At a recent event on international development, hosted by the Global Campaign for Education, there was seemingly little difference between the comments of the Labour minister and the Conservative shadow minister in attendance. Increasingly, on issues concerning developing countries, there appears to be a general consensus between the two parties. Cameron has even pledged to continue levels of spending on international development should he take power.
But is development really now ‘apolitical’?
Certainly the context for development has changed significantly in recent years, shaped by a number of key trends. Firstly, since 2000 there has been an unprecedented focus on development issues, with a rise in political commitments enshrined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which have formed the framework for development thinking and analysis since their inception.
Secondly, this has led to an increasing emphasis on effectiveness. With massive increases in spending for development, the question of what impact it is having has rightly been asked. And the emerging results are mixed. In education, for example, universal primary enrolment has been a key MDG target but evidence is emerging of low retention rates and many children in the poorest countries leaving school still unable to read and write. Development ministers, in the UK and elsewhere, are increasingly under pressure to demonstrate results.
Thirdly, there are new challenges to traditional models of development. China, for example, is a country which has been able to pull millions out of poverty through government design rather than external aid effectiveness. Its lack of movement on human rights and social welfare present a challenge to those who would advocate social development. And China is increasingly an aid donor itself, building relations with countries across Africa which also challenge conventional aid conditionalities and approaches.
Finally, all these issues are being brought into sharp relief in the context of the current ‘credit crunch’ and global financial turmoil. Concerns vary significantly across countries, but clearly there will be impacts for developing countries on exports, foreign investment, exchange rates, interest rates, remittances and aid. For the last of these, it is difficult to make predictions but it seems likely that if developed governments’ spending were to contract, development aid would be one of the first contenders for cuts.
These trends means that ever stronger political arguments are needed for prioritising international development – despite the willing audience seemingly offered by both of the main parties in the UK. Moreover, if there is unprecedented spending on development, and in the context of a global tightening of belts, then the need to demonstrate concrete outcomes becomes ever more pressing.
So, what room is there for Labour to carve out an agenda which can separate itself from Conservative pledges? The approach from the Conservative party to date has emphasised the apolitical nature of development; paternal Tories are increasingly comfortable with recognition of the need to ‘help’ others. Yet while they have made the link between investment in development and the outcomes from it, little in the way of new approaches is offered regarding how best to achieve effective development.
At the same time, those on the right have traditionally shied away from appearing to meddle in the affairs of others – whether families, the private sector, or other countries. Yet it is politics which is crucial to development outcomes.
There has historically been a big focus on creating effective political institutions to support development, such as functioning parliaments, processes for transparency and accountability and so on. But the missing component has been an understanding of existing political culture and how it can be progressively changed. State institutions and processes do not operate in a social vacuum –their success or otherwise lies in the extent to which people identify, understand and subscribe to them. This does not have to be linked to the ruling party or form of government or even to a particular model of democracy, but it does involve the explicit recognition of the political nature of development assistance.
I saw this firsthand in a recent visit to Northern Uganda. I witnessed a dependency culture, understandable in the post-conflict context, which meant that aid programmes, rather than acting as a catalyst for social action were often reinforcing a lack of agency and a dependency on external funds.
This Labour government has managed to achieve a step-change in approaches to development, ensuring that both of the main parties are signed up to investing in developing countries. But a crucial remaining gap is the lack of understanding of the key levers for incentivising behaviour change and shifts in political culture that support developmental outcomes. This could be one way of marking out a dividing line with the Conservatives, but more importantly, it would increase the effectiveness of the aid that the UK is currently committed to spending. For too long, questions of politics have been kept separate from those of development; now is the time to recognise the important links which exist.