By Molly Anders, Research and Engagement Lead at the Development Engagement Lab.
In recent months, several OECD countries have announced big cuts to foreign aid. The development sector is shaken and wondering whether people still support its work and existence. 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) finds that, despite a downward trend in public support since 2019 and steep drops in some countries since 2023, most people in Germany, France and the United States still agree with maintaining or increasing aid budgets.
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 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, the UK and the US, 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 consultant 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. While women in this age range also seem to be losing hope, Glocalities finds that they have not become as disenchanted with global co-operation. The result is an ever-widening gender gap.
New research from the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval) finds that, in Germany, falling public support could be explained by a growing sense of financial precarity and a backlash against the 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 helps discredit international solidarity.
It’s too early to tell how anti-development views by national leaders will affect public opinion. However, DEL’s long-term research shows that those who are most engaged with development work tend to maintain their support over time. At the same time, it seems like 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 even dropped off completely in terms of engagement. This is particularly true for more engaged segments, because meaningful actions like protesting or volunteering are hard to maintain over time. 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 imagine that disengagement will, 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. 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.
5 useful frames for engaged groups
DEL research helps us understand what drives people to move up the engagement scale.
Based on our understanding of the drivers of public support, here are five framing suggestions for development communicators.
1. Personal duty
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”. But this can be country-specific: personal-duty narratives tend to drive engagement in Germany, but not so much in France or the US.
2. Organisational integrity and results
Messages that focus on an organisation’s integrity and reputation for achieving impact move people in France and Germany (though not in the US).
3. Get specific about what aid can do
Engaged groups want to hear about how aid is used and 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. The agency of partner countries
Also important are frames that centre 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
Pity-based narratives may help raise money in the short term, but 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.
Loss of hope is a fundamental risk for development organisations because it can lead to large-scale disengagement. Development organisations may need to use their communications not just to inspire hope and grow engagement, but also as a safety net; to protect hope and be a constant source of reassurance.
—
This piece emerged from 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.’ Further posts and events are planned – watch this space and stay in touch for more information.
Leave a Reply