for retaining ODA expenditures associated with the

environment are also likely to be strong since these are of a long-term nature and ‘mutuality’

links exist between donor and recipient countries. International inter-connectedness is likely

21
to be a significant factor supporting a case for maintaining ‘environmental’ ODA.

Another approach relating to potential ODA cutbacks would be to increase sectoral

selectivity. The social sectors have particularly benefited from ODA increases over the last

decade. At a global level bilateral ODA went up in absolute terms between 2000 and 2008

from $46bn to $74bn and from 0.14 per cent of donors’ GNI to 0.20 per cent but has actually

fallen slightly as a percentage of recipients’ GNI (McKinley, 2010). There has been a

structural shift towards social sector allocations and away from economic and productive

sectors. In absolute terms, social sector, bilateral ODA spending has doubled between 2000

and 2008 from about US$20bn/year to over US$40bn/year. In contrast production-sector

ODA has stagnated (McKinley, 2010). In this sense a form of selectivity has already been

operating, with increasing focus on ‘direct’ poverty reduction through social sector

interventions as opposed to ‘indirect’ poverty reduction through focussing on infrastructure

and productive sector interventions.

Reducing ODA commitments can also be related to directing aid more selectively to

countries with a high proportion of the world’s poor. It is arguable that some ‘poor’ countries

contain only a small proportion of the world’s poor people, while other lower middle or even

upper middle income countries, through being more populous, contain a higher proportion of

the world’s poor. Through switching ODA to focus more finely on higher concentrations of

the world’s poor, and away from a focus on ‘poor countries’, could have a larger impact on

global poverty. Evans (2010) and Sumner (2010) and Kanbur and Sumner (2011) have

discussed this ‘new geography of global poverty’ which includes the proposition that many of

the world’s poor live in middle income countries such as India and Indonesia that may – in

the medium term – neither need nor request significant levels of ODA and will instead of

resource transfers be more interested in ‘policy coherence’ meaning the range of non-aid

development policies such as trade, tax havens, migration and remittance policy and so on

22
and global public goods. ODA might then be increasingly focused in an ever smaller number

of low income countries that are fragile or conflict-affected states (Moss and Leo, 2011).

However, even if some middle-income countries can support their own poverty

reduction programmes through internal resource mobilisation others cannot (Ravallion, 2009)

and even in countries with substantial resources the poor will often lack ‘voice’ within

governance structures. Further, some countries such as Pakistan are only just within the

‘middle income threshold’ so that withdrawing ODA suddenly could lead to a slip back into

the ‘low income’ status.

The issues discussed above are illustrative of changes in financial and economic

conditions in developing countries over the years, so that some of these countries now have

substantial domestic resources and are even donors themselves (see for example Manning,

2006). Estimates for India’s aid programme are $550m in 2008, for China’s aid programme

are in the region of at least $1-2bn/year, and Brazil’s aid programme is estimated at

23
$1bn/year.16 This would mean that new donors are set to overtake some ‘traditional’ DAC

donors including Australia, Belgium, or Denmark. At the same time net annual ODA into

India is $2.1bn and to China $1.5bn raising a question over the ethical case for ODA flows to

countries which themselves have substantial domestic resources (World Bank, 2010).

However, fragile and conflict-affected states are regarded as having a very strong case

as recipients of ODA, particularly where the mobilisation of domestic resources, including

tax revenue, is a particular problem (for ‘fiscal space’ in low income countries see Kyrili and

Martin, 2010). However, whether ODA can be absorbed in fragile states and even non-fragile

low income countries remains a point of contention (Killick and Foster, 2011; Feeny and

McGillivray et al., 2010).

4. Conclusion

In this paper we have sought to present a coherent set of arguments in discussing

issues surrounding the cases for and against reducing, maintaining or increasing the level of

ODA commitments to developing countries by donors in fiscally constrained times. These

arguments fall broadly into two categories: the moral or ethical case and the self-interest case.

