Date: 05.11.2010 A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep Understanding Public Support for Aid in the UK Spencer Henson Johanna Lindstrom.

Date: 05.11.2010

“A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep”

Understanding Public Support for Aid in the UKSpencer Henson

Johanna Lindstrom

Structure

Background

What do we know about public attitudes towards aid in the UK?

Modelling public support for aid in the UK:

– Data

– Explanatory variables

– Results

Conclusions

Background

Donors facing challenges in meeting international commitments on aid spending

Different ‘schools of thought’ about drivers of aid

DFID pursued active strategy of public engagement

Great deal of interest in public attitudes more widely

UK relatively data rich….

….but data have been criticised

Have ‘hints’ of what drives support for aid

Lack of in-depth analysis….

….means largely trying to engage ‘in the dark’

What do we know about public support for aid in the UK?

Broad-based support for UK’s aid programme….

….but seems to be slipping

Low levels of saliency

Poverty seen as being caused from ‘within’

Widespread perceptions of corruption and wastage

Limited knowledge– actual and perceived

Level of agreement with the UK government’s commitment to increase its spending on overseas aid to poor countries

Source: COI/TNS (2007-2009)

Proportion of population ‘very concerned’ about level of poverty in poor countries

Source: ONS (2000-2005); COI/TNS (2007-2009)

Mean scores for cause of poverty scales

Source: IDS analysis of data from TNS (2009; 2010)

Level of agreement with statement “The corruption in poor country governments makes it pointless donating money to help reduce poverty”

Estimated expenditure on aid as proportion of government expenditure (2006)

Actual expenditure = 1.1%

Source: Action Aid UK (2006)

But….knowing nothing about development does not stop people having elaborate views!

“I’m sure much of the charity was well intentioned and even some of the government aid. The problem is it hasn’t worked. Why? Much of the money has gone into the pockets of dictators, corrupt politicians and into buying arms. The

remainder came straight back to the government giving it, in the form of contracts. It seems standard practice to give aid to a country only if they spend most of it on

things they don’t want, made by companies in the country giving the aid. The little that got through, possibly by mistake, was wasted on projects that seemed

designed not to work. An example of this is the ‘give the man a bag of flour and he’ll eat for a day, give a man a bag of seed and he’ll eat every day’. Complete rubbish.

Most of the places with real food poverty are subject to drought or floods. That’s why they have no food. Give a man a bag of seed and watch it die in the field. The

most staggering example of this wrong thinking is goats for Africa. Because of cattle grazing and drought there is no grass, so what do they do, buy them a goat and let it eat the trees and bushes. The trees and bushes then die and with nothing to hold

it together the soil blows away. Result desert.” (G4304)

But many gaps in our knowledge…..

What factors drive support for aid?

How much influence do particular factors have?

How do these various factors interact with one another?

How do we move away from the hypothetical?

Makes effective engagement difficult

Why are there so many gaps….?

Very limited academic literature….

….almost no academic literature within UK

Regular polling surveys to date:

– DFID Tracking survey

– Ad hoc surveys for NGOs

Only cursory analysis of polling data

Modelling public support for aid in the UK

Aims to identify most important drivers of support for aid in the UK

Uses data from UK Public Opinion Monitor:– Longitudinal panel– Main data collection July 2010 (n=1,342)

Binary probit model relating support for aid spending to:– Socio-demographic characteristics– Attitudes

Support for aid spending framed in broader terms of changes in government expenditure across 15 areas in context of efforts to address budget deficit

Support for changes in expenditure on government services in context of budget deficit (June 2010)

Support for changes in expenditure on aid to developing countries in order to address the budget deficit (July 2010)

Explanatory variables….

Socio-demographic factors:– Gender– Age– Education– Ethnicity– Having children– Practicing religious faith

Knowledge:– Causes of poverty in developing countries– UK aid to developing countries

‘Attitudinal’ factors:– Global citizen ‘world view’– Moral obligation

– Self-interest:• UK benefit• UK leadership• Personal impacts

– Wastage– Corruption– Priority to domestic poverty

Determinants of support for cutting aid spending as part of measures to address budget deficit

Explanatory Variable Marginal Probability

Demographic Factors

Aged 18 to 24 years (relative to Aged 55+) -20.6%

Aged 25 to 34 years (relative to Aged 55+) -23.4%

Aged 45 to 54 years (relative to Aged 55+) -8.7%

Attitudes

Moral duty to help poor in developing countries -13.3%

Benefits to UK -4.0%

Feel good factor -4.3%

UK leadership -5.8%

Most aid wasted 5.0%

Priority to domestic poverty 12.2%

Agreement with “Most aid given by the UK to developing countries is wasted” by support for cuts in aid spending

Role of policy feedbacks

ProximateDistant

Low Visibility

High Visibility

Aid

Voluntary Donations

Conclusions

Support for aid spending predominantly riven by attitudinal factors

Socio-demographics play a minor role

Key trade-off between moral obligation and prioritising domestic poverty

Perceptions of corruption not a significant factors

Perceptions of aid wastage a secondary driver of support for aid spending

Need for more research….

…. UK Public Opinion Monitor can play a key role