This post was written by Soomin Oh, Deputy Director at the Development Engagement Lab, as part of an ongoing examination of public attitudes toward development cooperation.
The development sector is shaken. Aid budgets are shrinking and being re-directed to new goals. When they talk about the purpose of international development co-operation, many OECD governments have begun emphasising their national interests at the expense of traditional “altruistic” goals like poverty reduction.
But what do citizens in OECD countries think about these developments? Do they still care about aid? And have they changed their mind about what aid is for?
Our latest data on France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States sheds light on public attitudes and draws some conclusions for communicators.
After falling, overall public support has stabilised at a new low
In terms of overall public support, our data confirms that development organisations need to be concerned about public support. Since 2020, support for aid has fallen in France, Germany and the UK. In Germany and France, support has plummeted dramatically from about 70% to about 50% of people saying that aid budgets should be maintained or increased.
The fall in support is perhaps not surprising. People in all our studied countries are very concerned about issues like economic insecurity, global conflict, and immigration. Issues that feel less salient and more long-term, such as climate change and poverty reduction, have taken a back seat. In the UK, nearly half of respondents say that the country can no longer afford to give aid.
Yet, in recent months, we have observed a new trend in the data. Support has stopped falling and appears to have stabilised at a new low: around 50% in France, Germany and the US, and around 45% in the UK (see Figure 1). It looks like there is a core of supporters who want to maintain aid regardless of the political or economic atmosphere.
Figure 1: Trends in aid support – 2019/2025
From altruism and national interest to interdependence
Looking only at overall public support can mask deeper changes in public attitudes. This is why we also ask people what they believe the primary purpose of aid should be. Three clear patterns emerge.
1. A rising public focus on national interests
More citizens now think aid should serve donor countries’ interests. This shift is strongest in France and Germany, where public debate in the media often links aid to managing migration or national security.
2. A declining focus on poverty reduction
Fewer people see aid as purely means to helping the world’s poorest. The ‘aid as charity’ narrative appears to have lost popularity.
3. The emergence of a mutual benefit narrative
An increasing share of the donor public embraces the idea that aid can help both ‘us’ and ‘them’. This mutual benefit narrative is now the most popular in France, Germany and the United States (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: What people think the purpose of aid should be
Taken together, these trends suggest that the public is reframing the moral logic of aid through a lens of interdependence. They still believe in helping others, but want aid to deliver reciprocal outcomes, such as economic partnerships or greater resilience to global health crises.
It’s important to note, however, that poverty reduction still enjoys strong support, and that people solely focused on “national interest” represent a minority. The majority want aid to either focus on reducing poverty, whether alone or in combination with donor benefits.
In other words: the moral foundation for development co-operation remains – it is just being expressed more pragmatically.
Who has changed their opinion, and why?
Our longitudinal data shows that most people’s views remain stable over time. However, we also find that around a quarter of citizens change their opinions about the purpose of aid from one year to the next.
For communicators, citizens who are susceptible to changing their minds are a key audience! So who are these people currently? Let’s look at two groups in detail (for the full data, click here).
1. People shifting from “poverty reduction” to “mutual benefit” purposes
About 3 in 10 citizens in France (31%), Germany (36%) and the US (29%), and 2 in 10 in the UK, have shifted from “poverty reduction” to “mutual benefit” in their views on the primary purpose of aid. This shift is most common among middle-aged citizens (aged 35-44), and particularly those who identify themselves with centre-right political parties (though the shift cuts across party lines in France).
The reasons for their shift in attitudes differ from country to country. In Germany, they appear to have lost trust in whether development co-operation gets to intended recipients. In France and the UK, they say that their country can no longer afford to give aid, and in the US, they no longer believe that providing aid is a morally right thing to do.
People in this group appear receptive to messaging about aid that serves both national and global interests – a ‘smart cooperation’ frame that bridges pragmatic and altruistic motivations.
Figure 3: Changing attitudes in France on the purpose of aid
2. People shifting from “mutual benefit” to “national interest” purposes
Around 1 in 10 people in Germany (14%), Great Britain (11%), and the United States (11%), and 2 in 10 in France, have shifted from “mutual benefits” to “national interest” in their views on the primary purpose of aid.
This shift is most pronounced among voters with far-right-leaning views (i.e. AfD voters in Germany and Le Pen voters in France). Across all four countries, people who have changed their minds in this way perceive that their country cannot afford aid, and that their own households have been left behind.
–
We believe these changes in views about the purposes of aid reflect a deeper shift in how people think about fairness, affordability, and global relevance. Development co-operation is no longer widely seen as something countries can comfortably afford, nor as an unquestioned moral obligation. Instead, “country first” considerations are increasingly shaping how citizens judge whether helping others is fair, justified or necessary, particularly when the links between events abroad and everyday life at home feel distant or unclear.
Implications for Development Communicators
The evolution of public attitudes about the purposes of aid offers challenges and opportunities for communicators working on global sustainable development in governments, civil society and multilateral organisations.
1. Lead with shared benefits
People are not rejecting the moral rationale of aid. Rather, they are reframing it around shared outcomes. Messages that connect global cooperation to everyday concerns – like economic stability and health security – will resonate strongly with mainstream audiences and core supporters.
2. Reclaim, don’t surrender, the national interest
The national interest frame is not inherently hostile to development. What matters in communicating around national interest is who defines it and how it’s defined – i.e. promoting development can be framed as a strategic interest for the country (e.g. creating opportunities for economic returns of tomorrow). It is important to note, however, that leaning too much into the national interest argument risks alienating those who believe in the moral cause of aid – still most people.
3. Get the balance right
This poses a creative challenge for communicators – getting the balance right between the moral case for aid and its benefits to donor countries. The idea is not to revive the old moral appeal but to create a modern one that speaks to interdependence, fairness, and effectiveness.
Leave a Reply