How the UK’s spending on foreign aid compares to other countries’

Published

4 years ago

June 7, 2021

admin

Conservatives rebels have been among those calling on the government to reverse its plan to cut foreign aid.

Since 2015, it has been enshrined in UK law for the country to give at least 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to lower and middle-income countries to aid their development.

The plan to reduce the UK’s contribution to foreign aid to 0.5% of GNI – despite a United Nations target of 0.7% – has been met with widespread domestic and international criticism.

Here, we look at how much the UK gives in comparison to other countries.

Who gives foreign aid?

Most richer countries give aid, including some that are classed as middle or lower-income.

But the 0.7% target applies to countries that are on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC).

These 30 countries are made up of many in the European Union, the UK, US, and other highly developed nations like Australia and New Zealand.

A couple of other countries are participants on the DAC, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bulgaria and Romania.

Last year, the UK was one of only seven countries reporting to the OECD that met the 0.7% target, giving the equivalent to $17.4bn – exactly 0.7% GNI. Out of European countries, only Germany spent more than the UK on aid in absolute terms ($27.5 billion or 0.73% of GNI). But several OECD countries gave more as a percentage of GNI.

In 2020, the proportion of GNI given by countries varied significantly from country to country, despite the UN’s target.

What is the money spent on?

The aid from DAC countries is called Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is intended to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries, according to the OECD.

In 2020, the last year for which net flows of aid were reported, member countries sent $161bn to those developing countries, an increase of 7% in real terms compared to 2019. About three-quarters of that came from G7 countries.

Broadly, this falls into one of four categories: 1. Bilateral projects, programmes and technical assistance, which represent just over half of total net ODA; 2. Contributions to multilateral organisations (about a third of total ODA); 3. Humanitarian aid; and 4. Debt relief.

Foreign aid cuts: ‘Far more’ than 100,000 people will die, leading rebel MP warns

Foreign aid cuts not only a tragedy for the developing world – but the UK too

This can include grants that fund improvements to the health of people in developing countries, such as vaccination programmes, but it can also include programmes that can benefit donor countries, such as infrastructure projects that allow greater levels of trade and investment.

Many countries, such as Japan, offer a sizable proportion of their aid in the form of loans.

How has the UK been doing up until now?

In 2013, the UK achieved the 0.7% target for the first time.

It came about after the Conservative Party committed to the target in its 2010 manifesto, when it also proposed setting up a dedicated department for international development to help achieve its aim.

It has maintained the commitment in subsequent manifestos, including in 2019 when it pledged to maintain the proportion of spending.

In 2010, then leader David Cameron defended the move, telling business leaders at the Lord Mayor’s banquet in London’s Guildhall that it saved lives, prevented conflict and was the “most visible example of Britain’s global reach” for millions of people.

Since 2015, the Government has also been under a statutory duty to meet the 0.7% target, as a result of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act.

But, in the wake of the impact of the pandemic, ministers want to slash the proportion to 0.5% saying that, while it is only a temporary measure until the nation’s finances are repaired, it will save £4bn.

If the UK had spent 0.5% of GNI in 2020, as it plans to in 2021, it would have ranked 10th in the world for its aid spending as a proportion of GNI, instead of seventh, according to the House of Commons Library.

How did the 0.7% target come about?

A target for international aid was originally proposed as far back as 1958 – at first by the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, which suggested a 1% of GDP figure would be appropriate, and the idea was then circulated to all United Nations delegations at the 1960 General Assembly.

The 0.7% target was first agreed by the DAC in 1970 and it has repeatedly been international endorsed.

Among the key moments at which the 0.7% figure has been backed are the 15 countries that were members of the European Union by 2004 agreeing the following year to reach the target by 2015 and the 0.7% target serving as a reference for 2005 political commitments to increase ODA at the G8 Gleneagles Summit and the UN World Summit.

