Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Ivica Petrikova
(Royal Holloway, University of London)
Melita Lazell (University of Portsmouth)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
- Stream:
- Politics and political economy
- Location:
- Palmer 1.08
- Sessions:
- Thursday 29 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
This panel aims to interrogate the causes and consequences of inward-turning policies adopted by many countries in response to the climate crisis and related challenges, including the Covid-19 pandemic and increasing domestic as well as international migration.
Long Abstract:
Our Anthropocene world is increasingly negatively affected by the climate and other environmental crises, with a growing incidence and scale of natural disasters, deepening poverty and inequalities, and increasing domestic and international migratory flows. Whilst these global problems call for global responses, this panel proposes to investigate an opposing trend - i.e., the nationalist or inward turns of some countries' policies and approaches. One example is recent UK development policy. Whilst the UK government has promoted the country's post-Brexit 'global Britain' stance in its policy discourse, in reality it reduced the provision of development assistance as proportion of GNI from 0.7% in 2020 to 0.5% in 2022. Moreover, in 2022 it is estimated that more than half the alleged aid funding was spent domestically rather than externally, particularly to pay for refugee housing (Dercon, 2022).
The proposed panel seeks research articles that examine similar inward-looking policy turns in the UK or other countries, in the aid sector or other ones, such as immigration, education, trade, energy, or foreign investment. The panel also welcomes theoretical contributions that consider the global retrenchment or deglobalisation from theoretical or normative perspectives, as well as contributions deliberating ways through which countries could be encouraged to engage more constructively in finding global solutions to global problems.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Thursday 29 June, 2023, -Helen Abnett (University of Birmingham)
Paper short abstract:
This paper provides empirical data to identify whether and how English and Welsh charities working on development issues overseas have experienced a retrenchment in government funding, and considers the theoretical implications of changes in income source distribution for these charities.
Paper long abstract:
This paper empirically tests whether and how English and Welsh international development charities have experienced a recent retrenchment in government funding, and considers the theoretical implications of any such changes.
It has been widely argued that acceptance of government funding can compromise international development charities’ autonomy, legitimacy, and representativeness. One solution proposed to such challenges is that these charities should diversify their funding - away from a reliance on government, towards philanthropic support. A retrenchment in government funding may be seen as an opportunity for these organisations to move beyond being considered ‘agents’ of government.
However, voluntary funding is itself also beset by concerns, not least ‘philanthropic particularism’ (Salamon, 1987), and the replacement of consistent public policy with stopgap charitable efforts.
This research draws on prior work that analysed the income distributions of 316 English and Welsh international development charities, and identified 32 such charities that were reliant on government funding in the pre-covid period (2015-2018), receiving a combined governmental income of £1.9 billion. The current paper explores changes in the income breakdowns of all 32 of these organisations, identifying whether and how the income distribution of these organisations changed in each year 2019 – 2022, and comparing this to topline figures available for the wider English and Welsh charity sector.
This case will allow us to identify, quantify and theoretically analyse any reduction in government aid spending through these INGOs, contributing to an enhanced understanding of the consequences of the UK government’s reduction in aid spending.
Ivica Petrikova (Royal Holloway, University of London)
Paper long abstract:
In previous research, we have explored how despite the ‘Global Britain’ discourse, the UK has turned increasingly inwards in many policy sectors, a trend intensified following the Brexit referendum (Lazell & Petrikova, 2023). For example, since the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK reduced its development aid commitment from 0.7% Gross National Income (GNI) to 0.5%. Moreover, it is estimated that this year, 2022, the UK spent most of its aid funds on domestic issues rather than externally, particularly to pay for refugee housing (Dercon, 2022).
In this article, I explore this ‘deglobalisation’ or ‘retrenchment’ trend in four major Western economies – the UK, US, France, and Germany, in three sectors - development assistance/climate finance, trade, and immigration. I hypothesise that the paradox observed in the increasingly nationalistic ‘Global Britain’ when it comes to aid provision can be observed more widely, beyond the UK and in a wider range of sectors. If real, this trend will certainly complicate efforts within the UN’s Common Agenda to improve the management of global commons and global public goods.
Melita Lazell (University of Portsmouth)
Paper short abstract:
This paper will bring a new framework for understanding development policy and aid allocation that takes account of a new political landscape.
Paper long abstract:
Speaking specifically to the 'inward turning policies adopted to many countries’, and drawing on fresh quantitative and qualitative research, this paper argues that development aid as an act of solidarity, economic justice or redistribution, which has always been undermined by donor interest and colonialism, has now been eroded by decades of securitisation, the rise in populism and a move to the right in many donor countries. Within this context, aid has been reconfigured in two ways. Firstly, it is used as an additional fund to protect national borders in a limited way. This differs from the securitisation of development programmes, which sought to bring about liberal transition through development interventions and is influenced by the nationalist turn in politics. Secondly, the ODA budget has been politicised in order to win votes against a backdrop of increasingly populist politics. Thus, current concepts of aid, and securitisation as a framework to understand aid, are no longer sufficient. This paper sets out a new conceptual framework for understanding development policy and aid allocation that takes account of this new landscape. This new framework – the ‘nationalisation’ of foreign aid - is based upon an empirical investigation of the UK as core OECD donor. We systematically evaluate four dimensions of international development intervention: policy, institutional context, aid allocation and impact, to build a new framework for understanding aid and development practice, which goes beyond securitisation.