|
Written by Dr Eamonn Butler
|
|
Thursday, 10 July 2008 |
|
 Andrew Mitchell, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, was our guest at a Power Lunch in Westminster this week.
Adam Smith wrote that nothing was necessary to lift a state from the deepest 'barbarism' to an advanced society, other than peace, 'easy taxes' and 'a tolerable administration of justice'. Mitchell too recognizes the importance of conflict resolution in providing the right soil on which economic achievement can grow. States in political and military turmoil don't create or export economic goods – rather, they export terrorism and desperate migrants. That is why Conservatives are going to integrate foreign, development and security strategies with the creation of the National Security Council. Under this joined-up policy, DfID would be more than just an aid agency: it would be a partner in development, trade and security.
Quite right. Development isn't just about giving people money. The Conservatives also intend to set up an evaluation agency to make sure that UK taxpayers' money is spent effectively and transparently, rather than ending up in the pockets of politicians and officials.
And, thank goodness, they recognize that the engine of growth is trade and enterprise. I feel that they rather like what Peter Mandelson has been saying – that EU farm subsidies and trade restrictions keep people in poor countries impoverished – which is hardly good for traders in the richer countries either. But I think that even with the formidable Mandelson on side, getting the EU to sort out its spaghetti of trade barriers is a pretty tall order.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
On Aid Tories need to learn the difficulty of delivery which reaches the Poor.
As PS says here [9 July] 2008
“The foreign aid situation is becoming increasingly farcical. As William Easterly, author of The White Man’s Burden put it: “The status quo — large international bureaucracies giving aid to large national government bureaucracies — is not getting money to the poor.” As Prof Easterly intimates, the failure stems from the insistence of OECD government donors to give the lion share of aid directly to governments, who they then rely on to plan, manage and deliver healthcare. “
You would think all Parties experience of NHS at home with diminishing or negative marginal returns to spending would suffice.
But then whats delivery got to do with it at home or abroad.? Politics seem to be driven by headline spending and fiddled targets and statistics.
More, I think the counterproductive effect of farm subsidies is a factoid. Substitution among temperate and tropical foods is limited- perhaps rice and maize. Export subsidies cannot be justified while farm prices are low in poor countries. But if production in poor countries fails to respond enough to high prices, farm subsidies at home may be the best way to feed the starving abroad via WFP.
The real damage to trade has been done by Carbon Control Policy by contributing to rocketing oil price and exhortation to dig up the lawn and minimise food miles.