David Cameron has made overseas development one of his two untouchable areas for spending growth. I share his view that rich countries should assist less fortunate nations towards self-sufficiency.
But laudable and altruistic while his policy may be, will the public support it while unemployment is high, the economy is in turmoil and they perceive growing poverty in Britain? Will voters endorse his philanthropic use of their money overseas when they may consider it better spent at home?
I believe that unless he qualifies very clearly how he will make every penny count, this policy could come back and bite him.
Hard.
The British public has a splendid reputation for individual generosity towards the world’s disadvantaged. Since its inception, Comic Relief has generated over £600 million. In 2005 alone, UK donors gave an estimated £8.9 billion to charity, averaging almost £150 per person. Even accounting for corporate giving, and those who cannot or will not give, this is impressive.
Much individual giving is based on emotion. Most people see themselves as saving the donkey, or sending the cow. They relate to causes that interest or move them, and once committed, will continue to support them for years.
Or, at least, while they can afford to.
While major events like Comic Relief continue to attract increased donations during the recession, the same is not true for individual charities. It has become cruelly clear that the first economy many people make in harder times is in their charitable giving.
So how will they feel about more of their taxes going in that direction? When DFID’s current annual budget is £9.1 billion, will voters accept further growth? Sure, DFID aims to find 1.7% in efficiency savings this year, but will that mollify anyone on jobseekers’ allowance?
Acolantus has a modest track record in overseas development and he can assure you that its bureaucracy and inefficiency is staggering.
DFID, Comic Relief and most other funding agencies do not spend money directly on development. They rely instead on those charities we support to do it for them, since in most cases, they are professionals in their fields. But it could be argued that the development sector is overcrowded.
It may come as a surprise, but there are over 400 overseas development charities in UK alone, many working in the same sectors. Their infrastructure costs mean that very few of them could operate on individual giving alone. They therefore compete for much of their project funds to the funding agencies; DFID, Comic Relief et al. And their proposals are usually based on their own agendas, rather than complying with a strategic, synchronised oversight of priorities.
Inevitably, their proposals are frequently unsuccessful. Consequently, some charities have closed and others have cut staff.
This perpetual competition for project funds involves costly, often unproductive duplication of effort and consumes a considerable proportion of individual donors’ money. I wonder how many of them know that. And I wonder how many realise that it is not their money that is funding much of the delivery of the projects they hold dear, but money from funding agencies, which in most cases comes from taxes.
Equally, funding agencies such as DFID employ expensive staff to evaluate applications and award project contracts. They also evaluate performance, although it could be argued that greater rigour could be applied. DFID has offices in 72 overseas countries that also initiate project competition, award contracts and conduct evaluations.
So we have a risible position where:
- Much of donors’ money funds infrastructure, not projects.
- Charities need projects to deliver what their donors expect.
- DFID et al need charities to deliver development.
- Charities have to compete for projects and often fail.
- Charities can develop and carry out projects to their own agendas and priorities.
- Duplication of project type, and therefore staff costs, is frequent.
- Charities are allowed to submit their own interim and final evaluations.
- External evaluation and quality audit is insufficiently rigorous.
- Incoherence and lack of coordination reign.
If David Cameron wants to sell growth in international development to a cash strapped electorate, he might consider:
- Insisting that charities operating in the same sectors amalgamate, or become consortia, to provide greater efficiency, economy of scale and value to the taxpayer.
- Informing those charities that will not work together that they will not be awarded taxpayer-funded projects.
- Committing DFID to ensuring that only projects that deliver large-scale coherent and progressive development growth are funded.
- Ensuring that DFID works much more closely alongside charities in the field to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently and to maximum effect.
Then, just maybe, he will be able to persuade the electorate that his policy is acceptable to a country with 1.5 million unemployed.
I hope he can. The alternative, for both Britain and the developing world, would be tragic
No comments:
Post a Comment