Report Critique: Fake Aid

In September of 2009, the International Policy Network, a think-tank based in London, published a report titled “Fake Aid.” In it, they alleged that the UK government had spent more that 1 billion pounds on “fake aid.” The allegations of this report have a strong impact on the UK’s public and cultural diplomacy. Today, the giving of foreign aid is a major part of public and cultural diplomacy. Allegations that the UK’s foreign aid practices are not legitimate damages their standing within the international community. Additionally, the report argues that some of the funding, intended for NGO’s, actually go to practices that “smack of propaganda” and actually have domestic political involvement. These allegations are also damning.

The report focuses on the spending of the Department for International Development. The spending of this department is split into four different sectors: Partnership Programme Arrangments, Civil Society Challenge Fund, Development Awareness, and Strategic Grants. The first of these , Partnership Programme Arrangements, describes the spending directly intended for development support work. The report criticizes the DfID for its organization in choosing the NGOs that benefited from this aid. The report states that only 8 of 27 member NGOs were “assigned funding through accountable tendering procedures, while the majority

were simply hand-picked by DfID,” (Boin 2009, 8). Furthermore, they argue that the DfID stopped accepting new applicants, with the same few organizations sharing the growing amount of funds. The also argue that DfIDs requirement that funding is dependent on NGO’s “significant engagement in DfID policy formulation.” (Boin 2009, 8) politicizes the supposedly autonomous organizations.

The report further lambasts the DfIDs funding of the Development Awareness Fund. The purpose of this fund is to promote awareness in the UK of international development issues, “primarily to people in Britain,” (Boin 2009, 15). Funding for this purpose amount to approximately 6 million pounds in the 2008-2009 year, and has amounted to over 50 million pounds since 1999. The report says of the DAF, “It is unclear how these projects improve the lives of people in poor countries. They smack of propaganda.” (Boin 2009, 15). However, they acknowledge that the purpose of spending lies in domestic awareness and motivation. It cites various student programs and organizations, and well as programs designed to motivate people toward more international development based thinking, like buying Fair Trade goods. Essentially, the report seems to be arguing that spending on domestic awareness is “fake”. However, it is arguably a vitally necessary part of foreign aid donation towards international development. In order to be able to keep giving aid from taw-payer dollars, the state must have the support of its citizens, so they must make its necessity a part of the public consciousness. Additionally, domestic awareness programmes like student and youth programmes ensure that there is a future generation who are active in foreign aid work, which in necessary. However, the report seems to be criticizing any student or youth involvement as indoctrinization of youth involvement.

The report further criticizes spending for Strategic Grants, which are grants to organizations “international development is not their main focus,” (Boin 2009, 17). The report argues that such spending is directly against the purported goals of international development. For example, they criticize the donation of fund to the domestic Trade Unions Congress. However, they fail to consider that some organizations, like the TUC, who might not have the express purpose of international development, may be able to make policies which benefit such development. For example, while the TUC is a national council, it also supports international trade union rights, (Trade Union Congress). Meanwhile, it is able to make domestic policies that could benefit economic development, like policies that support fair trade institutions.

Essentially, the entire report seems to be criticizing the very institution of foreign aid in the UK, with out explicitly saying so. They use particularly aggressive and inflammatory language, and over dramatize the quantity of spending. However, they do not propose specific changes or offer a proposed reasonable spending amount. Some of their criticisms of the DfID, like its need to have more fair tendering process in choosing NGOs for PPA funding, do seem legitimate. However, their argument against Domestic Awareness funding simply does not address its logical necessity, and therefore costs it credibility. In general, while this report may ruffle some feathers domestically, and cause for some restructuring of the DfID, it will have little impact on the UK’s foreign aid reputation in the international community.

Work Cited

Boin, Caroline, Julian Harris, and Andrea Marchesetti. Fake Aid. London: International Policy Network, 2009. Print.

Trade Union Council, http://www.tuc.org.uk/. London, 2011. Website.