Since the general election, Boris Johnson has embarked on a month long ‘will he, won’t he’ saga over plans to merge the Department for International Development (DfID) with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Yet, despite condemnation from Shadow DfID Minister Dan Carden, Labour’s former Chair of the International Development Committee Stephen Twigg and a large group of civil society organisations, the merger does not appear to have raised too much concern or debate in the broader Left. Although many hold reasonable suspicions about the condescending charity narratives that are often associated with aid, it is crucial that the Tories’ free-market approach to development is opposed.

The problem with the potential merger is that it would accelerate a trend which has seen aid money (official development assistance or ODA) increasingly redirected towards supporting the UK’s economic and political interests under the government’s “Global Britain” agenda. Whether DfID is fully merged with the FCO, or remains independent under the management of Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab as was suggested last week, the move would see development strategy further repurposed as a means of achieving the government’s foreign policy objectives. That means more ODA going to British companies in sectors (infrastructure, manufacturing, financial services) where Britain is competitive, and more ODA being used as a potential sweetener for post-Brexit free trade deals. 

Yet, largely unnoticed by the Left, this has already been happening for years. DfID was set up by the New Labour government in 1997 to wrest control of aid from the Foreign Office and its “aid for trade” approach. This policy of “tied aid” was exposed during the 1994 Pergau Dam scandal when it emerged that $350m in aid had been given to the Malaysian government in the expectation of the purchase of arms from British companies. In the past decade, although the government has committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas development aid (approximately £14.6bn in 2018), that figure is increasingly diluted with 30% now being spent by other departments (including the FCO and Department for International Trade) to support British business interests. 

This strategy is increasingly about spreading free-market ideology to every corner of the globe; the government is even spending £150m of overseas development aid (ODA) on a Prosperity Fund designed to “facilitate free trade”. Big consultancy firms and corporations, including Adam Smith International, Mott MacDonald and the former Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (itself previously implicated in numerous controversies) are best placed to profit from this strategy and receive millions of ODA each year. 

The government’s development finance bank, CDC Group, which was hit by regular scandals in the end of the New Labour era and early 2010s, is the epitome of this approach. As Global Justice Now has argued, under consecutive Conservative governments CDC has increasingly invested in private education, fossil fuel infrastructure and private healthcare around the world. While the government argues that this “market knows best” approach creates opportunities for “mutual prosperity,” the reality is that it is exacerbating inequalities, locking in carbon emissions and undermining public services for generations to come. 

So what is the alternative? In broad terms, the Left must argue to transform DfID into a Department of International Solidarity with a remit to close global inequalities and compensate for Britain’s colonial history. As others have argued, Labour’s “A World for the Many” strategy, published in 2018, made several important steps forward in this regard, particularly in proposing a new law that would ensure all ODA must tackle inequality as well as poverty.

Other measures included a new commission to explore a global wealth tax, the redirection of investments towards public services, co-operatives and local ownership models, and an advocacy strategy to push multilateral funders (such as the IMF and World Bank) to also take action on inequality. Although this vision will not now be implemented in the near future, it reflected a refreshing approach to development grounded in principles of gender equality, climate justice and peace. For the Labour Party to be a genuinely internationalist force for good, these proposals must be defended.

Likewise, Labour’s commitment to convert CDC into a Green Investment Bank ahead of the election demonstrated an awareness that the government’s financialised approach to development must be tackled, and that all areas of government policy must be aligned with tackling the climate emergency. But more could still be done. In place of the government’s attempts to profit by exporting NHS services overseas, why not attempt to model a universal, international health service, perhaps taking inspiration from Cuba’s internationalist medical programme?

A truly progressive development policy would also require the UK to reckon properly with its colonial role, past and present, in the world, and consider the damaging impact that aid narratives have had in reinforcing stereotypes of the global south. Further commitments on food sovereignty, debt cancellation and a global Green New Deal would also be welcome.

In the years to come, the Left in parliament and civil society has time to develop these proposals, but must also do more political education on the problems with DfID and colonial aid narratives. The government, DfID and CDC must be held to account for the atrocious ways they have used the aid budget to fill the pockets of corporations and suit their own needs. But, rather than doing away with DfID altogether, the Left must be ready to propose a bold, transformative alternative.