This impoverished school shows how cuts to UK’s foreign aid budget hurt those most in need

UK cutting aid to help fight AIDS and HIV branded ‘maddeningly short-sighted’ by charities

In 2017, the UK government said it wanted to modernise the ODA rules to include some peacekeeping-related spending.

Currently, spending on military equipment or activity, including peacekeeping expenditure and anti-terrorism operations, are excluded, apart from the distribution of humanitarian aid.

Aid that relates to nuclear energy can be included as long as it is provided for civilian purposes.

Do countries outside the OECD provide international aid?

OECD countries are not the only ones that provide foreign aid, in its widest definition.

Evidence has been presented that China, India and Russia – which are classed as middle and upper-middle income countries – provide aid that would qualify under the ODA rules, but the amount they provide is not subject to the degree of transparency of DAC aid budgets.

US research group Aid Data has examined the Chinese loans paid to developing countries for a wide range of projects and businesses, with tens of billions in ODA payments given to lower or middle-income nations.

The vaccine diplomacy engaged in by Russia and India illustrates how two other countries outside the OECD offer one form of help.

And the World Bank reported that Russia’s ODA was $1.2bn in 2017, the last year for which figures were available, and India’s Ministry of External Affairs says it has offered “lines of credit” to 64 countries, worth $30.6bn.

Politics

Elon Musk’s sale of X to xAI just made fraud lawsuit a ‘lot spicer’

Published

3 hours ago

March 29, 2025

admin

Elon Musk’s sale of X to xAI just made fraud lawsuit a ‘lot spicer’

Billionaire investor Elon Musk has sold his social media platform X to his AI startup xAI, sparking controversy as it coincides with a US judge rejecting his bid to dismiss a lawsuit tied to the social media platform.

The transfer of ownership of X to xAI on March 28 means that the class-action lawsuit against Musk — accusing him of defrauding former Twitter shareholders by delaying the disclosure of his initial investment in the social media platform — has become “a whole lot spicer,” Cinneamhain Ventures partner Adam Cochran said in a March 28 X post.

Acquisition may open up xAI to more ‘exposure’

On the same day that Musk said “xAI has acquired X in an all-stock transaction,” a US judge reportedly rejected Musk’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. Cochran said it has “opened up his AI entity to exposure here too, and it’s a much bigger pie.”

Musk said the deal values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion, factoring in $12 billion in debt from the $45 billion valuation. He originally bought X, formerly Twitter, for around $44 billion in April 2022.

“xAI and X’s futures are intertwined. Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent,” Musk said.

“This combination will unlock immense potential by blending xAI’s advanced AI capability and expertise with X’s massive reach,” he said, adding:

“This will allow us to build a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress.”

However, Cochran claimed that “Musk used his pumped up xAI stock to pay multiple times over value for X, but still take an $11B loss on the transaction.” He said that Musk is “screwing over xAI investors, and X investors” and was executed to sell user data to xAI.

xAI is best known for its AI chatbot “Grok” which is built into the X platform. When Musk released it in November 2023, he claimed it could outperform OpenAI’s first iteration of ChatGPT in several academic tests.

Musk explained at the time that the motivation behind building Grok is to create AI tools equipped to assist humanity by empowering research and innovation.

While Cochran said that Grok being valued at $80 billion is an “insanely dumb valuation,” crypto developer “Keef” disagrees. Keef said, “This is shady all around, but given the day, Grok is genuinely probably the top model for various tasks.”

Magazine: Arbitrum co-founder skeptical of move to based and native rollups: Steven Goldfeder

Politics

Senators press regulators on Trump’s WLFI stablecoin

Published

6 hours ago

March 28, 2025

admin

Senators press regulators on Trump’s WLFI stablecoin

Five Democratic lawmakers in the US Senate have called on leadership at regulatory agencies to consider the potential conflicts of interest from a stablecoin launched by World Liberty Financial (WLFI), the crypto firm backed by US President Donald Trump’s family.

