What Next for International Development?

The landscape of International Development (ID) has faced significant upheaval in recent months, with challenges emerging predictably in the United States and unexpectedly in the United Kingdom. While the abrupt cessation of funding in the US has already led to practical disruptions and litigation, the extent of the damage in the UK remains uncertain. However, it is clear that the sector must adapt to a rapidly shifting environment. 

Last week, we had the privilege of welcoming Sue Griffiths, Managing Director of Social Development Direct; Bridget Brown, Managing Director of Montrose; and Ryan Henson, Chief Executive of the Coalition for Global Prosperity, who joined us to delve into this critical topic. This note captures some of the key takeaways.

International development has become an easy target on both sides of the Atlantic

The speed and scale of recent budget cuts have surprised many, demonstrating that ID has become an easy target on both sides of the Atlantic. The merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) with the Department for International Development (DFID) and the budget reduction from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%, had already weakened capacity in the sector and has led to imbalances in the programme. Now, the budget has been raided again at short notice and with surprisingly little political backlash, leaving the sector with the twin challenges of delivering impact with reduced resources in the short-to-medium term while preserving capability and the UK’s role in development for the longer term.

Discussions reflected a recognition that pragmatism and agility will more than ever be essential. Communication will need to adjust to a less sympathetic environment, and adaptive programming will be vital to align with new budgetary realities. The UK continues to lead in some areas, but efforts must be targeted even more than hitherto in order to protect key priorities. Development assistance should be reframed as an integral part of the UK's international toolkit, including by emphasising its role in saving lives and projecting soft power. This requires a shift in the narrative: from aid as mainly an altruistic act to aid as an investment with tangible benefits, such as global health security.

The need for new narratives

The political economy of ID must also be acknowledged. The sector began to accelerate into its current form during a period of economic prosperity, with the establishment of DFID in 1997, but the intervening decades have seen significant economic and political challenges in the UK as well as in the West more generally. It is unsurprising that public support has waned across the political spectrum, particularly when domestic benefits of development programmes have not been well highlighted. Different times require new narratives. Highlighting the what aid spending achieves for the UK could help rebuild support, with a more positive emphasis on the “national interest”, whether that’s defence and security or growth.    

To continue to maximise the UK’s role, we must harness our position as a neutral, honest broker with expertise, experience and relationships. The UK’s deep stock of soft power assets still places the country in an enviable position as an attractive, trusted international power. For the UK, the importance of international and humanitarian aid should not be underestimated: aid is a real part of our power. Looking ahead, there was an articulation of the argument for using the development programme in a systematic effort to focus on “British values”, leveraging synergies between development and diplomacy, in particular, to resist the global rollback of rights at a time when discussion of gender and equalities has become contentious across the Atlantic.

The importance of UK expertise

There is a case for being more open to engagement with a wider range of active development players. By embracing partnerships with emerging donors in, for example, Asia and the Middle East, as well as by developing new partnerships with philanthropic and private capital, we can ensure deeper sector resilience while continuing to deliver impact. This points to new opportunities beyond the wider range of bilateral and multilateral relationships we have already been building.

There is a strong case for being open to recognise the wider range of UK sector strengths. Our international development effort should draw as much as possible on UK’s vast expertise in areas ranging from education and gender equality to health and disaster relief to explore how what we do can be most impactful. BEI members have a wealth of experience and expertise, which can help inform decisions to ensure that the UK development programme continues to achieve impact while preserving crucial British capability for the long term. We will be working to bring this expertise to bear in a spirit of collaboration with our stakeholders in FCDO and across the Government. We are continuing to reach out to members for ideas and input and look forward to hearing from you.

-----

Contributions made by David Landsman OBE, Sasha Barnes, Alex Murr, Sofia Pennacchietti