McLeod Group blog, September 28, 2020
It was déjà vu all over again. On June 16, Prime Minister Boris Johnston announced that the Department for International Development (DFID) would be merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The new department, called the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), is led by the Foreign Secretary. According to the Prime Minister’s Office, “UK aid will be given new prominence within our ambitious international policy. The Foreign Secretary will be empowered to make decisions on aid spending in line with the UK’s priorities overseas, harnessing the skills, expertise and experience that have earned our reputation as a leader in the international development community.”
This will end over 20 years of DFID’s existence as a separate department, with its own minister at the Cabinet table. We have seen this movie before. Canada went through a similar merger in 2013, which has failed to deliver the promised results.
Reactions to the UK merger were negative. Former Prime Ministers David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair condemned the move, saying it would result in less respect for the United Kingdom overseas. Leading international development NGOs used language such as “political vandalism” (Christian Aid), “a brazen challenge to the aid sector” (Oxfam GB), and “reckless, irresponsible and a dereliction of UK leadership” (Save the Children UK). The House of Commons International Development Committee described the move as disruptive and costly. The British aid watchdog, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, a key oversight tool, may have its role curtailed.
Against a backdrop of deep cuts to the British aid budget, justified in part by the contraction of the United Kingdom economy, the government claims that the merger of the two departments is to give Britain even greater impact and influence on the world stage, safeguard British interests and values overseas, and harness the skills, expertise and evidence that have earned Britain the reputation as a leader in the international development community. As was the case in Canada, the new department will be totally integrated, and not have a separate development assistance unit.
Might the DFID-FCO merger be a step in the right direction in these trying times? There is an increased need for holistic and knowledgeable programming in light of the challenges of COVID-19, climate change and growing food insecurity. A merged FCDO, however, risks being distracted from dealing with these issues and from the longstanding UK commitment to poverty reduction by the reorganization, streamlining and downsizing required by the government.
The UK merger offers striking parallels with Canada’s experience of a merged aid-trade-foreign ministry. In 2013, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) was dissolved and its functions absorbed by the then Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which in turn was given the title of Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. With the arrival of the Liberal government in 2015, a further name change was made, to Global Affairs Canada. Among the promises made as to the benefits that would flow from the 2013 merger were:
– coherence in Canada’s international activities
– better representation through embassies and high commissions
– greater effectiveness of Canadian aid
– consistency with other aid donor countries
While the Trudeau government published the Feminist International Assistance Policy in 2017, it has not allocated additional financial resources to support achievement of the policy framework objectives. In fact, official development assistance as a share of national income has dropped under the Liberal government.
No Canadian government under the Conservatives or the Liberals has given a clear accounting to Canadians of what has been gained and lost in the merger. It is clear that the transaction costs of the merger have been substantial and the merger is probably not yet complete. Public servants with deep expertise in international development have lost status in the merged ministry, losing ground to the generalist culture of Global Affairs Canada. Nor is there any public evidence of a more efficient administrative machine as a result of the merger.
So what might UK citizens – and others who work with the UK in international development, to say nothing of people in partner countries – expect from this lurch backward? There will probably be a loss of the sectoral and thematic expertise which has made DFID a particularly effective bilateral and multilateral development partner. The shift to an aid program driven by the UK’s perceived geopolitical and trade interests will be more likely to produce a rerun of the 1997 Pergau Dam fiasco. The DFID emphasis on support for the poorest women and girls will be eroded (currently DFID allocates 65% of its spending on activities with a gender equality component, whereas only 24% of FCO-administered aid has such a dimension). There will be less emphasis on the poorest countries and more attention and money given to wealthier, geo-strategically important countries like Ukraine.
In an insider’s view of DFID and what might follow, Phil Mason wrote a “personal obituary” that captured many of the achievements of the department in its 23-year lifespan. Mason refers to DFID’s “cherished reputation for being nimble, flexible, responsive.” If the Canadian model is followed, there will soon be little nimbleness and flexibility left.
In summary, there will likely be a loss of expertise and prestige. The merger will be seen as penny-wise and pound-foolish and ideologically driven. Canada is no model to follow.