Evidence from John Lowrie to the International Development Committee

Future of UK international aid

I am a retired career human rights and development worker in four “developing” countries including having managed British-funded projects. I have long argued for “Smarter Aid not more Aid” the title indeed of by far my most popular blog.

This is a very wide-ranging review and most welcome but the danger is that it will invite very long and detailed submissions. While all will be well-intentioned the danger is that they might detract from some simple key points. I will therefore be brief and make a few points only.

Firstly far too much decision-making is for expediency.  In recent years in particular and since Brexit promoting trade and fostering good relations with governments has been prioritised at the expense of development projects that require more perseverance if Foreign Aid aims of countering poverty and vulnerability are to be achieved.

That expediency lends itself to favouring “the usual culprits” - the International NGOs (“INGOs” especially British) and the “multinational agencies and development banks” mentioned in the terms of reference.  How often when there is a crisis or a loud collective cry do we suddenly hear of large quick pay-outs to them?  Some of us would argue their impact is questionable and they are far too expensive. UNDP, for example, automatically pockets 8% for its internal costs.

The need to be “seen to be doing something” too often leads to commissioning of more “usual culprits” from the army of ready, willing and plausible but astonishingly expensive “consultants”, invariably of “Western” extraction who always know what is best, often without any need to consult the people affected. (They're good at token consultations.)

We also know that local NGOs have more impact and are cheaper, even if they may be prone to corruption and nepotism, although generally where you find those ills, you will also find them - if you look - within bilateral partners – host governments and INGOs operating there.

In essence that is my argument. Localisation.  We know that self-help works best, especially where the proposed solutions are the ideas that the members of affected groups come up with. Yes, there is much talk of “partnership” as indeed there has been of “localising” Foreign Aid not just in UK but other countries. Former USAID Director Samantha Powers lauded it but in reality very little changed. US NGOs, contractors, and consultants still dominated and of course she did not survive the Donald Trump/Elon Musk “DOGE” onslaught as with almost all of USAID.

True localisation in my opinion remains the main key to more effective Foreign Aid – giving trust to local actors and having the means to ensure it.  People like me have long argued for mid, end and post-project evaluations in order to create deterrent cultures to prevent misuse and undoing of improvements.

I do not think that you should look to British institutions to export their talents. How things are done in the UK do not translate well in other contexts.  Far better for foreign professionals to have the chance to see how it works here and for them to see how best practice could be adopted at home with what they need to do so.

It is the same when you examine UK's undoubtedly good “Development Studies” schools at universities, as is the case too with similar schools in the US, Australia and other “developed countries”. This is where we nurture future Foreign Aid practitioners, but they are overwhelmingly what we can sum up as “White Saviours” and from exactly the same sectors of society that provides all or most of the current crop of Foreign Aid decision-makers – including dare I say it those around your table?

Instead of “expediency” the one word I would suggest to characterise Foreign Aid should “reciprocity”. Whatever the UK does there should be equal and opposite reaction from the exact people for whom we wish give better lives.

Far too much of the current architecture of Foreign Aid belongs to the past when the world order was different. Countries like the UK and our people no longer know what is best - if they have ever known what was best.  Formal mechanisms must be set in-place to allow for local people to participate or to be properly represented in decision-making from outsets, throughout and after “interventions”. Instead of merely dispatching NHS and private sector” experts incorporate appropriate reciprocal arrangements from overseas peers to join them. Every development school here should twin with ones abroad. For every development student that goes overseas for experience, make sure one from there comes to the UK.

In reality it's not just the architecture but the culture. The UK's role must be to find ways to help people help to themselves, not do things or to provide things for them. This might might lack the  instant feel-good” factor but to use a much touted unachieved term in Foreign Aid, it is sustainable.