The paper focused mainly on the moral and ethical case, but in relating to donor responses to

fiscal constraints the self-interest case was found to be significant.

There are significant long-term arguments based on the moral/ethical case in favour of

donor commitments to ODA. The arguments against ODA tend not to consider the

moral/ethical case, rejecting it in an extreme variant, and also do not give much attention to

the self-interest case. Some of those taking an antagonistic or agnostic view of ODA would

accept a moral/ethical case with respect to emergency relief in particular. There have been

significant arguments marshalled in favour of making ODA more selective and effective, and

more responsive to global socio-economic structural change. Donor-related arguments in

24
favour of ODA reform focus on changing sectoral priorities, the ‘new geography of poverty’,

and changes in aid allocation criteria.

The arguments for and against ODA relate to long-term considerations rather than to

short-term considerations linked with temporary economic, financial and fiscal constraints.

The recovery of most OECD economies from the 2008-2010 crisis has followed soon after

the decline, making the case for short term cuts in ODA weaker. From the viewpoint of donor

countries there are arguments for maintaining or increasing ODA during economic and

financial crises as a measure contributing to recovery strategies, based largely on the self-

interest case. The case for ODA is stronger for fragile and conflict-affected states, and

particularly those with serious crisis impacts, based on both the moral/ethical and self-interest

cases.

25
References

Aiello, F. 1999. The Stabilisation of LDCs' Export Earnings. The impact of the EU STABEX

programme. The International Review of Applied Economics. 13 (1) January: 71 – 85.

Alesina, A. and Dollar, D. 2000. Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why? Journal of

Economic Growth. 5 (1): 33-63.

Barder, O. 2009a. What is Poverty Reduction? CGD Working Paper 170, Washington, D.C.:

Center for Global Development.

Barder, O, 2009b. Beyond Planning: Markets and Networks for Better Aid. CGD Working

Paper 185, Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development.

Bauer, P. 1972. Dissent on Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Baulch, B. 2006. ‘Aid Distribution and the MDGs’. World Development 34(6): 933-50.

Berthelemy, J-C. 2005. ‘Bilateral donors’ interest vs. recipients’ development motives in aid

allocation: do all donors behave the same?’ Paper presented at the HWWA

Conference on the Political Economy of Aid, Hamburg, 9-11 December 2004.

Birdsall, N. 2009. Reframing the Development Project for the Twenty-first Century. (Based

on keynote remarks at the Conference on Building Our Common Future, sponsored

by the UK Department for International Development, London, March 11, 2009.) –

accessible from www.cgdev.org/content/article/detail/1423667

Booth, D. 2011. ‘Aid, Institutions and Governance: What Have We Learned?’. Development

Policy Review. 29(S1): 5-26.

Brainard, L., Graham, C., Purvis, N., Radelet, S. and Smith, G. 2003. The Other War: Global

Poverty and the Millennium Challenge Account. Washington: Center for Global

Development – Brookings Institution Press.

26
Cabral, L. and Weinstock, J. 2010. Brazil: An Emerging Aid Player. Briefing Paper 64.

London: Overseas Development Institute – downloadable from the ODI website

www.odi.org.uk.

Cassen, R. 1994. Does Aid Work? (2nd ed). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Chari, S. and Corbridge, S. (eds). 2008. The Development Reader. London: Routledge,

Chenery, H. and Strout, A. 1966. Foreign Assistance and Economic Development. American

Economic Review. 56 (No 4 Part 1) September: 679-733.

Clark, D. 2006. The Elgar Companion to Development Studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Clemens, M. and Moss, T. 2005. Ghost of 0.7%: Origins and relevance of the International

Aid Target. Working Paper 68. Washington: Center for Global Development –

accessed on 30th October 2010 from www.cgdev.org

Commission on Growth and Development. 2008. The Growth Report: Strategies for

Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development. Washington: World Bank.

de Haan, A. 2009. Aid: The drama, the fiction, and does it work? Working Paper 488. The

Hague: Institute of Social Studies.

