What Will Happen to British Development Policy If (When) the Tories Win Next Year?

December 4, 2009

In the UK, the Conservative Party is leading soundly in the polls and appears likely headed to win elections sometime next spring. What would a David Cameron-led government mean for British development policy–and especially the future of DFID?

We got a window into what may happen yesterday when we hosted Andrew Mitchell, the shadow secretary of state for international development, ostensibly the man in line to take over DFID if there is indeed a change in government. Mitchell’s pithy and energetic speech was largely based on the party’s “green paper” which lays out its own strategy to fight global poverty. The Tory plans include many elements that you would expect from the party of John Major and Margaret Thatcher: emphasis on taxpayer value, promotion of the private sector, and more reliance on the market. (My favorite line from the exec summary: “We bring a natural scepticism about government schemes.”). But here are my main take-aways, which include some surprises:

1. Development policy is now mainstream and bipartisan in Britain. Mitchell was exceedingly positive about DFID and reiterated that his party has no plans to diminish its role or radically change its autonomy. (Unlike 1970 and 1979 when new Conservative governments demoted the aid agency and put it under the Foreign office.) He also explained that the party intends to keep the aid budget high, including the target of reaching 0.7% of national income by 2013. I think such aid targets are deeply flawed (see my paper with Michael Clemens on what’s wrong with 0.7%) but this pledge is an indicator of how strong the domestic British constituency for aid has become – and how different, still, from the United States.
2. Democracy is likely to be more prominent. Responding to a question from the Carnegie Endowment’s Tom Carothers, Mitchell was very clear that the Tories will be less apologetic than Labour about promoting democracy. This seems likely to change the tenor of British engagement in places from Pakistan to Uganda (and hopefully in Zimbabwe).
3. Britain will experiment more with aid innovations. Although Mitchell said the UK will continue to provide budget support for the better-performing recipients, there will be a much higher bar and a clearer link to outcomes. The party is a big fan already of Cash on Delivery Aid, see for example this 2-minute video from the Tory website. Their idea of allocating some aid funding to projects based on taxpayers online votes is also potentially interesting, at least as an indicator of public preferences.

All of this suggests that Britain, no matter who wins the next elections, is not about to discard its role as a leading edge in development thinking. And that developmentistas who might have been in a panic about a Cameron government should instead welcome an opportunity for fresh ideas. It’s happened before: after all, who would have predicted that George Bush would be the instigator of the biggest revival in U.S. development efforts in at least a generation?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1. Marcel A. Says:
   December 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

   Over the past fifty years, the United States and many other developed countries have made an extraordinary effort to help developing countries. Billions of dollars in development-related assistance has been transferred from rich countries to Africa and many other poor nations. And yet poverty levels continue to escalate, development rates have steadily declined and millions of people continue to suffer. Has this assistance improved the lives of Africans and other citizens? No. In fact, across Africa and in many other poor nations, the recipients of this aid are no better off as a result of it, but in reality worse – much worse. Now the questions become should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth with non wealthy nations by providing such things as food, education and health care? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poor nations to look after their citizens themselves? How can rich countries help poor countries develop into self-governed, self-sufficient nations?
   Previous historical heritage, socio-political culture and corruption are the main factors that are delaying the economic and democratic development of poor nations. As someone who comes from a poor country, I more than anyone understand what it is like to grow up in a place where famine, diseases, inequality are part of daily life, power is seized through corruption and violence. I more than anyone want to see a different future for my family, friends and all people of my country. However, I fear that this day may never come. As long as these abuses of power continue without consequence, it will be impossible for people to create positive, lasting changes. They will instead have no choice but to fight for their very survival through whatever means are available, even if this means destroying their neighbor in the process. And so everyone left behind will learn once again, that there is no hope for a better life, and the vicious cycle continues.
   Corruption undermines the effectiveness of a government by limiting its transparency and accountability, limits the growth of small businesses, and drives away foreign investors and leave people hopeless in misery and poverty. Increasing aid and market access for poor countries makes sense but will not do that much good. Wealthy nations should also push other measures that could be far more rewarding, such as giving the poor more control over economic policy, financing new development-friendly technologies, and opening labor markets.
   With the development of global economic, more and more people have a better life than decades ago. However, in some area of world, there also have poorer countries where people don’t have sufficient food to eat, good education or health care. I think that, not only should wealthy country help poor country, but poor country should try their best to give their citizens a better quality of life, in a democratic, independent justice system and accountable develop nations.

2. Jiesheng Says:
   December 9th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

   One thing to note however is that DFID under the Conservatives will be tasked to work more in line with the FCO. This may all well be in the spirit of development, but it may throw DFID into a USAID/US MCC style organisation and not an independent department.

3. Jiesheng Says:
   December 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

   Also whiile Bush may have increased aid, most of his aid went to strategic interests in the ME and not development projects.

We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.