Anneliese Dodds: The future of aid – A new international context

When compared with some of the other attempts by the Labour government to reduce spending, the cut to overseas development assistance (ODA) this February met with little criticism. Yet the scale of the reduction is eye watering. By 2027, the UK will be spending just 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) on development – potentially with a significant portion of that figure spent on UK-based accommodation for asylum seekers. 

The cut was presented as the only way to deliver greater national security via increased defence spending. I believe that our current, more insecure, world requires us to look afresh at fiscal policy. The cut to aid will, in my view, reduce rather than increase our security. Nonetheless, the straightforward approach of advocating for one ‘clean’ aid cut to scale up defence spending clearly seemed to many to be an easier option – at least in the short term. 

READ MORE: The Lion and the Unicorn revisited – What Starmer can learn from Orwell

The cut was announced soon after the 20th anniversary of the launch of the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign. Some have suggested that there has been a straightforward withdrawal of public consent for international development spending since Nelson Mandela’s stirring speech in Trafalgar Square in 2005. Yet the reality is that even then, neither politicians nor the public consistently prioritised international development.  

I believe a more complex process has been underway. The need for, nature of and politics of aid have all changed since 2005, with critiques from the right and the left. Now that the cut is in the process of being delivered, those who support international development need to acknowledge this. We need a new approach which practically demonstrates the effectiveness of aid, works more closely with new partners, especially from the global south, and is transparent about the political nature of aid and the fact that it benefits our national interest. Greater honesty about the mutual benefits from aid has long been demanded by those in the global south. Today it is also demanded by the British public – and must be delivered. 

Aid in a changed world

When commemorating the anniversary of Mandela’s Trafalgar Square speech, many people stressed to me that at least part of his vision had been realised. In 2005, almost one in three people worldwide lived on three dollars or less a day. By 2025, only one in 10 lived in this kind of extreme poverty. There has also been a concentration of the world’s very poorest people. Back in 1990, sub-Saharan Africa had a lower poverty rate than east Asia and the Pacific. By 2024, three-quarters of the world’s extreme poor lived in sub-Saharan Africa or in ‘fragile or conflict-affected states’ – with 42 per cent living in countries falling into both categories. The extent of conflict has also risen globally, while democracy has slid backwards. New actors have got involved in the delivery of aid, from huge NGOs like the Gates Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation to the Gulf countries, China, and more. And as humanitarian crises from Gaza to Sudan have shown, aid has become increasingly politicised, and humanitarian principles often abandoned. 

The political debate about aid has rarely focused on these developments, and to my mind has been strangely dated. The right has argued that aid is characterised by waste, often based on historical rather than current evidence; while the left has often argued, again generally based on historical examples, that development is inherently ‘colonialist’. Instead, many African political and civil society leaders have, research suggests, continued to call for genuine, flexible and respectful partnerships with the UK, which last for the long term – including through development. 

What to do

In this context, the most important thing that Labour politicians can do now about aid is talk about it – honestly and transparently. Most Brits assume that aid consumes far more of the government coffers than is the reality (guessing 0.9 per cent of public spending in 2023), with almost a third believing it costs 10 times more public money than is the case. In addition, it is assumed that much aid goes towards corrupt politicians or is wasted in other ways. What I call the ‘Chinese opera singer’ problem persists – where historical examples of questionable uses of aid continue to dominate the debate. Clarity about exactly how aid is being spent now, and will be spent when announced, is therefore key. This should include first-hand testimony from ‘ordinary’ Brits who achieve extraordinary things with ODA (from scientists to nurses and mine clearance experts). 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

As Labour we should also be up-front that aid is inherently political. Of course, subordination to the daily rough and tumble of politics is unhelpful. ODA budgets should not be raided merely to provide a ‘comms hook’ for a politician’s visit to a country. But aid has always been a mechanism for national influence, whether more or less explicit. Survey and focus group evidence suggests that the British public want UK aid to focus on our national interest. Delivering on this need not betray the world’s poorest people, but will require more honesty and transparency about the mutual benefits received from aid – something that global south leaders repeatedly told me they wanted as a basic condition for a more respectful relationship. 

How members of the public define our national interest is, obviously, complicated. Research, especially that conducted by the Development Engagement Lab, has consistently indicated support for humanitarian aid and support for health. Other work though, including that recently conducted by More in Common,  suggests that tackling problems ‘upstream’ of issues affecting the UK is key for our national interest in the public’s mind – for example, helping develop livelihoods and so encouraging people to stay closer to home and avoid migrating to the UK. 

All of this indicates that politicians must indicate why specific international development interventions are in our country’s national interest, rather than just stating that they are – or worse, failing to explain what development funding is doing. This includes being explicit about the relationship between development and security. Current and former military figures have often been the clearest exponents of the advantages of development in terms of stability, having seen its impact with their own eyes. We must also acknowledge that China and Russia have been seeking to expand their influence globally, especially in many African nations, and explain how UK presence and support can help to counteract this trend. And practical examples can show how humanitarian crises impact on migration, including to the UK; and how positive measures can help people to stay where they want to be – at home, or at least close to home. 

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

Transparent, honest and effective

Honesty about the positive impact of aid in terms of our national interest, then, is critical. We also need honesty when it comes to the impact of other national policies on the world’s poorest people. A Labour government must support pro-poor positions on tax, representation on global bodies, debt reform, trade, and access to technological infrastructure. Such policies are no substitute for aid, but they are equally necessary and will help the UK to consolidate alliances that will be critical for our country in the future.

This article forms part of a Fabian Society edited collection ‘Promising Development – The future of aid in an uncertain world’

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
• DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
• ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].