Breaking the Stalemate on UK Aid
Authors:
Prof Dominic McVey MBE, CGP Advisory Council
Chris Loughran, Co-Founder of Symbio Impact Ltd and Hon Fellow at University of Manchester
Ryan Baldry, Senior Communications Manager, CGP
The UK’s Minister of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, has announced the planned allocation of the 2023/24 Overseas Development Aid (ODA) budget. This amounts to £8.1bn for the coming year, an increase on last year but with significant reductions to most budget lines.
The ODA budget is always complex, and rightly deserves scrutiny by the International Development Committee, parliamentarians and civil society. In this budget, an eight per cent reduction in bilateral funding in favour of multilateral also deserves particular attention, especially in light of the ‘IR23’ refresh to the Integrated Review. The same can be said of cuts of over 50% to Afghanistan at a time of acute fragility in the country and region.
The economic backdrop remains a major challenge that is felt at home as well as abroad. The continuing legacy of COVID, and the economic and supply chain impact of the war in Ukraine affect us all. So while it is right to make the case against cuts, it is critical for aid-supporting internationalists to make a compelling case in as broader and more pragmatic way that resonates with as many people as possible.
At a recent Global Britain Summit hosted by the Coalition for Global Prosperity, the Minister spoke about a roughly equal split UK attitude towards using taxpayers’ money overseas for aid. Half are against, believing charity should begin at home, not least in the face of economic adversity. Meanwhile, half support it, believing that a true ‘Global Britain’ cannot ignore its obligations to the world’s poorest.
The Minister, who recently raised this again in Glasgow at the annual meeting of the Scottish International Development Alliance, was right to highlight the 50:50 division as a precarious position. It puts aid at risk of politicisation and protracted division. He was also right to aspire to a position where over two thirds of UK taxpayers are in favour of UK international engagement.
We won’t achieve this through policy debate or political discussion about the legality of the percentage of our economy spent on aid, however right that argument might be. We also won’t achieve this by the poverty argument alone, however well-founded and evidenced it is. It is time for a broader approach that more people at home can relate to.
Moving to a two third support among the UK public for aid will only happen if we do three things: move beyond a solely moral case for aid to include environment, national security and UK trade; abandon aid policy discussion that does not resonate with the public; and embrace and include business, UK trade and the private sector.
In terms of avoiding dogmatic aid policy, we cannot rely on arguments based on percentage points of macro-economics when there are queues for food banks at home. Making the case for eight thousand million pounds spent overseas, let alone more, does not resonate, especially when it is the equivalent of the annual budget of NHS Wales.
When it comes to making a case for aid, we must present poverty and the moral case alongside conflict, security and migration. They are intertwined drivers of suffering and stability and a loss to the global economy exceeding $14.8tr. We know that over two thirds of the world’s extreme poor will live in fragile and conflict-affected states by 2030. But addressing this needs to feel more relevant to the taxpayer.
Perhaps most importantly, the environmental case resonates the most to young people, key stakeholders in the future. It is time to make the case in terms of planet, as well as people. Finally, it is time for everyone to accept and embrace the fact that progress to counter poverty, fragility and the indisputable environment crisis cannot make progress without the private sector, trade and prosperity.
Aid on its own cannot deliver the US$4.2tr shortfall in annual financing reported by the OECD to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. System change can only be achieved by engagement of the private and capital markets sector, in ways that are based on increased equity and sustainability. If just 1.1% of global financial assets could be targeted towards financing needs in developing countries it would be fill the Sustainable Development Goals funding shortfall.
The Minister and the government should both expect and require scrutiny of aid spending and the strategy that drives it. But his aspiration to meet more than half way with the UK taxpayer is the right one. For that to succeed, we need to listen more to the UK public and make the case with traditionally difficult issues like trade, the private sector, environment, migration and security.
However right it might be, the moral case for aid will not tip the balance. Until we make a better and more integrated case, aid remains vulnerable and at risk of division.
Cover image courtesy of the FCDO.