Desai, V. and Potter, R.B. (eds). 2008. The Companion to Development Studies (2nd ed).

London: Hodder Education.

DFID. 2009. Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008-09 – Volume 1. London: Her

Majesty’s Stationery Office.

DFID. 2010b. Humanitarian Emergency Response Review – Inception Report. London:

Department for International Development – accessed on 6th April 2011 from

www.dfid.gov.uk

Dollar, D. and Kraay, A, 2002. Growth is Good for the Poor. Journal of Economic Growth. 7
27
 (3): 195-225.

Dollar, D. and Kraay, A. 2004. Growth is Good for the Poor. In Shorrocks, A. and Van Der

Hoeven, R. (eds.). Growth, Inequality, and Poverty: Prospects for Pro-poor

Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 62-80.

Doucouliagos, H. and Paldam, M. 2009. Development Aid and Growth: An association

converging to zero. Economics Working Paper 2009-17, School of Economics and

Management, Aarhus University – accessed on 6th April 2011 from www.econ.au.dk

Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P. and Thiele, R. 2010. Are ‘New’ Donors Different? Comparing

the Allocation of Bilateral Aid between Non-DAC and DAC Donor Countries –

downloaded from http://s3.amazonaws.com/aiddata/Dreher_aiddata.pdf 21st January

2011.

Easterly, W. 1999. The Ghost of Financing Gap: Testing the Growth Model used in the

International Financial Institutions. Journal of Development Economics. 60 (2): 423-

438.

Easterly, W. 2002. The Cartel of Good Intentions: Bureaucracy vs. Markets in Foreign Aid.

Working Paper 4. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Easterly, W. 2007. The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have

Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Easterly, W. (ed). 2008. Reinventing Foreign Aid. MIT Press.

Edgren, G. 2002. ‘Aid is an Unreliable Joystick’. Development and Change. 33(2): 261-67.

Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third

World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Europeans for Financial Reform. 2011. A Thousand Economists tell G20 and Bill Gates:

28
 ‘Time for a Robin Hood Tax’. Accessed from:

http//europeansforfinancialreform.org/en/news/thousand-economists-tell-g20-and-

bill-gates-time-robin-hood-tax on 23rd April 2011

Evans, A. 2010. Aid Effectiveness post-2010 – a think piece on ways forward – June 2010.

London: Overseas Development Institute.

Feeny, S. and McGillivray, M. 2010. Aid and Growth in Small Island Developing States.

Journal of Development Studies. 46(5): 897-917.

Fischer, A. 2009. Putting Aid in its Place: Insights from Early Structuralists on Aid and

Balance of Payments and Lessons for Contemporary Aid Debates, Journal of

International Development. 21.6: 856–67

Fukuda-Parr, S. 2010. Conflict prevention as a policy objective of development aid. In G.

Mavrotas (ed.). Foreign Aid for Development: Issues, Challenges, and the New

Agenda. WIDER Studies in Development Economics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press: 123-151.

The Guardian. 2010. Aid Policy is Dangerously Contradictory – Blog Responses. London:

Guardian Newspapers – downloaded from www.guardian.co.uk/globaldevelopment

on 14th November 2010

HM Treasury. 2010. Spending Review 2010. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Hattori, T. 2001. ‘Reconceptualizing Foreign Aid’. Review of International Political

Economy. 8(4): 633-60.

Hayter, T. 1971. Aid as Imperialism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Heltberg, R. 2002. The Growth Elasticity of Poverty. WIDER Discussion Paper 2002/21.

Helsinki: UN University.

29
Henson, S. and Lindstrom, J. 2010. Aid to Developing Countries: Where Does the UK Public

Stand? – Results and Analysis from the UK Public Opinion Monitor. Brighton:

Institute for Development Studies.

Hochman, H. and Rodgers, J. 1977. The Simple Politics of Distributional Preference. in

Juster, F.T. (ed). Distribution of Economic Well-Being. Cambridge, Mass.: National

Bureau of Economic Research: 71-114.

Hudson, J. and Mosley, P. 2008. Aid Volatility, Policy and Development. World

Development. 36 (10): 2082-2102.

Husain, I. and Faruqee, R. 1994. Results of Adjustment in Africa: Selected Cases.

Washington: World Bank: 1-10.

Independent Commission on International Development Issues. 1980. North-South: a

programme for survival. London: Pan Books.

Kanbur, R. and Sumner, A. 2011. Poor Countries or Poor People? Development Assistance

and the New Geography of Global Poverty. Working Paper 2011-08. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University.

Killick, T. and Foster, M. 2011. ‘The Macroeconomics of Doubling Aid to Africa and the

Centrality of the Supply Side’. Development Policy Review. 29(S1): 83-108.

Kyrili, K. and Martin, M. 2010. The Impact of the Global Economic Crisis on the Budgets of

Low-Income Countries. Oxford: Oxfam.

Lancaster, C. 2000. Transforming Foreign Aid: United States Assistance in the Twenty-first

Century. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

Lancaster, C. 2007a. Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, Domestic Politics. London:

University of Chicago Press.

30
Lancaster, C. 2007b. The Chinese Aid System. Center for Global Development Essay.

Washington: Center for Global Development – downloadable from the CGE website

at www.cge.org

Lancaster, C. and Van Dusen, A. 2005. Organizing US Foreign Aid: Confronting the

Challenges of the Twenty-first Century. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Lum, T., Fischer, H., Gomez-Granger, J. and Leland, A. 2009. China’s Foreign Aid Activities

in Africa, Latin America and South East Asia. R40361. Washington: Congressional

Research Service. Downloadable from the CRS website at www.crs.gov

McGillivray, M., Feeny, S., Hermes, N. and Lensink, R. 2006. Controversies of the

development impact of aid: it works; it doesn’t; it can, but that depends.... Journal

of International Development. 18(7): 1031-50.

McKinley, T. 2009. Revisiting the Dynamics of Growth: Inequality and Poverty Reduction.

Centre for Development Policy and Research Discussion Paper 25/09. London:

School of Oriental and African Studies: 23 pages.

Manning, R. 2006. Will 'Emerging Donors' Change the Face of International Co-operation?

Development Policy Review. 24(4): 371-385

Mavrotas, G. (ed.). 2010. Foreign Aid for Development: Issues, Challenges, and the New

Agenda. WIDER Studies in Development Economics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Miller, D. 2007. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Miller, R. 2010. Globalizing Justice, New York: Oxford University Press.

Moss, T. and Leo, B. 2011. IDA at 65: Heading Toward Retirement or a Fragile Lease on

31
 Life. Working Paper 246. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Moyo, D. 2010. Dead Aid: How Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for

Africa. New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Nixson, F. 2007-2008. Overseas Aid – Is it Working? Transactions of the Manchester

Statistical Society. Manchester: University of Manchester.

OECD-DAC. 2008. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for

Action. Paris: OECD-DAC.

OECD-DAC. 2010a. Development Cooperation Report 2010. Paris: OECD-DAC –

downloadable from the OECD website www.oecd.org.

OECD-DAC. 2010b. Methodological work - what is ODA, how is it counted and who

qualifies for it? Paris: OECD-DAC website – downloaded from

www.oecd.org/dac/stats/methodology 16th September 2010.

OECD, 2011. Statistics: Country Profiles – accessed from www.oecd.org

Pack, H. 1994. Endogenous Growth Theory: Intellectual Appeal and Empirical

Shortcomings. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8 (1): 55-72.

Radelet, S. 2003. Challenging Foreign Aid: A Policymaker's Guide to the Millennium

Challenge Account. Washington: Center for Global Development.

