Aid, not development, must be the West's priority now

International aid is under siege as never before.

- DAVID MILIBAND

The largest aid donor, the US, has cut over 80 per cent of grants and contracts. The UK has announced dramatic cuts, too. Yet the number of people in humanitarian need (more than 300 million) is at record levels.

We need a new approach that is intellectually coherent and politically robust. We need to stop using the words “development” and “aid” interchangeably. Only by distinguishing between the two can we mitigate the consequences of aid cuts and contribute to the global war on poverty.

Any review of the last 30 years shows that foreign aid has not been the principal driver of development. Countries such as India, Ghana, South Korea, China and Vietnam, which have achieved remarkable reductions in poverty, developed because of markets at home, market access abroad, better governance and remittances.

Today, the primary driver of extreme poverty is conflict rather than underdevelopment. In 1990, fewer than 10 per cent of the extreme poor lived in conflict-affected states. By 2024, it was more than 50 per cent. The World Bank projects it will rise to 65 per cent by 2030.

This should sharpen our understanding of aid’s purpose. It is most needed where markets fail, where governments are too fragile to act, and where urgent humanitarian need overrides all else. That is why aid budgets should be focused - not diluted - on the poorest people in the most hostile environments.