Introduction to myself:
My name is Judit Arvidsson, and I am writing this submission as a student of Politics and International Relations, as well as a British taxpayer, with a deep interest in the effective distribution of UK Aid. I believe the government's decision to reduce the UK Aid budget by 0.3% was a significant mistake, and it is now more than ever essential that this budget is spent in the most cost-effective way.
Submission:
How can the UK Government align its development work with taxpayers expectation, and ensure value for money?
- FCDO must focus on the most cost-effective, evidence-based interventions, the global top 1%, to ensure limited funds achieve the highest possible impact, especially in the context of tightening UK Aid funds.
- While local adaptation is necessary for implementation, deploying rigorously tested, standardised interventions delivers consistent, high-impact results across contexts.
- Most notably, the combined protocol for treating malnourished children, costing only $918 per child, can be scaled up quickly to reach substantially more children in need.
How should the Government be prioritising UK Official Development Assistance in the coming years?
- Grant aid should end for at least 30 upper-middle-income countries (excluding Ukraine), as these nations have sufficient domestic resources. Instead, the UK should use loans and blended finance in such contexts to free up hundreds of millions annually for LDC programmes.
- Grant funding should be concentrated in LDCs and select crisis-affected lower-middle-income countries (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan), ensuring ODA is directed toward poverty reduction and humanitarian need rather than broader commercial or diplomatic goals.
- A particular prioritisation should also be granted to Africa, where most extreme poverty is concentrated, allocating a proposed 55% of the bilateral budget to Africa by 2026/27 and 60% by 2028/29.
- With ongoing aid budget cuts, focusing on countries with the highest need and least capacity ensures the remaining ODA delivers the greatest welfare gains and reaches the most marginalised people.
Where is reform needed in multilateral agencies and development banks the UK is a member of, and funds?
- The UK should continue backing institutions like Gavi, the Global Fund, and IDA, which consistently deliver strong results and remain affordable even within a tighter ODA budget.
- To improve efficiency and match high-income country norms, the UK should increase the multilateral share of its programmable aid to above 45%, focusing on organisations with proven cost-effectiveness. Such as:
A) Bilateral Malaria Control - Mosquito nets cost only $38 per DALY averted, and Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention achieves $18-79 per DALY, with deaths prevented for $533-2,257 each. These figures are backed by strong multi-country RCT evidence published in The Lancet Global Health.
B) Teaching at the Right Level - Considered a "Great Buy" by the World Bank 2020, achieving the highest learning-adjusted years of schooling per $100 spent on education. J-PAL evidence demonstrates 10× greater cost-effectiveness than traditional education programs.
- Before creating new funds, the UK should assess fragmentation risks and encourage multilaterals to focus on their strengths rather than expanding into areas better handled by others.
- Reform should ensure grants and highly concessional loans are ring-fenced for lower-income countries and used for areas like human capital and resilience, where long-term benefits are high but financial returns are low.