17 March 2025
This piece is the first in a series produced following a collaborative workshop series co-hosted by the Development Engagement Lab and OECD DevCom, titled, ‘Broadening the Consensus and Engaging Critics for International Development Cooperation.’
Recent announcements of foreign aid cuts by OECD governments have shaken the development sector. But does the public support really aid cuts? How can development organisations better understand their critics, and shift their communication strategies accordingly? Molly Anders of the Development Engagement Lab explores these questions and shares 5 useful ways to frame the development message.
In recent months, several OECD countries have announced big cuts to foreign aid. Their announcements have taken many people by surprise and have been hotly debated in the media. The development sector is shaken.
In this climate, it is important to ask whether people in OECD countries actually support development assistance. How can development organisations better understand their critics, and how should they shift their communication strategies in response? Is there anything communicators can say or do differently to bolster public support for development work?
Let’s start with the facts: Is support for aid actually low?
The Development Engagement Lab (DEL) tracks support for development co-operation in Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States. Its research reveals that despite a downward trend since 2019 – and steeper drops in some countries since 2023 – majorities of the public in Germany, France and the U.S. still agree with maintaining or increasing aid budgets.
Who are the critics?
If support remains high, then, who are the “negatively engaged” – the critics?
DEL finds that the number of “negatively engaged” citizens in the four countries they studied is surprisingly small: between 3-9% of national populations. This group skews younger and male, except for in Germany, where the negatively engaged tend to be older.
What’s more, this “negatively engaged” segment does not seem to be growing. In France, Great Britain and the U.S., the size of this segment remains virtually unchanged since 2019; in Germany, it seems to be declining.
What unites this small but active group? Marketing firm Glocalities points to a trend of declining hope. A shrinking middle class and increasingly precarious economy seems to be driving people in this group – particularly men aged 18-34 – to reject international solidarity and concerns for global poverty and climate change. Interestingly, while women in this age range also seem to be experiencing a loss of hope, Glocalities finds this is not leading to a corresponding disenchantment with global co-operation. The result is an ever-widening gender gap.
New research from the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval) corroborates some of these findings. According to DEval, declining support for German development co–operation is due in part to a growing sense of financial precarity, and a backlash against the German government’s support for a feminist development agenda.
The Negatively Engaged group is small, but is it swaying public opinion?
Research from Unicepta, a media intelligence service, reveals how this small group can punch above its weight online. Unicepta finds a playbook – sometimes coordinated, other times organic – in which influencers use social media to amplify anti-development narratives found in niche outlets. This amplification helps discredit international solidarity.
As long as [disenchantment and loss of hope due to economic and social precarity] persist, it is reasonable to hypothesize that disengagement will continue to increase, too.
It’s too early to tell how anti-development views by national leaders will affect public opinion. The good news is that DEL’s long-term research shows that those who are most engaged with development work tend to maintain their support over time. Though it does seem that more people are tuning out entirely, with the “Totally Disengaged” group growing between 2019 and 2024.
Has the Negatively Engaged segment influenced this disengagement? Not necessarily. DEL finds that people have always moved up and down or dropped off completely in terms of engagement. In fact, this is particularly true for more engaged segments, as meaningful actions like protesting or volunteering are harder to maintain. Some factors that drive people toward disengagement are temporary – a change in life circumstances, for example. Others include those Glocalities describes: Disenchantment and loss of hope due to social and economic precarity. As long as these conditions persist, it is reasonable to hypothesize that disengagement will continue to increase, too.
Can we sway aid critics? If we can’t, who can we reach – and how?
DEL hasn’t found any messages that are particularly successful in swaying the Negatively Engaged – and its small sample size makes this group difficult to research. That said, work from the Aid Alliance, a UK coalition campaigning to defend the UN’s aid spending target, suggests there are lessons to be learned from in-person interactions with aid skeptics and critics. Namely, that a moral, common-sense argument for development co-operation can shift perspectives.
Research from Dóchas, Ireland’s network for international development and humanitarian organisations, in partnership with the Irish Worldview Survey, supports the finding that skeptical and skeptic-prone audiences are still reachable. It suggests that by meeting people where they are ideologically, communicators can help move them up the engagement ladder.
To do this, communicators must understand how to connect with specific audience segments. Working with personas – composite profiles of different “types” of people based on shared characteristics like values and media habits – can help communicators think through how each segment will respond to aid criticism, and the motives that will drive greater support. So, what does the research show about what drives engagement?
5 useful frames for engaged groups
1. Personal duty
DEL has found that, in the four countries they studied, people with a greater sense of personal duty to reduce poverty are more likely to engage with development work. For communicators, this means using frames like, “doing our part to reduce suffering”,” or “people have a right not to suffer”.” But this can be country-specific: personal-duty narratives tend to drive engagement in Germany and Great Britain, but not so much in France and the U.S.
2. Organizational integrity and results
Narratives highlighting respect for organisations – for example, messages that centre an organisation’s integrity and reputation for achieving impact – move people in France and Germany , (though not in the UU.S. and Great Britain).
3. Get specific about what aid can do
DEL analysis suggests that engaged groups want to hear about how aid is used. Here, use examples of past impact and successes in similar contexts by describing how communities have benefitted from similar programming. Frames that highlight effectiveness and sustainability can remind audiences of the core values behind aid, and the concerns it seeks to address.
4. Respect the agency of partner countries
Also important are frames that centre on the experiences of people in partner countries, and narratives of agency and progress in the Global South. This can help increase hope and promote a better understanding of development co-operation, particularly among younger audiences.
5. Protect as well as inspire hope
Development organisations need to leave behind pity-based narratives, which may help raise money in the short term, but which risk depleting hope in the long-term. In the current moment and surrounded by misinformation, even the most steadfast supporters can be tempted to switch off.
The loss of hope is a fundamental risk for development organisations. It can lead to large-scale disengagement. In their communications, development organisations may need to use their communications not just to increase hope and grow engagement, but also as a safety net; to protect hope and be a constant source of reassurance.
