David Cameron will be remembered by history as the Prime Minister who called the “Brexit” referendum, but during his last days in office, Cameron sought to stress a different achievement: lifting Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending to 0.7 percent of national income.

The target was met during a time of economic austerity and in spite of intense criticism from members of Cameron’s own political party. This resolve should inspire other wealthy countries to do their part in fighting global poverty.

Looking at the data, several facts jump out. The UK has a clear lead among G7 countries and is the only one to meet the UN’s recommended 0.7 percent target. The United States, despite being both the wealthiest country in the G7 on a per capita basis and the largest economy in the world, comes in last in ODA spending relative to national income.

If America spent the average 0.35 percent of other G7 countries, it would spend an additional $33 billion a year. Reaching the level of the UK would mean over $90 billion more.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have given away over $54 billion total as part of their philanthropic efforts. The Giving Pledge, Gates’ and Buffet’s initiative to encourage the wealthy to give away their fortunes, has so far attracted total pledges of around $360 billion from 139 of the wealthiest individuals in the world.

The yearly contribution America could give by rising to the UK’s level of ODA spending is larger than the total lifetime donations of two of the richest men in world and a third of the total amount pledged by 139 billionaires. This is a powerful reminder that the political process is a central part of the struggle against poverty.

The first of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals is to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere.” This ambitious goal calls for a concerted effort on the part of wealthier countries. Since the UN adopted the resolution in 1970 which stated ODA spending in developed countries should be at least 0.7 percent of their gross national product, only a handful of countries have risen to that level.

Aid skeptics often point out that waste, fraud and corruption mean that much of the aid meant for poor beneficiaries ends up lining the pockets of kleptocrats. This problem is exaggerated, but it should serve as a call to action for reforming aid distribution practices, rather than a reason to cut off support for those who need it most

– Jonathan Hall-Eastman

Photo: Flickr