Today, the Project for Modern Democracy publishes its second report for the Global Development Challenge project, which looks at the history of UK development policy and assesses the future prospects of the UK aid programme.
Our first report, published in 2017, found that development aid has a long-term positive effect on growth and poverty reduction, and that criticism that aid does not work is unsupported by the weight of academic evidence. In this second half of the project, In the national interest? The past, present and future of UK development policy, we look at the British experience specifically and find that UK aid is now at risk of losing its world-leading status.
The UK has a long tradition of international development. Early economic and technical support for British Colonies evolved into a principled recognition that development assistance can lift vulnerable people out of poverty, which helps not only less-economically developed countries but strengthens British global interests. The fight against poverty chiefly saves lives but in doing so creates a safer, equitable and more prosperous world.
The UK was therefore at the forefront of nurturing a multilateral system that emerged following the Second World War. Institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank were established to drive a common standard and to foster peace and economic security. Newer multilateral partnerships, such as Gavi – The Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, demonstrate the enduring value of this international co-operation, brought all the more into focus as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The UK has also been a leader in bilateral partnerships and its aid work has served as an example to many others. The New Labour Government established the Department for International Development in 1997, which grew to command respect globally for its transparency, accountability and programming. The Coalition Government of 2010-2015 met the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid in 2013, and this level of spending was maintained by Conservative governments until 2020. The commitment was even enshrined in law with the Official Development Assistance Target Act 2015.
Increasing levels of spending inevitably drew increasing levels of opposition to the aid programme. DFID became a target for aid sceptics and the right-wing press, who took issue with perceived waste and profligacy. Tabloid articles would regularly attack certain aid projects, with their complex objectives often over-simplified and misunderstood.
This criticism ultimately fed through to the British public, with opinion polls finding general scepticism over the effectiveness of the aid programme. There appeared to be a growing gulf between Government policy and the views of its party membership, and consecutive Conservative administrations failed to mount a cohesive and sustained defence of international development policy. As a backbench MP, Boris Johnson suggested that aid spending was too high and that DFID, by then an independent department for over two decades, should be brought under Foreign Office control. The warning bells had been sounded.
Eventually, his Government would follow through on this line of thinking. The UK, having left the European Union, continues to sketch out a new vision for foreign policy for the new decade, and in 2020 DFID was merged into the Foreign Office on the premise that development policy had grown to be out of sync with the diplomatic and strategic aims of the UK.
Despite repeated assurances that the 0.7 per cent spending level would not be threatened by the departmental merger, the Chancellor announced in November 2020 that spending would be cut to 0.5 per cent of GNI due to economic pressure caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Because year-on-year GNI was lower in 2020 due to the economic contraction, this cut came on top of previously announced budget reductions and amounts to £5 billion lost from the aid programme – over a third of what the Government had been spending on ODA at its peak.
While the cut was presented as a necessity given the economic situation, it only amounts to 1 per cent of the UK’s deficit, and other non-Covid related budgets such as defence were increased. Because the UK has already pledged a certain amount of funding to multilateral institutions for the year, it is inevitable that cutbacks in the aid programme will have to be found in important bilateral projects.
Although the impact of the cuts has yet to be announced, a picture of the potential consequences is already emerging, including a cut in humanitarian relief to Yemen and reduced funding for UK Research & Innovation. According to openDemocracy, anti-corruption and human rights work may also be affected, and bilateral aid to fragile states such as Syria, Libya and South Sudan may also be facing cuts. And the One Campaign has warned that the Government’s aid priority areas, including climate change and girls’ education, could face cuts of up to 63 per cent.
While the ODA cut appears to be largely a political calculation, the politics may not be so straightforward. A recent survey has found that many aspects of the aid programme continue to enjoy support from the general public when broken down. Parliamentarians have voiced their opposition to the cut, including many MPs on the Conservative benches. And in a year that the UK is chairing the G7, its allies are placing development at the centre of foreign policymaking, with the Biden administration in the United States promoting the USAID Administrator to the National Security Council and appointing aid expert Gayle Smith to lead its global COVID-19 response.
While the recent Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy commits the UK to spending 0.7 per cent on development ‘when the fiscal situation allows’, no timetable has been given, and the vague language suggests the Government may be considering a wider redefinition of development spending that veers from the internationally-agreed definition of ODA as set by the OECD DAC.
The Foreign Secretary’s December 2020 letter to the International Development Committee, where he outlined his aid priorities, also raises questions. While the challenges he identified are high priorities – tackling climate change, global health security, girls’ education, and science research, to name some – the letter makes no explicit mention of poverty reduction as being at the heart of the UK’s development mission. Moving away from this language will inevitably raise concerns that the Government is deprioritising development. Yet poverty reduction is the right thing to strive for in the interests of both the UK and partner countries, given its relationship with economic growth, global public health, open societies and global security.
The Foreign Secretary’s suggestion that bilateral programmes will be prioritised over multilateral obligations is also out of step with the consequences of the aid cut, which is likely to see bilateral projects – including funding to tackle the headline challenges listed in the letter – downsized or axed entirely, due to existing legal commitments to multilateral funding. And the repercussions of this cut to bilateral projects are counterintuitive to the strategic aims of Global Britain – the Integrated Review identifies China as a ‘systemic challenge’, yet the UK is about to cede ground to Chinese bilateral aid whilst maintaining funding to a multilateral system where China is increasing its power and influence.
There is still time for the Government to get this right, and the new Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has a genuine opportunity to forge a confident vision for UK international development going forward. The combined might of diplomacy and development has already been tested by last year’s Gavi replenishment and the COVAX initiative, and demonstrates that development is conducive to strategic interests despite protestations that they conflict.
Our report offers a menu of proposals for the Government to embolden its international development strategy. It is research-driven, drawing on historical observations, empirical lessons from other countries, and an assessment of contemporary circumstances. Headline recommendations include a return to the 0.7 per cent target as soon as possible; a dedicated development minister with a seat at the Cabinet table who can make a positive case for aid; a long-term strategy focused on global health that enjoys the support of the public and has poverty reduction as its core mission; and a proactive relationship with multilateral institutions to demonstrate that Britain is a liberal and global player, whilst maintaining bilateral programmes to foster country ownership of aid and to provide a counterweight to Chinese expansion.
We hope that this report will be a timely and constructive contribution to the debate on aid spending, the development strategy for the new FCDO, and the future of Global Britain.
Andrew Slinn is a Researcher at the Project for Modern Democracy and co-author of In the national interest? The past, present and future of UK development policy.