Conservatives on international development: from dog whistle rhetoric to the slightly sickening

I’ve had a chance now to read the Conservative ‘green paper’ on international development.

I’d picked up on the most controversial aspect of the paper from indirect sources, and it made me feel physically sick when I first heard about it.   I’ll come back to that, now I’ve read the full text.

Notwithstanding the consequent difficulty in sober judgment, I’ve tried to read the rest of the paper with an open mind.  Otherwise, there’d not have been much point.

The best I can say of it is that’s it may be broadly well-intentioned.  Fair’s fair, there is an explicit commitment to the 0.7 % of GDP going on international aid, and I can understand perfectly well why, in order to sell that idea to a Conservative party which would much rather abandon the aid budget completely, the authors would want to keep going on about how the Labour government has also been well-intentioned in places, but has never got  handle on effective delivery, and that a Conservative government would spend the 0.7% much better.

That’s fair enough, and a sensible enough way to ‘buy off’ some in-party critics.   Just as an example of same, look at Conservative blogger Iain Dale’s knee-jerk reaction to his party’s own paper: ‘We all know there is massive wastage on some of the projects supported by Dfid and this must be rooted out.‘

No evidence there, no facts, just accepted rightwing dogma that all aid is a waste of taxpayer money.  Then just look below and see how his trolls rush in.

So I can live with some of the anti-Labour rhetoric.  It’s only a Conservative ‘green paper’, after all.

But it’s the detail that gets me worried, and the way in which the apparently desperate need to look and sound different leads to  a very real risk that the proposals, if they were implemented, would have overall negative effects on the quality and quantity of aid delivered and development programmes undertaken.

To be honest, the whole thing looks a little bit hurried.  From the fact that it’s not actually been proof read properly (there’s reference to a December 2009 press release from the Conservatives at p.9) to the multitude of self -contradictions, it just looks like something that’s being banged together by a few junior staff with access to Google, a good feel for Tory rhetoric and a flair for what might sell nicely in  Conservative circles, but little understanding of the reality of international development and aid implementation (personal admission: I do have quite a lot).

Let’s take a few examples.

First, there’s the question of what kind of work will be funded.

We are confidently told (p.18) ‘Aid will pay only for specific, measurable progress, bolstering taxpayer confidence that their support is delivering real result’.

That sounds straightforward, except that three pages earlier (p15), we have been told the opposite – that it’s outcomes that matter:

‘Of course, not all development can be ‘scientifically’ observed, quantified and measured. Some interventions may take years to mature. It is harder to measure outcomes, like how many children receive a quality education, or whether governance has improved, than outputs, like how many schools are built.’

Then there’s how work will be funded.  Apparently, funds will be paid in arrears, to make sure the job gets done:  ’We will adopt and champion the promising idea of ‘cash on delivery’ aid’ (p. 18).

Except that it won’t.  On the very same page, provision is made for payment in advance: ‘And we will need to ensure that developing countries are able to finance the up-front investments necessary to achieve the desired outputs’.

That’s clear then.

And of course there is the obligatory slagging off of the Labour government’s tendency to bureaucracy: ‘ Britain’s aid programme is centralised and bureaucratic: money is taken from people through tax and spent on their behalf by experts in Whitehall’ (p.10). 

So what’s the answer to ensure that the money is spent well?  Yes, the Conservatives will set up an ‘Independent Aid Watchdog’ (p.15), presumably staffed by experts of some kind. 

Yes, your friendly neighbourhood anto-quango Tories will set up a Quango, seemingly not having noticed the reference in their own report (p.17) to the role the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee play in doing exactly that.

Then there’s the fine sentiments about tackling corruption, and the requirement that DfiD reveal any corruption that is uncovered in any programme or project supported by it (p.17).  

Very noble, I’m sure, but written by someone without the slightest idea what s/he is talking about.

What is corruption? Just bribery of public officials, or the capacity of NGO’s using DfId money to outbid for local resources and therefore skew/double track a local/regional economy?  And how far down the supply chain does the rule apply? 

I’m sorry.  This is just real world-free nonsense, set out to appease those on the right like Dale and his trolls and to make the Conservatives sound tough.

The problem is that it’s a nonsense which requires an additional highly paid member of every national DfID team to implement it (whatever that means), at the expense of local knowledge and decision-making.  It’s a nonsense which, if enacted, would actually militate against effective aid by adding a new layer of that much-reviled ‘bureacracy’.

And overall, the problem with the proposals is that they confuse rhetoric with substance.  Looked at closely, there is nothing  in the ‘green paper’ about the actual substance of the aid and development programming; it’s all about tinkering round the edges to keep Daily Mail readers happy.

But keeping the Daily Mail readership happy will come at a cost. 

Nothing substantial will change in the way DfId goes about its business, because there’s a tacit acknowledgment that DfID actually does a pretty good job overall  (this is reflected in what is actually quite a mature new White Paper from DfID itself), not least in its focus on basic services and livelihoods. 

But DfID staff will, if the Conservatives get into power, have to pay lip service to these new bureaucratic checklists and rules, and that will damage the laudable moves within DfID towards enhanced local decision making and respectful engagement with host countries and their governments. 

Despite the rhetoric about empowerment, this Conservative ‘green paper’ is about a withdrawal from the progressive stance taken by DfID over the last decade, and a return of aid as a means of international institutional domination and humiliation.

And of course no greater an example of this is there than the plans to run an ‘X Factor’ style talent show:

We will establish a newMyAid fund, worth £40 million in its first year. Every taxpayer will be able to log on to the MyAid website and view details of ten ongoing DFID-funded aid programmes, and vote for which one they think should receive the extra money. The options will include programmes run directly by DFID, as well as those run by respected NGOs. The Fund will then be distributed between the ten programmes in proportion to how many votes they receive. For example, if 25 per cent of people vote for the DFID programme in Malawi, that programme would receive 25 per cent of the Fund – £10million. Everyone who votes will be kept up to date with regular email updates about the progress of ‘their’ project (p.23).

This is, frankly, just sick, and displays a fundemental lack of respect for people in the developing world. 

Imagine the outcry if this process was proposed for decisions on the level of funding for schools or hospitals in the UK. 

But because it’s just poor people in far away places we’re talking about here, it’s suddenly alright to tinker with lives for the entertainment of people in the UK.

In the end, this abhorrent proposal shows the the ‘green paper’ up for what it is: cheap rhetoric, with a tendency to play dog whistle politics with complex and serious issues, and ultimately a slightly sickening contempt for those about whom all this is supposed to be about.