Will Paxton and Guy Lodge’s call last week to protect bilateral aid spending has sparked a lively debate, notably this counter argument to prioritise multilateral spending from Kevin Watkins. Here they address Kevin’s (polite) criticisms, arguing for a better balance between multilateral and bilateral aid – and that listening to countries and communities leads to giving priority to jobs and growth, even if, as Kevin argues, aid has not been very effective in delivering them.
We welcome the considered response by Kevin Watkins to our initial piece, where he recognises the need for government to offer clear strategic direction on the future of UK aid and offers constructive suggestions of his own. This is especially valuable given the lack of ongoing public debate on aid delivery: too many appear to have concluded the UK’s retrenchment is a fait accompli and moved on, failing to engage with the question of how our remaining £8-9 billion spend could be deployed.
More broadly, as Kevin points out there has been a near total collapse of political support for development and aid. Asking difficult questions and thinking about the potential political strategy for not only rebuilding the case for development, but making it appear relevant at all requires healthy debate.
To keep this debate going, in this post we reflect on some of Kevin’s points and raise a question.
A disproportionate cut to bilateral aid: let’s get the balance right
First, Kevin is of course correct about the scalability of multilateral funding, and indeed we recognise the vital contribution it plays in saving lives and supporting growth. We are not arguing that all the UK’s remaining development spend should be channelled bilaterally – or even that bilateral aid should be disproportionately prioritised over our multilateral spend – but rather that the government should recognise the value of maintaining a more diverse set of levers in our toolbox.
Our argument is that proportionality is key – and that reductions should be more evenly balanced. And at present, because of a lack of political engagement in this decision-making process there is a risk of getting this balance wrong.
As it stands, the rumour mill suggests that senior FCDO officials agree with Kevin, not us. It suggests that the hit to bilateral spending by 2027 could be close to 50% (as it was in 2021) whereas multilateral spending could be reduced by just one third of this amount. If such choices are made in this Spending Review to disproportionately raid bilateral budgets, spend by our country offices globally could fall beneath £1 billion. For policymakers, the question now is whether they really want to end up with a “rump-rump” of development spending which they can shape?
Listening to partners on driving growth
Second, Kevin challenges our belief in the importance of focusing on driving economic growth. We see such prioritisation as important, primarily because this is what development partners say they want. This is perhaps our key point: we think it is right that there is a need to shift further and faster towards genuinely respect-based partnerships. In our experience, it is hard to overstate how many people in developing countries still see the donor world as having a whiff of “we know best”, pushing its own agenda and not being good at genuinely listening.
Nor are we saying to only focus on jobs and growth, but it is a good example of listening to and respecting local priorities, rather than always being led by technocratic top-down analysis. Importantly, demands for a focus on growth and jobs are not only an elite concern in the developing world; it’s the strong preference from the people of the Global South too. Endeavouring to meet and respond to these local demands is good for development and necessary for partnerships. There is some interesting thinking about growth and jobs forming the basis of a resetting of development, but more is needed.
Of course questions about aid effectiveness are critical. Kevin references some of the challenges of multilateral institutional reform, for example, tackling their ‘maddeningly conservative’ approaches to risk. He has been a stalwart pushing for such reforms. On the bilateral spending side, we certainly acknowledge the need to do more on impact. Our view here, including on economic growth, is that there is an opportunity to move away from the larger and often hubristic programmes of the 0.7% era, towards smaller, more agile, politically informed approaches. But to repeat – this is not a zero-sum approach and there is a need for concerted action through both multilateral and bilateral spend.
What is the game plan for our new political context?
Third, Kevin concludes by asking how we reassert the case for the aid programme in age marked by nationalism and right-wing populism. The political base for development within UK politics has been so denuded that there is a question about how it is relevant at all. We are not steeped in the history of development advocacy in the UK like Kevin. We were not there for the great achievements of the past. But we are struck by the lack of political strategy from development advocates now. Does Kevin think that passing on the bulk of UK development spending to multilaterals is the basis for building a sufficiently broad and influential political coalition of support in the future?
When the political context changes so profoundly, tactics and approaches must adapt. To risk a football metaphor: Kevin’s football team, Tottenham, won their first silverware for 17 years last month. Congratulations! Their manager, Ange Postecoglou, has been famously obstinate, sticking to an all-out attack style of play despite poor results. But in the biggest match of his managerial career he ditches his purism, shows a pragmatic side and adapts to new realities. And he wins. As Kevin says there are no easy answers, but is there sufficient pragmatism and openness to new thinking within the once mighty international development lobby?
We welcome this debate – and are grateful to Kevin for his engagement. How the remaining £8-9 billion ODA spend could be deployed will have important implications. The decisions should not be made behind closed doors without robust discussion.
This blog is reposted from LSE’s new Activism, Influence and Change blog, run by our FP2P Blogger Emeritus, Professor Duncan Green. Update: this debate is still going strong over on that blog – and you can read Kevin Watkins response to the piece above in the comments on the original post.
Will Paxton and Guy Lodge are founders and directors of Kivu International, an international development organisation that specialises in designing and implementing high impact locally-led programmes across the Global South.