Members of U.K. Parliament who debated the country’s aid benchmark on Monday mostly spoke in favor of spending 0.7 percent of national income, the amount enshrined into national law. But participants were reminded often of the reason for the discussion: A petition protesting aid spending instigated by the right-wing newspaper Mail on Sunday attracted more than 260,000 signatures from U.K. residents, well above the 100,000 required to automatically trigger a parliamentary debate.
At first glance, those involved in the debate fall into two main camps: one believes 0.7 percent is too much, and the other believes it is a responsible amount, or perhaps even too little to tackle the world’s increasingly complex and protracted crises.
But a third — smaller camp — is emerging to question whether benchmarks are an effective tool of boosting and improving aid. Including some aid practitioners, economists and civil servants, these aid stakeholders believe aid benchmarks are a mistake, and place too much emphasis on quantity over quality. The ongoing public scrutiny of aid in the U.K. has brought those concerns to the forefront, shifting the conversation from if to how donor countries should reach the 0.7 target.
About the author
Molly Andersmollyanders_dev
Molly Anders is a former U.K. correspondent for Devex. Based in London, she reports on development finance trends with a focus on British and European institutions. She is especially interested in evidence-based development and women’s economic empowerment, as well as innovative financing for the protection of migrants and refugees. Molly is a former Fulbright Scholar and studied Arabic in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Morocco.
