Global Labour Column http://column.global-labour-university.org/ Where is decent work in DfID policy? Marketisation and securitisation of UK international aid by Phoebe V. Moore Number 119, January 2013 Corporate Strategy and Industrial Development (CSID) University of the Witwatersrand Nothing is spared. Even international development policy is marketised and securitised in the United Kingdom (UK). Out- reach to areas of the world sufering from tsunami-related devastation has not disappeared, but recent government de- cisions reveal signifcant shifts for aid spending to prioritise future confict prevention in areas facing high levels of unem- ployment and lacking welfare protection, and to manage fu- ture fnancial impacts of terrorist attacks. Controversially, UK aid spending is increasing in areas where crisis-driven unem- ployment can be linked to rising social unrest, even as cuts are made to the organisation most dedicated to advocating workers’ rights, the International Labour Organisation (ILO). DfID securitises, marketises international aid In March 2011 the Department for International Develop- ment (DfID) published the ‘Multilateral Aid Review: Ensuring maximum value for money for UK aid through multilateral organisations’ (DfID, 2011). The UK’s newly-elected coalition government in 2010 decided to increase development aid to 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) by 2013, which is, in cash terms, an increase from £7.8 billion in 2010–2011 to £11 bil- lion in 2014–15. In that context, DfID, in cooperation with then Secretary of State for International Development Antho- ny Mitchell reviewed 43 multilateral aid organisations previ- ously used to channel funding using a specifc methodology designed to measure organisations’ aims and objectives, val- ue for money and cost efectiveness. UN-HABITAT, UNIDO, UNISDR 1 , and the ILO, did not meet these marketised devel- opment objectives, so DfID decided to withdraw core fund- ing to established partners. Market-oriented judgements such as these are part of the wider strategy of securing the dominant status of neoliberalism as an expansive global framework for economic and social policy. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (“the Re- view”) made the commitment to deliver 30% of overseas UK development spending specifcally to fragile and confict- afected states. The prioritisation of aid for fragile areas, the Review makes clear, is explicitly intended to manage the threat of terrorism and reduce future costs of intervention. In that context, in order to reach the 0.7% target for aid, the UK coalition government ring-fenced aid spending from cuts to other public spending, which is an interesting choice when put into perspective: if the (DfID) had frozen funds at the same level they were in 2010-2011, this capital could have been used to minimise real cuts to expenditure into the De- partment for Education by a third. Indeed, while the per- centage of GNI used for overseas aid in confict-driven areas will increase, aid spending will be focused on few- er countries and fewer issues, and will be channelled predominantly through the World Bank and the Europe- an Commission. The ILO, one of the agencies cut from DfID’s roster, wrote an ofcial response (ILO, 2011) the day after the Multilateral Review was published querying its method- ology and noting that it was based on very limited re- search from only 33 projects in four countries. The Re- view cannot be generalised, and further, the ILO was shocked by these conclusions as they difered from the external evaluation issued by DfID itself only months previously, which looked favourably upon DfID’s part- nership with the ILO over the Partnership Framework Agreement (PFA) period 2006 to 2009. The PFA conclud- ed that partnership with the ILO should go on, and DfID should “consider funding support to the ILO in the post- PFA period”, and that in particular, the “ILO’s role and core mandate of promoting Decent Work is increasingly important” (ibid.). One commentator believes that this clash is “evidence that under the Conservatives, DfID is being transformed from a development body committed to lasting change in the global south into a sticking-plaster aid charity dis- pensing services to the poor to salve the conscience of the rich – as well as minimising the risk that the poor will rise up and demand change more violently than we would like” (Tudor 2011). The “Conservatives are [not] interested in the way the ILO combats poverty, which is to promote workers’ rights – to join trade unions, to [promote] social security, and to [promote] decent work” (ibid). DfID overlooks social protection Consciously applying a similar methodology to DfID’s Review, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) launched a critique of DfID on the World Day for Decent Work, 7th October 2012, entitled ‘A decent job? DfID and Decent Work’. The report notes that DfID does not do enough to promote social dialogue, social protection, enable job creation and it has a low commitment to promotion of rights. TUC researchers read up-to-date annual reports and country implementation plans published in June Nicolas Pons-Vignon E-mail: Nicolas.Pons-Vignon@wits.ac.za