There is a moral case for foreign aid and development spending, but the benefits of aid go beyond altruism. By investing in aid the UK has cemented global ties, and bolstered its place in the world. Olivia O'Sullivan, director of the UK in the World Programme at the Chatham House thinktank, tells Policy Insights what the recent foreign aid cuts will mean for the UK's international clout.
How do nations commonly define soft power?
We are talking at a timely moment because Joseph Nye, the Harvard academic who coined the phrase, died recently. His conception of soft power is the ability to affect others “through attraction rather than coercion”. He was initially writing as the Cold War came to an end and, alongside the geopolitical and hard power reasons behind the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a soft power element, too. People in the Soviet Bloc—not all of them but many—saw the type of society that the United States offered as attractive, as a compelling vision of prosperity.
We get a little bit lost in the UK when we define soft power as a brand. We think about it in terms of whether people are well disposed to us and the cultural products associated with us, things like Harry Potter and the Premier League. That might be important but there is something a little more profound when it comes to soft power. It’s about offering a vision of society that other people find compelling.
Does Nye’s definition still hold up today?
It’s a very durable and useful definition. But things are more complicated now. He conceived it at a time when US soft power was dominant, or at least appeared to have won the argument. We are in a more complex age now. There’s a practical question about whether aid leads to developed and developing countries having closer relationships. And there’s a larger question about whether western countries offer the most attractive path to prosperity.
To what extent is foreign aid a means of exerting soft power?
Foreign aid has all kinds of purposes. One is straightforwardly the moral case, but another is solving problems that are not contained within the borders of a nation state. These are shared problems such as controlling pandemics or dealing with climate change—broader internationalist projects which are not necessarily about reflecting soft power. Another is an enlightened self-interest play where a stable, wealthier world produces fewer shocks, fewer uncontrolled migration flows, fewer conflicts.
Finally, foreign aid is a channel through which countries relate to each other. By being seen as a country that plays its part in solving global problems beyond narrow self-interest, you get positive reflections back on your national image. It might pay off in the long-term but it’s very difficult to control, and to engineer.
Arguably, if you try to control soft power too closely, you can extinguish what’s powerful about it. Rather than seeking to deliver something transactional, if you project a certain vision of prosperity and values to the world, you may well win people over.
What is the likely impact of the government’s decision to reduce aid spending to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI)?
Not only is the government reducing aid spending, it continues to spend a significant portion of that budget on accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. This is within the rules of how OECD countries can spend aid but it’s pushing at the edges of what’s acceptable.
By share of GNI, this is the lowest UK spend since 1999. So one would logically conclude that it’s likely to have an impact. However, it’s a complicated landscape. You can’t control what people think about aid. Nevertheless, when we cut aid precipitously, it disrupts relationships and disrupts the sense of the UK as a reliable partner. For a long time the UK was considered a country that exercised a lot of good policy thinking about development. Withdrawing from that role affects our relationship with countries that share those goals.
Does the very act of announcing reduced aid spend have a detrimental impact on soft power?
Donor countries look for leadership and, if they see others reducing their ambition, it can create a loss of momentum. In and of itself, it shifts the way others see the UK.
What impact has President Trump’s decision to freeze USAID spending had on US soft power?
There’s a shared understanding—not just among recipients but other donor countries, too—that the US does tend to stump up on aid and global issues. This decision marks a big shift away from that position.
On soft power, think about our own complicated view of America. Think about how everything—from the Marshall Plan to the country’s cultural output—adds up to our view of the United States, and how that might be influencing the way we interact with them diplomatically. Straightforwardly, there’s no question that withdrawing from working with other countries on global problems and supporting wider economic development will have an effect.
Will other countries fill the soft power gap left by the UK, US and others?
It’s certainly the case that wealthy and powerful nations, including more autocratic countries like China, will fill the gap, but they will act in different ways. They will act in their own geopolitical interest. Clearly China sees a purpose in building relations with countries in the Global South, for example.
China is one country ready to fill the gap. Are there others?
Yes but they’ll do it in different ways. If you look at Gulf countries, for example, they have been more inclined to provide funding but it is often with an eye on their own geopolitical interests and in their own regions. The gap left by the US funding freeze will be really difficult for any one country to fill.
Does India identify an opportunity?
India is keen to position itself as a voice for the Global South. That’s an ambition that it has held for some time and the US stepping back may play into that. It’s too early to say but it’s certainly a narrative India is keen to tell.
Does the UK need to do more with less?
Certainly this is a moment to think beyond the old models of aid. It’s time to consider how to consolidate efforts, ways to make international institutions more effective. But it is not going to be easy. The cuts are coming at a time when there are real calls on funding to support climate mitigation. The UK has an international climate finance target of £11.6bn from 2021 to 2026. It will be difficult to hit that and meet other needs at the same time.
