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

Crypto industry is not experiencing regulatory capture — Attorney

Published

2 hours ago

April 19, 2025

admin

Crypto industry is not experiencing regulatory capture — Attorney

Brandon Ferrick, general counsel at Douro Labs, said that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) openness to public input on crypto policy and their roundtable discussions are positive signs that the crypto industry is not currently experiencing regulatory capture.

In an interview with Cointelegraph, Ferrick identified signs of regulatory capture including, a public-to-private sector revolving door of employees, the same roster of attendees at regulatory events, and special treatment given to certain crypto projects. However, Ferrick added:

“The reason why I am not worried today is that a lot of what you’re seeing from the regulatory side, like the SEC, for example, is totally open, public, and there are available opportunities to have conversations with the regulators about changing or thinking about the regulatory structures.”

“[The SEC] has a public portal where you can just submit written commentary on your thoughts for the crypto regulatory environment, and you can schedule meetings with them,” the attorney continued.

As the crypto industry becomes more integrated with the traditional financial system and engages state regulators more, some analysts and executives are worried that the industry is experiencing regulatory capture that will skew incentives and politicize the burgeoning crypto sector.

SEC hosts several roundtable discussions on crypto policy

The SEC has hosted several crypto roundtable discussions and panels, with more slated in the coming months — a sharp contrast from the agency’s regulation-by-enforcement approach under former SEC chairman Gary Gensler.

On March 21, the regulatory agency hosted its first crypto roundtable, which featured crypto industry executives, SEC officials, and even opponents of the crypto industry.

Former SEC official John Reed Stark was highly critical of the industry and opposed comprehensive regulatory reform, arguing that digital assets must comply with existing securities laws.

The SEC’s April 11 roundtable focused on trading rules and included a different set of panelists, including representatives from Uniswap and Coinbase.

The next SEC panel will occur on April 25 and focus on establishing guidelines for crypto custodians and other firms holding crypto on behalf of customers.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

Politics

UK firm buys $250M Bitcoin as analysts eye quiet Easter weekend

Published

5 hours ago

April 19, 2025

admin

UK firm buys 0M Bitcoin as analysts eye quiet Easter weekend

Whales and institutions are increasing their Bitcoin holdings ahead of Easter, as market analysts predict a weekend with less volatility after two weeks of heightened volatility driven by escalating global trade tensions.

London-based investment firm Abraxas Capital acquired 2,949 Bitcoin (BTC) worth more than $250 million during the four days leading up to April 19.

In the latest transaction, the firm bought over $45 million worth of Bitcoin from Binance on April 18, according to crypto intelligence firm Lookonchain, citing Arkham Intelligence data.

UK firm buys $250M Bitcoin as analysts eye quiet Easter weekend — *Source: Arkham Intelligence,* *Lookonchain*

The investment came days after Michael Saylor’s Strategy bought $285 million worth of Bitcoin at an average price of $82,618 per BTC, as the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holders signal continued confidence in Bitcoin, amid global tariff uncertainty.

Large Bitcoin investors, or whales, continue accumulating, absorbing over 300% of Bitcoin’s yearly issuance as exchanges continue losing coins at a historic pace, Cointelegraph reported on April 18.

Crypto analysts eye quiet Easter weekend after weeks of turmoil

Despite continued accumulation from whales and institutions, volatility concerns were raised by significant movements from the medium-term Bitcoin cohort, which holds coins for an average of three to six months.

Over 170,000 Bitcoin entered circulation from the medium-term cohort, a development that may signal “imminent” crypto market volatility, according to pseudonymous CryptoQuant analyst Mignolet.

“The effect of this metric on LTF moves is overstated as large onchain movement of coins hardly ever affects weekend price action since it’s not on liquid markets or CEX markets,” analysts at Bitfinex exchange told Cointelegraph, adding:

“It is important to note that funding rates remain relatively flat currently. Moreover, US markets are closed as we have a long weekend for Easter, so volatility could be suppressed barring headlines from the White House.”

Marcin Kazmierczak, chief operating officer of RedStone Oracles, added that the recent movements may be operational transfers, not necessarily signs of imminent selling pressure.

Still, concerns over weekend volatility have been amplified over the past two weeks after the Mantra (OM) token’s price collapsed by over 90% on Sunday, April 13, from roughly $6.30 to below $0.50, triggering market manipulation allegations and highlighting “critical” liquidity issues in the industry.

Two weeks ago, on April 6, Bitcoin fell below $75,000 on Sunday, as investor concerns spread from a record-breaking $5 trillion sell-off from the S&P 500, its largest on record.

The correction was caused by Bitcoin’s 24/7 trading availability, which made it the only large liquid asset available for de-risking on Sunday, Blockstream CEO Adam Back told Cointelegraph.

“On a weekend, there’s not much volume. So you have a worse risk of rapid sort of flash crashes or flash dips that get filled in again,” he said.

Magazine: Bitcoin ATH sooner than expected? XRP may drop 40%, and more: Hodler’s Digest, March 23 – 29

Politics

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report

Published

8 hours ago

April 19, 2025

admin

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report

The growing adoption of cryptocurrencies may pose risks to the traditional financial system and exacerbate wealth inequality, according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

In an April 15 report, the BIS warned that the number of investors and amount of capital in crypto and decentralized finance (DeFi) have “reached a critical mass,” with investor protection becoming a “significant concern for regulators.”

The size of the crypto market signals that authorities should be worried about the “stability of crypto over and above the role it may have for TradFi and the real economy,” the report states, highlighting the role of stablecoins, which the BIS said have “become the means through which participants transfer value within crypto.”

The report calls for targeted stablecoin regulation on stability and reserve asset requirements that will guarantee the redemption of stablecoins for US dollars during “stressed market conditions.”

The report comes two weeks after the US House Financial Services Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32–17 vote on April 2.

Cryptocurrencies, Banking, Banks, Central Bank, Bitcoin Price, Investments, Bitcoin Regulation, United States, BIS, Stablecoin, Cryptocurrency Investment, Bitcoin Adoption — *Source:* *Financial Services GOP*

The STABLE Act aims to create a clear regulatory framework for dollar-denominated payment stablecoins, emphasizing transparency and consumer protection.

On March 13, the GENIUS Act, short for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 18–6. The act aims to establish collateralization guidelines and require full compliance with Anti-Money Laundering laws from stablecoin issuers.

Crypto may exacerbate wealth gap

The BIS also raised concerns about how crypto markets may worsen income inequality by enabling larger investors to capitalize on the emotions of less sophisticated retail participants, as seen during the FTX collapse in 2022.

“As prices tumbled in 2022, users actually traded more,” the BIS report noted. “Most disturbingly, large bitcoin holders (“whales”) were selling as ordinary retail investors (“krill”) were buying.” It added:

“This implies that the crypto market, which is often presented as an opportunity for inclusive growth and financial stability, can be a means for redistributing wealth from the poorer to the wealthier.”

The report concludes that DeFi and TradFi have similar underlying economic drivers, but DeFi’s “distinctive features,” like “smart contract and composability,” present new challenges that need proactive regulatory interventions to “safeguard financial stability, while fostering innovation.”