In a March 28 letter from the US Senate Banking Committee, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and four other Democrats asked the Federal Reserve’s committee chair on supervision and regulation, Michelle Bowman, and acting comptroller of the currency, Rodney Hood, how they intended to regulate WLFI and its stablecoin, USD1.

Government, Congress, Donald Trump, Stablecoin — *March 28 letter from five Democratic senators to OCC, Fed leadership. Source:* *US Senate Banking Committee*

The letter came as members of Congress are considering legislation to regulate stablecoins through the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act. The bill, if signed into law, would essentially allow the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Reserve to oversee stablecoin regulation, including for issuers like WLFI and its USD1 coin.

Trump also signed an executive order in February attempting to have all federal agencies — purportedly including the OCC — “regularly consult with and coordinate policies and priorities” with White House officials, giving the US president unprecedented control.

“President Trump’s involvement in this venture, as he strips financial regulators of their independence and Congress simultaneously considers stablecoin legislation, presents an extraordinary conflict of interest that could create unprecedented risks to our financial system and to the integrity of decisions made by the [Fed and OCC],” said the letter, adding:

“The launch of a stablecoin directly tied to a sitting President who stands to benefit financially from the stablecoin’s success presents unprecedented risks to our financial system.”

Since World Liberty launched in September 2024 — months before the US election and Trump’s inauguration — many of the firm’s goals have been shrouded in secrecy. The project’s website notes that Trump and some of his family members control 60% of the company’s equity interests.

As of March 14, World Liberty had completed two public token sales, netting the company a combined $550 million. On March 24, the project confirmed launching its first stablecoin on the BNB Chain and Ethereum. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., also pitched USD1 from the DC Blockchain Summit on March 26 with three of WLFI’s co-founders.

Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions

Politics

US regulators FDIC and CFTC ease crypto restrictions for banks, derivatives

Published

8 hours ago

March 28, 2025

admin

US regulators FDIC and CFTC ease crypto restrictions for banks, derivatives

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) said in a March 28 letter that institutions under its oversight, including banks, can now engage in crypto-related activities without prior approval. The announcement comes as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that digital asset derivatives wouldn’t be treated differently than any other derivatives.

The FDIC letter rescinds a previous instruction under former US President Joe Biden’s administration that required institutions to notify the agency before engaging in crypto-related activities. According to the FDIC’s definition:

”Crypto-related activities include, but are not limited to, acting as crypto-asset custodians; maintaining stablecoin reserves; issuing crypto and other digital assets; acting as market makers or exchange or redemption agents; participating in blockchain- and distributed ledger-based settlement or payment systems, including performing node functions; as well as related activities such as finder activities and lending.”

FDIC-supervised institutions should consider associated risks when engaging in crypto-related activities, it said. These risks include market and liquidity risks, operational and cybersecurity risks, consumer protection requirements, and Anti-Money Laundering requirements.

On March 25, the FDIC eliminated the “reputational risk” category from bank exams, opening a path for banks to work with digital assets. Reputational risk is a term that underscores the dangers banks face when engaging with certain industries.

Digital asset derivatives won’t be treated differently — CFTC

While the US crypto derivatives market had been a gray zone due to regulatory uncertainty, that has been changing. On March 28, the CFTC withdrew a staff advisory letter to ensure that digital asset derivatives — a type of trading product — will not be treated differently from other types of derivatives. The revision is “effective immediately.”

The change in tone from the CFTC and FDIC follows a new environment for crypto firms under US President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump has vowed to make the US “the crypto capital of the planet.”

Crypto firms are shifting strategies to align with the easing regulatory climate. On March 10, Coinbase announced the offer of 24/7 Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) futures. In addition, the company is reportedly planning to acquire Derebit, a crypto derivatives exchange.

Kraken, another US-based cryptocurrency exchange, has also made moves in the derivatives market. On March 20, it announced the acquisition of NinjaTrader, which would allow the exchange to offer crypto futures and derivatives in the United States.

Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions