Where next for UK international development policy?

By Sarah Mulley

International development should be counted as one of Labour’s biggest successes in government. The creation of the Department for International Development (DfID) and an increase of more than 140% in real terms aid spending are the most obvious manifestations of a commitment to development which has been led from the very top.

But with DfID well into its second decade, and apparently strong cross-party commitment to meeting the UN’s target of giving 0.7% of GDP as aid, it is time to consider the big challenges that will face UK development policy in the future. Although the UK’s aid programme is by no means perfect (and NGOs and others will need to keep up the pressure if the aid target is to be met in the current economic climate, whatever politicians say), a new report published by ippr today suggests that the real challenges lie outside the core business of aid, and beyond the direct remit of DfID.

The very independence that DfID has, rightly, worked so hard to establish also makes it harder for the department to engage effectively with the rest of Whitehall on wider UK policy, and for the government to work in a joined-up way in situations where it has multiple objectives. This has meant that some policy areas, for example immigration, have lacked a development voice in Whitehall, and that the UK has been less effective than it might have been in countries like Afghanistan.

Some argue that, faced with increasing fiscal and political pressures in the coming years, DfID should defend its ‘separateness’ and independence even more; others that the changing nature of poverty requires a more joined-up approach across government. Some even argue that DfID should be merged back into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in order to deliver policy coherence across government. Although the Conservatives are committed to keeping DfID as a separate department, the frontbench team have sent strong signals that they would like DfID’s role to be more clearly supportive of the FCO.

The benefits of a strong DfID, independent of the FCO and on an equal footing with it, clearly outweigh the costs. However, this does not mean that DfID should stand apart from the rest of government.

A new cross-government strategy on international development is needed. This will mean tackling some difficult issues head on, particularly in areas where the right thing to do for international development might not be right for the UK, or where there are powerful interests working to stop change. It will also mean communicating better with the electorate – development is much more than aid, and politicians of all parties need to resist the urge to reduce the issue to a matter of simple charity.

Labour needs to celebrate and defend its achievements on development, but it’s also time to recognise that DfID has come of age. The world is changing, and DfID must change with it.

Ippr’s report (supported by World Vision UK) Policy coherence and the future of the UK’s international development agenda is published on March 5. See www.ippr.org or contact [email protected] for further details.