The SDG Communicator

For a long time, European conversations on development co-operation were low profile and technical, led by a small “in-crowd” of civil society actors, implementing agencies and policymakers. Today, the conversation has become politicised. Budgets are being cut, and people are questioning whether development co-operation is still needed.

In this difficult context, ODI Europe wanted to understand which arguments for development are most convincing for European policymakers today. We reviewed the literature and data, and conducted an extensive stakeholder consultation.

A clear shift in the story

We found that traditional arguments for aid—like solidarity and moral duty—still matter to the public, but are no longer enough to justify spending to policymakers. With living standards falling in Europe and a world becoming more divided, arguments that connect aid to national interests are becoming more common. The EU’s new strategic agenda, which focuses on migration, defense, security, and competitiveness, is shaping how people talk about development.

Is this shift a problem?

Some people we spoke to worried that focusing on national interests could weaken the unique value of European aid. However, most of our respondents accepted the change in direction.

Others said that development co-operation has always been somewhat transactional (e.g. when aid is branded or linked with linked with military interventions). Now, it’s just more openly discussed. Some saw this as a more honest approach.

They also said that linking aid to national interests makes it easier to justify spending in tough times. Indeed, there is strong evidence that aid can deliver in the national interest, for example by boosting soft power and trade (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: How aid investments benefit Europe

However, while policymakers like arguments around aid in the national interest, research on Germany, the UK and United States shows that the public is less convinced by talk of geopolitics, defence or economics.

What Makes a Narrative Work?

Our research used Dennison’s framework, which says a narrative is popular if it is salient and plausible, and if the audience is open to the message (see Figure 2)

Figure 2: Dennison’s Framework: What determines the popularity of a narrative?

Aid is a low-profile issue, so it’s hard to get attention. But stories about shared global challenges—like climate change—are likely to connect with people. Three in four Europeans believe that the EU needs more resources to tackle global problems. Globally, support for climate action is extremely high and is often underestimated by politicians.

A narrative also needs to make basic sense, and it helps when ‘real-world’ evidence supports it. For example, narratives that emphasise shared global challenges will be more plausible in the context of extreme weather, water or food shortages, or disease outbreaks.

People are more likely to believe stories that match their own values, priorities and pre-existing beliefs. So, development communicators should think about what matters to people outside the “development bubble.”

Finding stories that can unify

We found two great ways to build political consensus and shore up support for development co-operation in Europe.

1. Addressing shared global challenges. Communicators need to emphasise problems that affect everyone, allowing policymakers to tangibly link development to domestic priorities. Many stakeholders— including the military and security communities —are highly receptive to this line of argument, given their concern with issues like the climate crisis and public health.
2. Linking development with economic security and competitiveness. Communicators can emphasise the value of aid-for-trade, unlocking new markets and making supply chains more resilient. Stakeholders in partner countries are also likely to support this type of narrative, as long as it is backed up by a genuine partnership and helps countries industrialise.

Tips for communicators

So what is next for communicators considering the above narratives? Here are 4 tips.

1. Test and tailor messages. While some frames will help build consensus, others risk being co-opted by populist factions that are hostile to narratives around global issues such as climate and sustainable development. Message testing helps reduce these risks.
2. Be positive and focus on solutions. Stories about opportunities—like new jobs, investments or better health—are more likely to win support.
3. Blend different arguments. Completely dropping the moral case for aid could turn off development supporters. The key is to combine messages that demonstrate the value of development work at home and abroad.
4. Use a variety of messengers. Arguments about national interest will be more convincing when they come from outside the traditional aid sector. Businesses or security experts can be strong new development communications allies, helping development get out of its silo and reducing polarisation . This approach merits significantly more attention, time and resources.

Traditional aid may be giving way to a new generation of partnerships, shaped by the need for security and competitiveness. For these partnerships to succeed, the principle of “mutual benefit” needs to be front and centre. New narratives can help us move beyond the ‘aid silo’ and define a new direction for development together.

—

Technical note on research:

This research combined 42 semi-structured key informant interviews with a rapid consultation with 12 respondents from EU delegations. Respondents for the study included researchers and academics, representatives from EU institutions, bilateral donors and NGOs, as well as experts from the security community. We particularly sought views from institutions that are traditionally more sceptical of development co-operation. Most interviewees were based in Europe though a small number of interviews were conducted with stakeholders in Europe’s partner countries. A focus on the global North nonetheless remains a limitation of this research project.