Radelet, S. 2006. A Primer on Foreign Aid. Working Paper No. 92. Washington: Center for

Global Development – accessed from www.cgdev.org 17-9-10

32
Ramachandran, V. and Walz, J. 2010. India Emerges as an Aid Donor. CGE Blog October

5th 2010. Washington: Center for Global Development – downloadable from the CGE

website at http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2010/10/india-emerges-as-an-

aid-donor.php

Ravallion, M. 2009. Do poorer countries have less capacity for redistribution? World Bank

Policy Research Working Paper Number 5046. Washington DC: World Bank

Riddell, R. 1986. The Ethics of Foreign Aid. Development Policy Review. Vol 4: 24-43.

Riddell, R. 2007. Does Aid Really Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Romer, P.M. 1994. The Origins of Endogenous Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8

(1): 3-22.

Sachs, J. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Harmondsworth:

Penguin Press.

Sayanak, T. and Lahiri, S. 2009. Foreign Aid as Prize: Incentives for a Pro-Poor Policy.

Review of Development Economics. 13 (3) August: 403-415.

Scottish Daily Express. 2011. Britain cannot afford this generosity towards India. Editorial

15th February 2011.

Severino, J-M., and Ray, O. 2009. The End of ODA: Death and Rebirth of a Global Public

Policy. Working Paper No. 167. Washington: Center for Global Development –

accessed from www.cgdev.org 17-9-10

Severino, J-M. and Ray, O. 2010. The End of ODA (II): The Birth of Hypercollective Action.

CGD Working Paper 218, Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development.

Skoufias, E., Mariano, R., Sergio, O. 2011. The Poverty Impacts of Climate Change. World

Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5622. Washington, DC: World Bank.

33
Sumner, A. 2010. Global Poverty and The New Bottom Billion. IDS Working Paper. IDS:

Brighton.

Sumner, A. and Tribe, M. 2008. International Development Studies: Theory and Methods for

Research and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

Sumner, A. and Tribe, M. 2011 forthcoming. The Case for Aid and the Global Financial-

Economic Crisis.

Tarp, F. and Hjertholm, P. (eds). 2000. Foreign Aid and Development: Lessons Learnt and

Directions for the Future. London: Routledge.

Thirlwall, A. 2011. Economics of Development (9th edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Todaro, M. and Smith, S. Economic Development (10th edition). Harlow: Addison Wesley

Pearson.

Tribe, M. and Lafon, A. 2010. Proceedings of the DFID-DSA-EADI-ActionAid Policy

Forum. IDS Bulletin. 41 (1): 129-134.

Tribe, M,, Nixson, F. and Sumner, A. 2010. Economics and Development Studies. London:

Routledge.

UNFCCC. 2008. Investment and financial flows to address climate change: an update –

Technical paper. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Accessed on 22nd November 2009 from: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/

United Nations. 2011. The UN Millennium Project. Washington: United Nations – accessed

from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm#04 on 22nd January 2011.

White, H. 1992. The Macroeconomic Impact of Development Aid: A Critical Survey.

Journal of Development Studies. 28(2): 163-240.

34
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I. 2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples’

Vulnerability and Disasters (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

World Bank. 2010. World Development Indicators. Washington DC: The World Bank.

35
Table 1
Table 1. Arguments in favour of ODA
Arguments in favour of ODA
Ethical-Moral arguments Compassion/humanitarian
Compensation
Disasters
Climate change -
Environmental
Conflict and Stress –
fragile states
Self interest arguments Mutuality in income
growth/welfare
Supply of raw materials
and agricultural products
International security
36
Aid is required to Examples of references
address or promote… in the literature
Poverty and deprivation Riddell, 2007.
Compensation for Aiello, 1999, Husain and
colonialism; unfair trade Faruqee, 1994, Miller,
and investment patterns; 2007; Nixson, 2007-8.
climate change
Impact of natural or man Wisner et al, 2004.
made disasters
Redress for the adverse UNFCCC, 2008.
effects of developed
country impacts on the
global environment to
the detriment of
developing countries
Conflict prevention, Fukuda-Parr, 2010.
resolution, and reparation
Improve welfare in both Independent
donor and recipient Commission on
countries: income growth International
in developing countries Development Issues,
creates markets for 1980; Sayanak and
developed countries’ Lahiri. 2009.
exports; income growth
in developed countries
creates markets for
developing countries’
exports
To support commercial Baulch, 2006;
interests of donors Berthelemy, 2005.
-development of
economic and social
infrastructure (transport,
education etc) improves
economic performance of
MNCs; supply of
essential materials and
agricultural products at
competitive prices aids
profitability of
international firms
Ensure ‘spillovers’ from Berthelemy, 2005;
conflict and fragility Hattori 2001; Riddell,
don’t create international 2007.
problems; to support geo
political interests of
donors
Table 2

