Editor’s note: Devex Pro subscribers are invited to join U.K. Correspondent William Worley and a panel of experts on Friday, May 20, for a special deep dive into the country’s new international development strategy. If you’re not a subscriber yet, you can sign up for a free trial to join.
The U.K. government's new international development strategy was widely criticized Monday, and even those who found reasons for optimism were cautious in their reactions.
Many feared that the long-awaited document advocated “aid for trade” and signaled the country’s continued retreat from international development following the government’s recent aid cuts, which saw £4.6 billion slashed from the budget.
UK development strategy to put 'economic power at the centre'
The United Kingdom's long-awaited international development strategy emphasizes trade and investment.
There was also a wide sense among development experts that the strategy lacked an aid philosophy, ambition, detail, and that it was a missed opportunity amid the converging global crises that international development policy is intended to tackle.
"This scant document is little more than a rehash of existing slogans when what the aid sector needs is vision,” said Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee of politicians, which monitors the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office’s work.
“The strategy’s shortcomings signal the UK’s loss of leadership in global development,” said Stephanie Draper, the CEO at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs. “The UK has missed a golden opportunity to properly rethink its role on the world stage.”
The strategy highlighted U.K. interests and had a strong geopolitical streak, but it confirmed that U.K. contributions to multilateral organizations would decrease to make way for bilateral priorities. It also lacked thematic and geographical budgets and made little mention of tackling poverty, though FCDO maintained that helping the poorest was still an objective.
“There is a real danger that this strategy is all mouth and no trousers,” said Romilly Greenhill, U.K. director at the ONE Campaign, which campaigns against extreme poverty. She added that it “will only be successful if it is matched by real investment and political will.”
The strategy also risked missing ”the critical moment we are currently in,” she said. As COVID-19, conflict, climate, and their economic aftershocks interact, Greenhill said it was “alarming to see the UK reducing support for the very multilateral institutions needed to respond to these shared threats.”
“What will be the impact of [increasing bilateralism at the expense of multilateral support] on the major global challenges such as high levels of debt holding back development?” asked Mark Miller, director of development and public finance at the Overseas Development Institute think tank. “Britain cannot solve these on its own.”
Greenhill said her organization had “sincere concerns about a strategy that disproportionately prioritises aid for trade over tackling the converging crises risks.”
Aside from increased bilateralism, the strategy’s other main announcement was the promotion of trade and investment projects under the umbrella of “British Investment Partnerships.” The document also said that “British expertise” would be key, opportunities would be created for U.K. businesses, and some investments would be made “where there are compelling trade and investment opportunities.”
“The UK has missed a golden opportunity to properly rethink its role on the world stage.”
— Stephanie Draper, CEO, Bond“Many lower income countries are already in a full-blown debt crisis,” said Heidi Chow, executive director at Debt Justice. “The last thing they need is more loans.”
Champion said aid for trade was “dangerous.”
“It can distort the core, legally-stipulated purpose of our assistance - which is to support the poorest. … [This] should not be conditional on a trade deal or agreeing to investment partnerships,” she said.
But the response to the strategy’s geopolitical approach to development was more nuanced. Citing the Marshall Plan for reconstructing Europe after World War II, Miller said: "Linking international development aid to geopolitical ambitions need not necessarily be a bad thing. … But we do need any plan to actually deliver. This means trade has to be part of a more joined-up, outward-looking economic strategy for the UK.”
About the author
William Worley@willrworley
Will Worley is the Climate Correspondent for Devex, covering the intersection of development and climate change. He previously worked as UK Correspondent, reporting on the FCDO and British aid policy during a time of seismic reforms. Will’s extensive reporting on the UK aid cuts saw him shortlisted for ‘Specialist Journalist of the Year’ in 2021 by the British Journalism Awards. He can be reached at william.worley@devex.com.
