Paper short abstract:

This paper assesses how DFID's economic development policy forwards a specific framing of national self-interests alongside development outcomes. It explores how upholding domestic economic interests suggests notable nuances for discourse.

Paper long abstract:

Against a backdrop of overseas development aid's increased domestic scrutiny, whilst maintaining uneasy international commitments to spend 0.7% of GNI on it, The UK Department for International Development (DFID) established an economic development policy focusing heavily on UK-centric outcomes. At first glance, this policy shift echoes how donor countries are increasingly subject to media and/or political accountability to support domestic outcomes even in overseas aid efforts. However, assessing the specific construction of DFID policy rhetoric in its flagship policy text 'Prosperity, Poverty and Meeting Global Challenges' (2017), a shift to unabashedly prioritising domestic outcomes plays into repositioning private capital interests as central to development efforts.

Informed by poststructural policy analysis, this short paper analyses DFID's economic development policy, problematising what it signifies for understandings of poverty, growth, inequality, and aid. Analytical focus is also placed on how demands to make development more accountable to domestic interests can translate into open wielding of the aid apparatus to entrench global power and economic imbalances.

Paper short abstract:

This presentation will look at the role of the major philanthropic Foundations Rockefeller, Ford and Gates'over the past one hundred years and how they have shaped public opinion and development policy, and even media coverage, on foreign aid issues and debates.

Paper long abstract:

This presentation will look at the role of the major philanthropic Foundations over the past one hundred years and how they have shaped public opinion development policy, and even media coverage, on foreign aid. The Rockefeller Foundation dominated up until the WWII with its funding of the Council of Foreign Relations, Chatham House, Ford post-war with Brookings International Food Policy research Institute, IDS, ODI and any number of university think thanks, and finally the Gates' Foundation and it generous grants to media groups such as the Guardian to publish stories on international development.

The question raised by the work of these very large Foundations and the resources they bring to bear in the perceptions of foreign aid is whether this can distort of critical analysis and diverse voices in favour of a doming liberal view. This paper will ask the question whether these Foundations' funding enhance or narrow the range of public opinions and what is good and appropriate development policy.

The presentation will start with a brief overview and touch on the work of the Rockefeller Foundation to provide some contextual background, and then focus in more detail on the work of the Ford and most recently the Gates' Foundations, in how they have 'guided' the policy debates by virtue of the funding they can bring to bear. The presentation is based on archival work by the author for a manuscript, as part of a larger research on the Story of Aid.

Paper short abstract:

Populist radical right parties challenge foreign aid - what about their supporters? Based on panel data, we analyse differences between respondents' attitudes controlled by their party preferences. With a qualitative approach, we analyse congruence between voters' preferences and parties' position.

Paper long abstract:

Foreign aid faces challenges with the rise of populist leaders. Populist radical right parties (PRRPs) tend to question the relevance of development cooperation and many want to cut foreign aid spending. However, we lack understanding about aid attitudes of public opinion according to individuals' support to different parties, as well as the congruence between voters' preferences and parties' positions on this topic. This paper is interested in the links between partisan support and attitudes towards foreign aid. In particular, we want to assess if supporters of populist radical right parties are indeed different from supporters of other parties regarding their attitudes to foreign aid over time, and in which aspects this can be observed. In a first step, we use longitudinal panel data from the Aid Attitudes Tracker (AAT) in France, Germany, the UK and the USA as main source to conduct statistical hypothesis testing and factor analysis. We expect that supporters of PRRPs hold perceptions that are more negative on some aspects of foreign aid, notably its effectiveness and underlying motivations. However, they are not especially different from other party supporters in all assessment categories of foreign aid, a topic that seems to experience a generalized sense of misunderstanding. In a second step, we apply a qualitative approach to discuss the extent to which attitudes of PRRPs supporters meet their party's position on foreign aid.

Paper short abstract:

This paper presents results from two experiments that examine how the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic shapes attitudes toward development aid.

Paper long abstract:

Global pandemics are a serious concern for developing countries when the same pandemic affects donors of development aid. During crises at home, donors often cut aid, which would leave developing countries with even poorer public health capacity during a time of increased demand for health care. Whether donors actually cut aid would depend intimately on how donor citizens respond to crises like pandemics. We conduct two experiments with 887 U.S residents to examine how the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic influences attitudes toward aid. We demonstrate that citizens' concern about the impact of COVID-19 on their country's financial situation reduces their support for aid. If they think that aid can help lessening the future burden of the disease at home by first alleviating its impact in developing countries, they become substantially more supportive of giving aid. In contrast, merely stressing how COVID-19 might ravage developing countries barely change aid attitudes. Our findings have implications for what to expect from donors during a global pandemic as well as how advocates may prevent aid from being cut.

Paper short abstract:

Foreign aid also known as Official Development Aid provided by donor countries does not solely depend on government decisions, it is also affected by trends in public opinion. These trends may have implication for driving development cooperation by promoting aid flow to developing countries.

Paper long abstract:

Foreign aid refers to funds that developing countries benefit from in the form of grants, concessional or unconcessional loans by government or multilateral organizations aimed at promoting economic development and welfare. They form an integral part of the donors' country budget subject to availability and the economic situation in the donor country. The popular opinion that budgetary constraints from economic crisis reduce aid is inaccurate because donor government outlays actually tend to increase. Using data from Eurobarometer, we try to determine if economic crises will lead to reduced public support for helping development in developing countries. Findings from our study will address questions such as: What are the public perceptions and opinions on development aid, what are the roles of the private sector in promoting development? What are the views of the public on the roles of the private sector in development cooperation? How does the European Union (EU) boost private investment and strengthen its partnership to ensure sustainable development on both continents; what are the major challenges to development and the provision of financial assistance to Africa? Our paper contributes to literature on foreign aid by introducing a framework on which insights are built from separate bodies of literature on foreign aid and public opinion and how financial crises can influence aid allocation through voters' opinion.

Paper short abstract:

In the last decade, a dozen Canadian development NGOs have faced potentially fatal funding crises and three such NGOs have gone out of business. This paper analyses how the survival strategies used by these NGOs in crisis interacted with their dying appeals to public opinion, and with what results.

Paper long abstract:

Historically, many Canadian development NGOs have depended heavily on the Government of Canada for funding their activities, reflecting (some would say) their lack of popular support and consequent inability to raise funds directly from the Canadian public. High dependency on government funding can put the NGO's very survival at risk if and when government funding dries up. In the last decade, a dozen Canadian development NGOs have faced potentially fatal funding crises and three such NGOs have gone out of business. This paper asks 1) what survival strategies these NGOs used during their moments of crisis; 2) what appeals, if any, to public opinion the NGOs made; 3) what kinds of appeals for public support they made (e.g. targeted, elite or broad-based appeals; emotive, rational or political); and 4) how the survival strategies interacted with their appeals to public opinion, and with what results. Based on analysis of annual reports and financial statements, key informant interviews and media reports, this paper studies and compares the near-death experiences of Canada World Youth, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Farm Radio International, Kairos, Katimavik, and Match Fund, and the deaths of the Canadian Hunger Foundation, FOCAL and the North-South Institute. We hypothesise that Canadian public opinion is less important for an NGO's survival in such a crisis than smaller, deeper pools of potential supporters such as members, alumni and faith groups. Broad appeals for public support are unlikely to succeed unless accompanied by other, more targeted and concrete measures.