Canadian spending on International Development

[oilfanforever]

As part of my work, I am often discussing Canada's role in the world, and how Canadian foreign aid, or international assistance plays a role, in addition to our diplomatic and defense efforts. That said, this conversation is usually being had with people that work in the sector, or have a direct interest in some way so views are overly biased.

I'm curious what the fine people of CP think about how much Canada is doing, or not doing - and how much you care, one way or the other.

For a bit of background, international assistance is generally measured in Official Development Assistance (ODA) by the OECD. Canada spends roughly $5billion CAD (~2% of the federal budget) per year on international assistance which makes Canada the 11th largest donor after the U.S., Germany, U.K., France, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Norway, and Spain.

Perhaps more interesting is the international measure of 'generosity' which is ODA/Gross National Income, where Canada is 15th, providing only 0.26% of GNI, where Norway is at 1%, the U.K. at 0.7%, and so on.

Do you feel like as Canadians we should be doing more, or at least be in line with our peers in other open medium sized economies?

Why or why not?

[Northendzone]

my first question would be how much of our aid actually goes to aid rather than the administration of the programs.

are we getting value for what we are currently spending?

[Kjesse]

Canada does plenty, in my opinion. Not only does our government provide assistance, many Canadians donate to foreign relief programs through the Red Cross or other agencies.

I'd rather Canada pick three goals and target their spending on those three goals as part of their foreign assistance, and really make a difference, as opposed to now which seems to be a hodge-podge of unfocused assistance.

Make a concerted effort to achieve those few goals, and every time one is met, add another.

Just dumping money into foreign assistance for the sake of saying we're doing more is not good policy. See: healthcare. Spending more does not equal achieving more.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

my first question would be how much of our aid actually goes to aid rather than the administration of the programs.

are we getting value for what we are currently spending?

Link to Budgetary estimates

On Page 123, it shows that we spent just over 6 billion on the whole Global Affairs department in 2015-16 once you add in the non-budgetary expenditures.

Budgeted "Grants and contributions" add up to 3.8 billion, while operating expenditures and capital expenditures add up to 1.6 billion. Pensions and Statutory expenditures (not voted on in the budget or estimates and not tracked in either document) make up the last 0.6 billion.

Of that 3.8 billion spent on grants and contributions, something like 600 million goes to payments for UN peacekeeping operations, the UN itself, NATO, WHO, etc. (pg 126), and about 50 million or so goes onto other things (the non-aid stuff on page the bottom of 127-128). Then, there's so much slop in the Contributions description, it's likely that rounds up to at least 800 of this 3.8 billion that's not spent on Aid, but is spent on other things.

So... if the OP thinks we spend 5 billion on aid, at most about 3 of that billion goes out the door as aid with the rest of the budget being spent on peacekeeping, the UN (etc.), capex, opex and other expenditures for other parts of the department like Consular and diplomatic services.

How much of that aid is then spent along the way by aid organizations and foreign governments on overhead is hard to tell, but if our government is spending 2 billion of the 5 to get it out the door, there's a good chance the others are getting their share of the overhead as well.

[GP_Matt]

I would like to see Canada pick one country and focus our aid on that country almost exclusively. We could then see measurable results if our aid is effective. We could also try something crazy like giving free access to our markets for primary exports from said country.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I would like to see Canada pick one country and focus our aid on that country almost exclusively. We could then see measurable results if our aid is effective. We could also try something crazy like giving free access to our markets for primary exports from said country.

I really like this idea. Put a time limit on it, and see what concerted effort can do. Less money for the UN, but good quality schools, hospitals, and governance assisrance for one country. Give it 20 years at $3b per year, and that should be long enough to sustain itself, and then you've made a real difference.

[GP_Matt]

Giving them access to our market would go a long way to helping jump start their economy.

I have heard too many stories about aid money with conditions for where the money is spent. ie. US Aid that states the money can only be spent on American goods. The organization needed a motorcycle for transport and ended up buying a Harley when a tiny Honda would have been sufficient.