Countering Waning Trust: Revitalising UK ODA Engagement

In an era of global uncertainty, one might expect that the British public would rally behind efforts to support developing nations. After all, 80% acknowledge the world's heightened dangers and 53% are increasingly concerned about poverty in developing regions. Yet, paradoxically, based on recent YouGov polling, less than half (42%) believe that we should have an international development budget at all. Even more striking, only 33% of people express trust in development NGOs and charities, and a mere 21% are convinced that overseas development assistance (ODA) is effective. This raises important questions about why public support for aid spending in the UK is in free-fall, with economic pressures, shifting domestic priorities, and divisive media narratives all playing a role.

Global challenges such as climate change, conflict, and poverty have never been more pressing. With such high levels of awareness about worldwide dangers, one might expect an underlying recognition of the need for global solidarity. However, this acknowledgment hasn’t translated into robust support for ODA. A significant disconnect exists between the awareness of global crises and the prioritisation of local issues. While many citizens recognise the plight of those in developing nations, there remains a growing perception that domestic issue, such as the rising cost of living and national security, should take precedence.

Western government budgets are under unprecedented pressure. In the UK, austerity measures combined with a relentless cost-of-living crisis have forced policymakers to make hard choices. Taxpayers are increasingly demanding that their money addresses immediate, local needs, which relegates overseas development spending to a lower priority. This sentiment is compounded by the decline in public services, as evidenced by the closure of libraries and other community resources. With voters more focused on immediate domestic concerns, politicians have little to lose by cutting international development spending, and perhaps even gaining favour by prioritising local issues or as seen in recent days, national security.

Media coverage also plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion, and in the case of overseas development spending, the narrative is often fraught with division. Stories that focus on migration, especially those highlighting individuals fleeing conflict, has fostered a “them and us” mentality. When media narratives emphasise differences between citizens and migrants, they feed into a skepticism about the value of spending taxpayers' money overseas. The portrayal of migration issues as problems to be managed rather than focusing on the causes of migration and seeking opportunities for mutual growth further undermines public confidence in ODA.

One of the most damning aspects of the current debate has been a complacency amongst NGOs and international development agencies and the failure to reinforce a compelling case for the efficacy of ODA that responds to the changing landscape. Many citizens remain unconvinced that international development spending not only addresses the immediate needs of developing nations but also tackles the root causes of conflict and forced migration. The message, that strategic ODA can stabilise regions, prevent conflict, and ultimately reduce migration, has been lost amid competing domestic priorities and pervasive media skepticism.

Another critical element is the need to ensure that public money invested in ODA goes further. Public finance should be used to leverage private investment, thereby amplifying both the scale and impact of development initiatives. It is essential that taxpayers are reassured that their money is being used to its fullest potential. Achieving this will require a rethinking of the architecture of development financing and, arguably, a reawakening of the social contract between those in the developed and developing world. The goal should be to establish an international development model that is mutually beneficial, one that fosters strategic investment and shared prosperity rather than one based solely on charitable handouts.

Restoring public support for overseas development spending in the UK requires a multifaceted approach. NGOs and international development agencies must do a better job of demonstrating their relevancy in changing times and how their work positively impacts both those that receive support and those that pay for it. Policymakers need to effectively communicate that supporting international development is not a zero-sum game, but rather a strategy that can enhance domestic security and spur economic growth. Moreover, the media needs to be held to account to present a balanced narrative that avoids unnecessary divisions. In an interconnected world, the stakes are too high for international collaboration to be sidelined, as addressing the root causes of conflict and poverty overseas is not merely an altruistic endeavour but a necessary investment in a more stable and prosperous future.