Public Perceptions of International Development and Support for Aid in the UK: Results of a Qualitative Enquiry

Spencer Henson, Johanna Lindstrom, Lawrence Haddad, Rajendra Mulmi
{"title":"Public Perceptions of International Development and Support for Aid in the UK: Results of a Qualitative Enquiry","authors":"Spencer Henson,&nbsp;Johanna Lindstrom,&nbsp;Lawrence Haddad,&nbsp;Rajendra Mulmi","doi":"10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00353_2.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Aid budgets face immense pressure – despite overseas aid being critical for poverty alleviation in developing countries and the explicit commitments of the world's industrialised countries to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Public support for international development and aid will play a key role. Will the public become unsure about the UK's aid budget when they begin to feel cuts in government expenditure at home? How well equipped are we to ‘sell’ the UK's aid programme to a sceptical public in times of economic austerity? This working paper presents the results of a qualitative enquiry into public perceptions of international development and aid in the UK. Using data from the Mass Observation Project (MOP) at the University of Sussex, the authors investigate the views of 185 members of the general public.</p>\n <p>The study finds that, while people can conjure up ideas of why poverty exists, they know very little about the confluence of factors that actually drive poverty and/or the daily lives of the poor. Thus, poverty is seen as caused primarily by bad governments and natural disasters, almost as a stereotype. People have major doubts about the effectiveness of aid, perhaps reflecting the fact that they tend to be much better at picturing aid ‘failure’ than aid ‘success’. Nonetheless, there is support for aid in principle; people think that the UK has a responsibility to help the poor in developing countries, primarily on ethical grounds.</p>\n <p>This research has clear implications for the way in which the UK communicates with the British public about aid and development and the authors suggest a more considered approach that recognises the complexities of aid and is honest about what works and what doesn't. The paper concludes with a call for further research to fill the knowledge gaps that still exist about the drivers of public support for development and how those drivers can be influenced.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100618,"journal":{"name":"IDS Working Papers","volume":"2010 353","pages":"01-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00353_2.x","citationCount":"39","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IDS Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00353_2.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

Abstract

Aid budgets face immense pressure – despite overseas aid being critical for poverty alleviation in developing countries and the explicit commitments of the world's industrialised countries to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Public support for international development and aid will play a key role. Will the public become unsure about the UK's aid budget when they begin to feel cuts in government expenditure at home? How well equipped are we to ‘sell’ the UK's aid programme to a sceptical public in times of economic austerity? This working paper presents the results of a qualitative enquiry into public perceptions of international development and aid in the UK. Using data from the Mass Observation Project (MOP) at the University of Sussex, the authors investigate the views of 185 members of the general public.

The study finds that, while people can conjure up ideas of why poverty exists, they know very little about the confluence of factors that actually drive poverty and/or the daily lives of the poor. Thus, poverty is seen as caused primarily by bad governments and natural disasters, almost as a stereotype. People have major doubts about the effectiveness of aid, perhaps reflecting the fact that they tend to be much better at picturing aid ‘failure’ than aid ‘success’. Nonetheless, there is support for aid in principle; people think that the UK has a responsibility to help the poor in developing countries, primarily on ethical grounds.

This research has clear implications for the way in which the UK communicates with the British public about aid and development and the authors suggest a more considered approach that recognises the complexities of aid and is honest about what works and what doesn't. The paper concludes with a call for further research to fill the knowledge gaps that still exist about the drivers of public support for development and how those drivers can be influenced.

公众对英国国际发展和援助支持的看法:定性调查的结果
援助预算面临巨大压力——尽管海外援助对发展中国家的扶贫至关重要,而且世界工业化国家对千年发展目标(MDGs)做出了明确承诺。公众对国际发展和援助的支持将发挥关键作用。当公众开始感受到国内政府开支的削减时,他们会对英国的援助预算感到不确定吗?在经济紧缩时期,我们如何向持怀疑态度的公众“推销”英国的援助计划?本工作文件介绍了对英国公众对国际发展和援助的看法进行定性调查的结果。利用来自苏塞克斯大学大众观测项目(MOP)的数据,作者调查了185名普通公众的观点。该研究发现,虽然人们可以想象出贫困存在的原因,但他们对实际导致贫困和/或穷人日常生活的因素的相互作用知之甚少。因此,贫困被视为主要是由糟糕的政府和自然灾害造成的,几乎是一种刻板印象。人们对援助的有效性有很大的怀疑,这也许反映了这样一个事实,即他们往往更善于描绘援助的“失败”,而不是援助的“成功”。尽管如此,原则上还是支持援助的;人们认为英国有责任帮助发展中国家的穷人,主要是出于道德原因。这项研究对英国与英国公众就援助和发展问题进行沟通的方式有明确的影响,作者提出了一种更深思熟虑的方法,即认识到援助的复杂性,并诚实地说明哪些有效,哪些无效。报告最后呼吁进行进一步研究,以填补关于公众支持发展的驱动因素以及如何影响这些驱动因素的知识空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信