Opinion: It's not too late for Sweden and UK to reclaim aid reputation

Sweden and the United Kingdom have often been called development superpowers. But both governments are cutting aid, shifting priorities, and questioning the value of development cooperation, dismantling their reputations as leaders in this field before our very eyes. Yet we believe there is reason for optimism if both countries can reverse their recent policy stances and work to reclaim their reputations as champions of effective aid.

Abandoning their longstanding tradition of progressive internationalism, Sweden and the U.K. are spending more of their reduced aid budgets domestically and tying aid budget allocation to political debates around what best serves the national interest.

Not only is this approach morally wrong, it risks eroding the international clout of both countries and fundamentally undermines our collective ability to tackle today’s global challenges.  

Now — when the world urgently needs a development system that can tackle the triple crisis of climate, conflict, and inequality — is not a time for selfish nationalism. Now, more than ever, there can be no “them” and “us.”  A safer, more equal future for all of us will depend upon our ability to empower the most vulnerable.  

Of course, today’s dominant political narrative serves the agenda of those who want to see cuts in foreign aid. For Sweden, the war in Ukraine is driving a focus on security, specifically NATO accession, and, in both countries, it continues to compound a worsening cost of living crisis.

Tensions around migration into Sweden are growing as gang-related violence and economic inequality spiral. In the 2022 Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index, Sweden fell 10 places, now ranking the lowest of all the featured Nordic countries. And, as Britain enters an economic recession, politicians are capitalizing on a climate of fear to sell a different aid agenda.  

Sweden’s new government has scrapped its long-standing 1% of national income target for foreign aid, making substantial cuts to the aid budget, and announcing a downward trajectory that aims toward 0.7%. Since 2020, the UK’s aid budget has been cut by more than £4 billion  and, in the face of rising poverty and hunger, Britain has reneged on its commitment to spend 0.7% of its national income on official development aid.  

In both countries, the importance of official development aid has been noticeably downgraded. Two years ago, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson merged the U.K.’s Department for International Development with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, claiming absurdly that British aid “has been treated as some giant cashpoint in the sky” but now needed to serve the national interest. In Sweden, new Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has wasted no time in combining the post of minister of aid with minister of trade and announcing his own government’s intention to subordinate development policy to Swedish interests.  

The closure of Sweden’s Ministry of Environment, and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s demotion of two climate ministers from cabinet, also signals a diminished focus on climate action just as the climate crisis increases in intensity, its effects being felt all over the world, but most acutely in those countries least responsible for causing it.

Meanwhile, the increasing use of the aid budget to deal with the domestic costs of immigration, refugees, and asylum-seekers, in both countries further indicates their introspective stretching of the definition of “aid.”  

But to turn inward, succumbing to the lure of defensive nationalism in the face of today’s challenges  is a mistake for at least two reasons.  

Firstly, because it diminishes both countries on the world stage. Both Sweden and the U.K. have long held international reputations as exemplary development partners, championing aid effectiveness, poverty reduction, and sustainable development, and standing as key allies on gender and women’s rights. Their approach to aid has enabled both countries to project themselves as compassionate, global forces for good and the example they have set on official development assistance, or ODA, spending has served as an inspiration for others to follow suit.

For relatively small countries, their development leadership has been a rich source of soft power, boosting their ability to act as important and trusted partners in international negotiations. That reputation — and its associated benefits — is now at serious risk.  

And secondly, because we cannot hope to meet the challenges we face today — both at home and around the world — by prioritizing our own domestic challenges and downplaying our obligations to alleviate suffering elsewhere.

The challenges we face are truly challenges that affect us all. Climate change-driven drought, political inaction, and the impact of the conflict in Ukraine on food and energy prices is currently pushing millions toward starvation across East Africa. In Sweden and the U.K., the very same issues are fueling a cost-of-living crisis. They are being felt more acutely in Central, East, and the Horn of Africa and other fragile contexts around the world, but the root of the issue and actions needed are the same.  

This then is not the time to lower our ambitions. In an interconnected, interdependent world, no one is safe until everyone is safe. A shift toward selfishness in terms of resource allocation and ideology may be understandable, but it’s an insidious threat that jeopardizes our ability to meet the existential challenges facing people and the planet.

It's not too late for Sweden and the U.K. to reclaim their reputations as global champions of effective overseas aid: Aid that is led by local priorities, that redresses rather than reinforces historical inequalities, that empowers those most in need and that, ultimately, creates a safer, more equal world for us all.

Those of us working in the development sector must find ways of reconnecting the political parties in power with the kind of progressive internationalism on which Sweden and the U.K.’s global reputation was built. For we need this now, more than ever before.