37
 Table 2 – GDP, Government Revenue and ODA Statistics for Selected Canada
OECD Countries GDP growth (%) 5.23 3.02 2.85 2.53 0.41 -1.10* 3.21*
2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010* 35.6 33.3 33.5 33.2 32.1
Australia Total Tax Rev. (%GDP) 4 8 5 8 7
0.30* 0.33**
GDP growth (annual %) 1.90 3.00 3.30 3.68 2.29 2.61* 2.71*
Net ODA (%GNI) 0.25 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.32 * *
31.1 30.8 30.6 30.8
Total Tax Rev. (%GDP) 4 2 3 3 n.a. Denmark
0.29* 0.32** GDP growth (%) 3.53 2.45 3.39 1.69 -0.87 -3.11* 2.67*
Net ODA (%GNI) 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.32 0.32 * * 49.3 50.8 49.6 48.6 48.2
Total Tax Rev. (%GDP) 6 2 3 7 9
government’s strategic reduction in public expenditure will slow economic 0.88* 0.90**
Net ODA (%GNI) 1.06 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.82 * *
Finland
recovery from the crisis, compounding the variety of country experiences.
GDP growth (%) 5.06 2.77 4.92 4.20 1.04 -5.52* 5.05*
47.2 44.0 43.4 43.0 42.7
Total Tax Rev. (%GDP) 2 1 8 1 8
13
The statistics in Table 3 come from the same OECD source as those in
0.54* 0.55**
Net ODA (%GNI) 0.31 0.46 0.40 0.39 0.44 * *
Table 2 but there are apparent inconsistencies between the two tables, which France
GDP growth (%) 3.91 1.90 2.22 2.32 0.43 -0.52* 1.47*
can be reconciled. For example, for the UK Q4 of 2008 has a GDP decline 44.3 43.9 44.0 43.4 43.0
Total Tax Rev. (%GDP) 5 1 5 7 7
of 2.75% over the same quarter in 2007, and for 2009 the equivalent figure
knowledge of the differences between these two measures.
was 2.84%, giving a cumulative reduction over the two years of 5.5%,
15
This issue is explored in the 2010 OECD-DAC Annual Report (OECD-
much closer to the decline of about 6% reported in Table 3.
DAC, 2010: 16, 23, 225 and 226).
14
Data were not available for two of the countries for 2008, but the
16
calculation could readily be made for 2007. In the OECD source for the On India’s aid programme see Ramachandran and Walz, 2010; on

statistics in Table 2 Total Tax Revenue is given as a proportion of GDP and China’s see Lum et al., 2009 or Lancaster, 2007b; and on Brazils’ see

ODA is given as a proportion of GNI (as is conventional) with the ‘heroic’ Cabral and Weinstock, 2010. Another interesting source on this issue is

assumption of identity between GDP and GNI having been made in full Dreher et al., 2010.
38
 0.47* 0.50** 0.76 0.94 0.89 0.95 0.88 1.06** 1.10***
Net ODA (%GNI) 0.30 0.47 0.47 0.38 0.39 * *
Sweden
Germany
4.40 3.30 4.25 2.54 -0.22 -1.60* 7.23*
GDP growth (%) 3.21 0.75 3.16 2.47 1.26 -2.00* 5.05* 51.7 49.4 49.0 48.3 47.1
37.1 34.7 35.5 36.1 36.4 9 8 5 1 1
Total Tax Rev. (%GDP) 9 9 9 7 3
0.80 0.94 1.02 0.93 0.98 1.12** 0.97***
0.35* 0.38**
Net ODA (%GNI) 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.38 * * UK
Ireland 3.92 2.17 2.85 2.56 0.55 -2.84* 1.46*
36.3 35.7 36.6 36.0 35.7
GDP growth (%) 9.45 6.18 5.36 6.02 -3.04 -5.64* -0.69*
9 6 2 8 1
31.2 30.3 31.6 30.8 28.2
Total Tax Rev. (%GDP) 8 6 9 1 6 0.32 0.47 0.51 0.35 0.43 0.52** 0.56***
0.54* 0.53** USA
Net ODA (%GNI) 0.29 0.42 0.54 0.55 0.59 * * 4.17 3.06 2.67 2.14 0.42 0.19* 2.70*
29.8 27.5 28.2 28.2 26.8
9 4 0 9 6
0.10 0.23 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.21** 0.21***
continued 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010*
Italy
3.69 0.66 2.04 1.56 -1.04 -2.91* 1.49*
42.2 40.8 42.3 43.4 43.1
9 5 4 6 7
0.13 0.29 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.16** 0.15***
Japan
2.86 1.93 2.04 2.39 -0.70 -1.75* 2.53*
27.0 27.4 27.9 28.3
0 0 7 3 ..
0.28 0.28 0.25 0.17 0.19 0.18** 0.20***
Netherlands
3.94 2.05 3.39 3.61 2.00 -2.44* 2.09*
39.6 38.5 38.9 37.5
6 0 1 4 ..
0.84 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.82** 0.81***
Norway
3.25 2.74 2.28 3.13 2.13 -0.89* 1.54*
42.6 43.5 43.9 43.6 42.0
4 2 7 3 9
39
Notes to Table 2

Notes to Table 2:
Notes: * These quarterly statistics represent the percentage change compared with the same
quarter in the previous year
** These statistics are from the OECD-DAC’s ‘Aid Flows’ website provided in
collaboration with the World Bank – accessed on 28th March 2011 from oecd.org.
*** These statistics are from the OECD’s Newsroom “Development aid reaches an
historic high in 2010 – accessed on 9th April 2011 from www.oecd.org
Source: OECD, 2011 - Statistics: Country Profiles - www.oecd.org

40
Table 3

Table 3 – Reduction in GDP for Selected OECD Countries 2008-09

2008 2009
Time Period Q1-2008 Q2-2008 Q3-2008 Q4-2008 Q1-2009 Q2-2009 Q3-2009 Q4-2009
France 100.00 99.56 99.32 97.81 96.49 96.80 97.05 ..
Germany 100.00 99.44 99.12 96.70 93.28 93.69 94.37 ..
Italy 100.00 99.44 98.64 96.61 93.98 93.52 94.05 ..
Japan 100.00 97.91 96.91 94.34 91.41 92.02 92.33 ..
UK 100.00 99.92 98.99 97.21 94.76 94.12 93.97 94.06
USA .. 100.00 99.32 97.96 96.35 96.17 96.70 98.06

Source: OECD, 2011 - Statistics: Country Profiles - www.oecd.org

41
Table 4

Table 4 Net ODA as a percentage of Total Tax Revenue 2008

Australia n.a. Italy 0.50
Canada 1.01 Japan n.a.
Denmark 1.69 Netherlands n.a.
Finland 1.02 Norway 2.09
France 0.89 Sweden 2.08
Germany 1.05 United Kingdom 1.21
Ireland 2.09 United States 0.69

Note: The data in this table are based on the assumption of an equivalence between GDP and
GNI statistics, which is not perfect but gives an indicative order of magnitude.
Source: calculated from OECD, 2011 - Statistics: Country Profiles - www.oecd.org

42