Posted on by mickfoster

Why is there so little empathy in the world?

The question in the title was prompted by the apparent indifference of Western Governments to the appalling plight of people living in Gaza, and the grotesquely different values placed on human life depending on nationality, religion and ethnicity.

My May 2003 article on how to assess the case for overseas aid1 developed some criteria for analysing the circumstances in which it was reasonable for a Government to tax its own citizens in order to benefit non- citizens. In addition to some rather dry technical analysis, this developed the idea that the value that citizens place on the lives of specific groups of noncitizens depends on the perceived distance between the donor population and the intended beneficiaries. The concept of distance encompasses not just geographical distance but also perceived cultural differences and differences in time ( how much will today’s citizens pay to benefit future generations?).

The interesting point is that this concept of ‘distance’ is not absolute but is influenced by knowledge. Our willingness to deny or ignore the common humanity of others responds to how much we know about them. The response to Band Aid reflected the fact that we were watching the distress every night on news bulletins. The great Tsunami reinforced our sense of common humanity because Europeans and Asians were impacted and were seen helping and supporting each other.

It is not difficult to find reasons why we might be less able to recognise our common humanity in 2025. Our consumption of news has become fragmented and more partisan. Foreign coverage has reduced, with the BBC for example focusing on a very narrow range of subjects and reflecting a strong Western perspective that does not give much space to other viewpoints. Many people elect to avoid news coverage and, with the relative decline in terrestrial channels and national newspaper readership, they can easily do so.
A Labour Government could choose to promote empathy for our fellow human beings, and between different populations, wherever they live. That sounds like an idealistic fantasy, but the previous Labour Government achieved a lot through the exercise of soft power, and might have done more if it had not wrecked its reputation by joining the Iraq war. The previous Labour Government spearheaded global efforts to resolve the debt problems of many low income countries. It was central in persuading donors to signup to the millennium development goals, and to commit the necessary funding to achieve them. The Department for International Development established a strong reputation for competence and leadership on development issues. Most remarkably, it was the first Government to make the objective of reducing Global Poverty sufficiently popular to gather the support of both parties for a commitment to higher aid flows to help achieve it. Explaining what it was doing and why were key elements of this.

The Government could also choose to rebuild other aspects of our soft power. Al Jazeera has shown how investment in a trusted news source can give a country as small as Qatar disproportionate influence in the world . It has taken that role away from a much diminished BBC. The BBC did much to train Al Jazeera but has now been eclipsed by the Qatar station which has far better coverage of the world, far deeper analysis, and reflects a far wider range of views.

Government can also choose to distance itself from a belligerent and unreliable USA and its genocidal ally Israel and work instead with others to rebuild the multilateral system. We have in the past refused direct requests from the USA for support without wrecking our relationship with the Americans. A bit of distance from them and their genocidal ally might help us to establish a reputation for fair dealing and for seeing both sides of an issue. The use of aid, cultural ties, our educational institutions and a genuine commitment to a free press and the rule of law could win us more influence.

This could be reinforced by a commitment to explaining the policy to our own population and thereby educating empathy into our politics. When shown suffering, normal people want to alleviate it.
Sadly, it seems that our Government is even more indifferent to foreign suffering than to the poverty of our own population. It has chosen to cut aid and other sources of soft power in order to spend more on lethal weapons. It is choosing to do this in order to counter a paranoid fantasy about the extent of the threat from Russia, an economy smaller than ours. It is bizarre to believe that the very expensive nuclear armed aircraft we are proposing to buy will be at all useful in any realistic conflict- but the defence lobby is brilliant at persuading gullible Governments to spend billions on toys to fight non existent threats. The Government waves the threat of Russia at us while ignoring the unspeakable evil being done by our friend and ally Israel to the population of Gaza.

Far better value would be achieved at far less cost if we spent it instead on soft power. This would require an end to the double standards that reflect Israeli and US views that place a near zero value on Palestinian lives, and not much more on poor populations living elsewhere. We could make a real contribution by seeking to reduce the distance between nations and populations, rather than reinforcing it by ramping up spending on weapons of doubtful utility.

