Usually it’s because they have a business relationship or some other relationship that is mutually beneficial, and the financial aid helps foster that relationship.
Usually that money comes with the condition that it is spent a particular way, and if the receiver of the aid doesn’t follow those conditions they’ll not just stop getting the money, they’ll damage their relationship with the giver.
In this case I had a quick peek and it seems like the UK’s aid to India is specifically intended for humanitarian goals, such as housing or schools for the poor.
That India has a space program does not mean it is spending a lot of money on those goals. A space program is an economic endeavor that can be very profitable. It also comes with a lot of prestige. A country might decide to value spending money on a space program higher than it values building schools in poor areas. Or, if the country thinks it can get an ally to give it money for those schools, it might decide to start a space program when it otherwise could not afford to. That would, in a way, make them owe some of their success to the ally, and that debt will no doubt show up in political negotiations over other things.
Also note this is a controversial topic: many people feel like the above shows India doesn’t *need* financial aid or that the UK is not responsible for India’s poor.
But at the end of the day, there are probably 15 other deals between the UK and India that use this financial aid as a bargaining chip. The UK is no doubt using it as a reason to get favors from India, and Indian politicians are no doubt using it as an excuse to divert funds to projects they’d personally rather support.
Latest Answers