Throughout the world, there is a growing realisation that we cannot achieve economic or environmental sustainability without addressing social inequality, the worst manifestation of which is extreme poverty
Anne Radl
Aid is an emotive issue. The disparity between nations, and groups within them, are the outcome of a myriad of factors – political and cultural as well as environmental. The act of giving (and receiving) is charged with meaning and skews the relationships, and balance of power, between those who have and those who don’t. The world produces enough food for everyone: shortages of staples are the result of market structures and a failure in distribution. These are complex challenges to address at a time when the global population is growing and climate change is bringing added problems.
We asked three people to answer our questions. Dr Emma Mawdsley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge. She is author From Recipients to Donors, an analysis of the 'rising powers' as providers of development assistance. Adam Pain holds positions at the School of International Development, University of East Anglia, and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. He has worked in the Himalayas since 1991 as a policy advisor (Bhutan) and researcher (Nepal). Since 2001, he has been collaborating with a research institute in Afghanistan, studying rural economies. In partnership with Afghan colleagues, he has set up a carpet company working with Turkmen women on fair trade principles. Anne Radl is programmes manager at the Humanitarian Centre, an international development network with strong links to Cambridge University. Her background is in community and network building to tackle social inequalities and injustice, particularly in health. She has worked with vulnerable groups in the US and South America.
Is there a moral imperative for the rich to help the poor?
Emma Mawdsley Yes, I believe so - there are moral compunctions that bring together 'distant strangers', as well as those in need closer to home. That said, while foreign aid certainly has its place, it is generally not the most politically progressive or effective way of reducing poverty. But in any case, I don't think we have to rely on moral arguments for aid or other transfers from rich to poor: there is plenty of evidence that everyone - rich and poor - benefits from less poverty and greater equality. Self-interest should be enough to push us towards a more just distribution of resources, through fair taxation systems, for example.
Adam Pain Moral and pragmatic arguments can be used to justify aid: both can make a compelling and principled case. Addressing inequalities of access to basic entitlements and rights is an issue of justice; ensuring greater equality is self-interested. However, the moral imperative is commonly subverted by aid practice and the pragmatic one by hubris. We had thought, for example in Afghanistan, that by bureaucratic means we could rapidly transform societies; the evidence has shown that we cannot.
Anne Radl Moral arguments can be tricky: whose morality are we talking about? When you look into the anthropology and history of aid, you find that the ‘moral imperative to help the poor’—especially the poor outside of your family, community and country—is not universal. I often get asked if we have a moral imperative to end poverty in Britain before we send aid overseas. Sometimes when we invoke moral arguments, we are trying to reach people on a level deeper than the intellect, to inspire them to act. There are different ways to get people to think about—and feel—our shared humanity and consider a more equitable distribution of resources. We need to be flexible in the language and arguments we use.
Image: UN Peacekeepers distribute water and food in Haiti