  1. Mick Foster, Criteria for Assessing the Case for Overseas Aid, a note, Development Policy Review, Vol 21 Number 3, May 2003 ↩︎

Posted on by mickfoster

UK Spending Review: promoting the wrong type of growth to benefit the wrong people in the least effective way

The stated aim of the Government is to boost economic growth through investment while maintaining a sound economy by bearing down on other forms of spending to keep within fiscal rules. This is intended to allow us to grow out of our difficulties by generating enough income to gradually reduce the debt burden and generate the revenue to improve living standards in the medium term.
The assumption is that higher economic growth requires a tight focus on higher investment including public investment. After 15 years of neglect of all public services this assumption is clearly wrong. The most valuable public infrastructure in any country is the infrastructure that already exists. That is why it was built first. In the UK, public infrastructure is crumbling through years of neglect, and is performing poorly due to inadequate operating funds and insufficient and poorly trained staff. The biggest impact on growth will come by remedying those problems. This will have a much quicker and more visible impact than grandiose investments that will take years to complete. It involves providing a substantial real increase in funding for local government. It also requires a shelving of the hugely disruptive reform of local Government structure that is currently planned, and that is a major distraction at a time when local authorities are in acute financial distress. We also need action to address the expensive legacy of Tory privatisation of natural monopolies in water, energy and transport.

The Government appears to think of private sector growth in terms of big firms investing huge amounts in mega projects. The kind of growth that will happen more quickly and will transform more lives is about unlocking the potential of millions of people through practical improvements in local infrastructure and in the incentives to work and to invest.

The benefit system for example at present places obstacles in the way of people wishing to work or to work longer hours, and actually encourages people to stay on disability benefits for fear that any work they take might prove temporary. If the work doesn’t last, they are exposed to debt, uncertainty and the risk of extreme poverty while waiting for benefits to be reinstated.

Spending more money to alleviate poverty and raise living standards is not only good because it improves lives but will also have a positive impact on economic growth. Unlike the wealthy who currently benefit from unnecessary tax breaks, the less well off actually spend their income, and they spend more of it locally. Transfers of cash to people who need it help to support hundreds of thousands of local businesses providing shops and services in their local area, and providing employment at a fraction of the cost of larger scale enterprises. Because it is spent, and spent locally, a larger share of the expenditure will flow back to the treasury in revenue from VAT, national insurance and income taxes.

This more local approach to raising the economic growth rate can also support the innovation and investment in new technologies that Government is keen to see. Entrepreneurs want to live and therefore invest in a pleasant and peaceful country with well maintained roads, good education and health services, pleasant parks and libraries and museums. They want access to a skilled workforce- which means allowing our universities to continue welcoming foreign students and researchers as well as a more relaxed attitude to immigration and allowing our young people to travel freely. It would help if we also committed wholeheartedly to a closer relationship with Europe- with the aim of eventually rejoining.

Where is the money for higher spending in these areas to come from? I think there’s scope for reducing the investment spending ambitions. The more ambitious large scale projects could be postponed with little short term harm. It seems absurd for a country as strapped for cash as we are to be discussing new runways at Heathrow and major investments in nuclear power. Whatever the rationale, these will not deliver in a time frame we should be discussing when the population is faced with so many short term problems. There’s definitely scope for altering the tax system in ways that place more of the burden on the better off. This needs to focus on taxation of capital and reforming the financing of local Government.

We should also be very wary of calls for us to spend more money that we don’t have on totally unproductive defence spending. The MOD has a long and inglorious history of spending huge amounts of money on kit that proves to be ludicrously expensive and entirely redundant for the tasks they are required to undertake. Our Governments in recent years have also shown an unpleasant tendency to use lethal force against civilians and often in conflicts for which there’s no public support. Continuing to sell arms to genocidal Israel is just the latest example where we are clearly on the wrong side. The idea of spending further billions on nuclear weapons is particularly obnoxious. We should resist calls for more defence spending, and slow down any response we are forced to make. We don’t need it, can’t afford it. Trump (and probably Putin) will be gone long before it makes any difference.
In summary: let’s have a more efficient and equitable tax system, and focus our spending on fixing up what already exists and on alleviating the suffering of so many in our population. This will not only improve living standards more quickly, it will also be a more effective way to generate the GDP growth that Government says it wants.


Turning to the debt and the consequent