Over the last couple of weeks I have written a lot on aid. Some have asked why. My answer is simple. As I explained in a post written last week, the whole aim of the tax justice movement has always been to help countries that are aid dependent to move towards a situation where they can command their own revenues and resources in a way that will empower them to have control of their own destinies. What we wanted to do - and I can say this with certainty because I was one of those who created this idea - was to put aid agencies out of business except when it came to emergencies.
Oxfam is one of agencies that adopted that idea. So too did others.
That would never have stopped what happened in Haiti. That happened in an emergency. That did not excuse it in any way.
But when I read about people criticising agencies I wonder what they want.
I know for sure they want an end to exploitation. And I agree, wholeheartedly.
But if that is to happen we have a long way to go.
We have to presume countries with lower per capita incomes deserve our respect as much as other countries do. Unless that happens we will, knowingly or not, look down on them. And then exploitation happens. But this is completely counter-cultural in western societies at present where income too often determines status.
And we have to make sure these countries can collect the tax owing to them even though in most societies from which aid is sent avoiding tax is seen as a legitimate activity, and one that is even ‘smart' and ‘the right thing to do'. This too then is completely counter cultural.
What is more, we must redistribute the grossly unequal ownership of the world's wealth, because unless we do rents and profits will flow from many lower incone countries into the banks of London and New York and into the ownership of the populations who live in those places, as they do now. Which redistribution is, of course, completely counter cultural.
And we have to trade on equal terms. Which is counter cultural.
And we must let people move to learn and not just at universities, but also in employment. Which we are not at all inclined to do.
I make these points deliberately: we can get rid of what has been called development aid, which can, as some argue, perpetuate old, white, and colonial era stereotypes. But that requires the type of radical reform to trade, transparency, tax havens, wealth distribution and tax itself that the tax justice movement has called for. Nothing else will work.
And I admit what has irritated me of late is that many of those throwing accusations now are those who seem to be radically opposed to manyof these reforms which are a condition for removing aid.
I want a post-aid world. That is why I have worked for tax justice and all that it means. But, as far as I can see unless you buy into the counter-cultural reforms that tax justice demands then you can't at the same time demand the end of aid without accepting responsibility for the massive injustices that will then follow.
In that case I want to know what the critics of aid now want, beyond an aid to the exceptional cases of abuse. I can't see anyone coming forward and saying what that is as yet. And that, I think, is a deeply troubling aspect of the current debate on this issue because it means it is taking place in a vacuum.
NB: I am meetings all day today moderation may well be very slow. I will also have a very low threshold for deletion: I am bored with being trolled.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I have just discovered your blog and will be reading all of it…we need more people like you to speak out.
There are around 1 billion people living in sub-Saharan Africa. Europe faces two choices – provide support to these people so they have access to clean water, electricity and some modern communications or see them coming to Europe to “enjoy” these things (which are basics). Aid agencies are part of the “solution” to delivering these things. (s)Mogg et al are part of the problem. Tax reform is also part of the solution as identified. My intention is not to reduce this to self-interest – but to show that there are no alternatives – either 1 billion people feel there is a future in their country(s) or… etc. Do we make ourselves part of the solution – or not (= (s)Mogg etc.)
@ Ronnie Nicholson
Me too, although I discovered this site a few months back , and quite by accident too. I’m reading through back posts/replies slowly but surely.
It’s all fascinating, but I’m still trying to get my head around government spending NOT being like a household. It sounds so counter-intuitive after all I’ve been lead to believe.
Like many, I’ve never taken much interest in economics before; I do now thanks to this blog. I think you’ll enjoy it very much as I do.
I’ve started to ‘click’ that governments with their own currency, such as ours, don’t collect taxes first in order to spend, but spend first to ‘create’ money, and then tax in order to control the money supply and to help control inflation. That’s my understanding of it anyway. I could have mis-understood that.
If I’m right, I only started to ‘click it’ when I started asking a similar question that most Sunday School kids eventually get round to: If God created the universe, and all in it, who created God?
My similar question, prompted by this blog, was/still is: If governments only tax money in order to spend said raised taxes, who creates the money to tax in the first place?
That’s as far as I’ve got, but I’m enjoying the ‘journey’ as they say in the USA. Beats watching East Enders!
Governments create money in the first place, out of thin air
They do not tax it to spend
They tax it to cancel it
I have explianed this, often, on the blog and in my book THe Joy of Tax
Opps! That should read blog, not bog, in my penultimate paragraph. I do hope RM doesn’t think I’m trolling; it was a genuine mistake. My apologies, Mr M.
“But, as far as I can see unless you buy into the counter-cultural reforms that tax justice demands then you can’t at the same time demand the end of aid without accepting responsibility for the massive injustices that will then follow”.
It seems to me that those who demand the end of aid are not a homogeneous group of people and have different motivations.
No doubt a few are ideologically motivated, but most just don’t want to take any responsibility for other people’s living conditions.
They just don’t see it as any of their business: if those countries needing aid are the way they are, it’s the responsibility of those countries, their government and people.
The succession of migratory movements resulting from crises or even from chronic deprivation and oppression are seen as attempts to exploit rich countries’ economic and social systems.
The very narrow, ex-colonialist and self-centred ideology of some just do not allow for any understanding of the aid mechanisms, let alone tax justice.
I think a large part of the underlying problem we have is that wealth is seen as the reward for virtue. Wealthy people insist that they ‘have worked for’ what they have and that the people who are poor must therefore not have worked hard enough and therefore deserve to be poor because of their indolence and fecklessness.
It is a false and self-serving view of the world.
They want British Empire 2.0.
They’re delusional. Just like Trump.
Thank you Richard. I’ve been asking myself the same question. There are those who would rather turn their backs on the problems – the Rees Mogg, devout Catholic supposedly – so much for Christian values. The military and diplomats point out that in that case, you’ll end up with worse problems and as we know, migration as people seek a better life elsewhere.
When it comes to both humanitarian and development work, I’m not seeing anyone willing and better qualified to take on the work that the big agencies take on. Their presence and experience on the ground gives real substance to their reporting on situations (humanitarian crises) and problems (eg tax evasion) that otherwise are poorly covered.
The idea that the agencies somehow want to perpetuate poverty to keep themselves in a job is just bizarre. So the Samaritans need more suicides to keep them in a job?
Could they be doing things differently or doing different things? Of course. My personal view that has developed over time is that if people have sustainable incomes they will solve a lot of problems for themselves. The aid agencies are not strong on enterprise development and could do more, but I’m not pretending that on its own this is a silver bullet. It’s a complex and messy field with no magic single answers
Meanwhile the report on harassment at Westminster suggests that 1 in 5 staff have experienced or witnessed sexual harassment. I’m not hearing much discussion about that. No resignations. No threats to remove their funding