UK Public Attitudes towards Development - Bond

UK Public Attitudes towards Development Aid Attitude Tracker Summary

Three things you should know: 1. The vast majority of UK adults don’t see global poverty as a pressing problem and want lower government spending on overseas aid. 2. The majority of the public believe aid ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians overseas. The public has very little tolerance for corruption. But there are ways we can talk about corruption without suppressing support for development. 3. We can potentially double the number of people who support development if we engage “swing” audiences. Greater engagement, focusing on what has been achieved, leads to more positive attitudes towards development.

The Aid Attitude Tracker is driven by eight partner organisations: BMGF, Bond, DFID, Comic Relief, Oxfam, One, Save the Children and VSO. The AAT design and analysis is provided by YouGov and UCL, and socialised with partners by Akas. May 2015.

UK Public Attitudes towards Development

2

What do the UK public think about aid and development? 1. The public have low levels of concern for poverty in poor countries There is a long-term downward trend in concern for global poverty. The vast majority of UK adults do not see global poverty as a pressing problem. Recent polling shows that UK public concern for global poverty has halved: from 70% in 2011 to 46% in 2014.1

2. The public want lower government spending on overseas aid The majority of the public do not see providing Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a priority. They want to see lower government spending on overseas aid. More than half of those surveyed in the UK (53%) believe that aid should be cut, and most feel aid is ineffective.

1 Data sources: 1999–2011 DfID ‘Public Attitudes towards Development’, 2013–2014 BMGF Aid Attitudes Tracker’. Data complied by David Hudson and Jennifer van-Heerde Hudson, UCL

The sharp decline in public support could be explained by a change in survey design and methodology. Even if that is the case, we should still be concerned – support for our issues is very low despite a significant amount of communication with the public.

There is poor understanding of the impact of government spending on overseas aid. Understanding of the amount the UK provides, the distribution and the impact of aid is confused and often contradictory.

“I don’t really understand what it’s spent on or what’s been done with it.” On the Fence audience, sympathetic but overwhelmed2 “Does that include the money that they give to disasters?” Inactive supporter, political and broadly supportive but focused on UK causes first

2 For further information on profiles of audience groups see Aid Attitude Tracker Qualitative Report, July 2014, slides 8–14 http://my.bond.org.uk/resource/aat-qualitative-reportjuly-2014


3. The public are more concerned about poverty at home, rather than global poverty Poverty at home occupies the hearts and minds of the public, often at the expense of global poverty. Inequality in incomes and wealth in Britain is the top concern for engaged audiences. Concern for poverty at home doesn’t necessarily lead to concern for poverty overseas. The issues are not seen as connected to part of a bigger picture.

3

“That money could be spent on keeping those services, keeping people in jobs, keeping the NHS in a place where it should be.” On the Fence audience, right leaning and opinionated “I think I care more about poverty in the UK because it’s where I live, it’s closer to home, it affects people that I know. It might affect me one day” On the Fence audience, sympathetic but overwhelmed


4. The UK public has very little tolerance for corruption Attitudes towards corruption have hardened significantly since 2006. The majority of the public believes aid ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians overseas.

4

The public takes a very moral view on corruption, exhibiting very low levels of tolerance for it. When surveyed on the percentage of UK overseas aid they could personally tolerate being lost to corruption, 36% of respondents said they could only tolerate up to 1% being lost, while another 42% said they could tolerate 2–10% being lost through corruption.

“The money goes over to India and who gets the money then? The government gets it, so what does the government do? It helps itself out first and then it helps its people out.” On the Fence audience, right leaning and opinionated

5. There is extremely low awareness of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Only 1 in 10 members of the public are aware of the MDGs deadline. Only 9% of those surveyed answered correctly, compared to 50% knowing who won the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

“I was not familiar with the MDGs or SDGs before – I’ve seen them reported and commented on but not paid much attention” Inactive supporter, politically focused


5

What are the opportunities for changing public opinion? 1. We can potentially double the number of people who support development 32% of the UK adult population are engaged in the issues. This means they follow global issues, have an awareness of global events and talk about these matters with others.

What else do we know about the engaged public? A quick overview:

41% are Supporters • Take an active interest in global development, often through study or via family and friends overseas • Positive about achievements in development • Well-educated and liberal • Have taken action on the issues • Consume a lot of news media

47% are Swings • Undecided – they question what is being achieved in international development • Some are overwhelmed about the issues facing people in poorer countries • Would consider taking action but unsure about how they can help and what their support means • Slightly younger than the supporters

12% are Sceptics • Sceptical about development • Economically rather than emotionally driven • Older • Tend to be less liberal and more small ‘c’ conservative in their views • Care less about other social causes compared to swings and supporters Within the engaged public we can potentially double our supporters if we can persuade the swing audiences to think and feel more positively about development.


2. Engaged audiences trust charities as messengers Engaged audiences trust charitable organisations much more than non-engaged groups. Both engaged and disengaged audiences have low levels of trust in Parliament.

3. Greater engagement of the public leads to more positive attitudes Engaged audiences appreciate that poverty is far from eliminated but are optimistic about the future. Messages that focus on what has been achieved are most compelling and thought provoking across audiences.

“Giving is about helping out a community or an individual; it’s sort of giving a shoulder up” Fully engaged audience “It’s actually doing something together; it’s about working with them, and saying, ‘Actually, what do you need for your lives to be better?” Fully engaged audience

6

Aid recipients are embraced as credible sources of information by the majority of the UK public. 57% of those surveyed said someone who had received overseas aid would be a credible source of information on international assistance, compared to 56% for an academic, 19% for a politician, and 15% for a celebrity.


4. We can talk about corruption without suppressing public support for development The more engaged the audience the more they agree that corruption should not stop overseas aid. Engaged audiences are more likely to take a practical view, rather than a strictly moral view of corruption. Among the engaged audience 45% thought aid should still go where corruption is a problem, if aid helps to promote growth and development in that area. Yet among disengaged audiences those who held this pragmatic view dropped to 22%.

5. We need to talk about development, rather than aid While “aid” has negative connotations, “development” has more positive associations. “Development” is associated with a focus on long-term, structural changes, eg, education, infrastructure and health care.

“Development? I would say that’s more long-term solutions, like teaching, building schools and giving people skills and things, rather than just going, “Here’s some food”. On the Fence audience

7

Evidence shows the sector can talk about corruption in the context of counteracting it without suppressing support for overseas aid. There are anti-corruption messages which are more effective than others: • Convey the messages that aid works through success stories • Show how NGOs monitor and audit development spending in order to prevent corruption.


8

Further evidence

Support

Aid Attitude Tracker Wave 1 Results January 2014 my.bond.org.uk/resource/aat-quant-wave-1resultsjan-2014

Would you like to present these findings to others in your organisation?

Aid Attitude Tracker Wave 2 Results September 2014 my.bond.org.uk/resource/aat-quant-wave-2resultssept-2014 Aid Attitude Tracker Wave 1–3 Variables February 2015 my.bond.org.uk/resource/aat-quant-wave1-3variablesfeb-2015 Aid Attitude Tracker Qualitative Report July 2014 my.bond.org.uk/resource/aat-qualitative-reportjuly-2014 Narrative Project User Guide my.bond.org.uk/resource/narrative-project-user-guide-1 UCL Testing Messages on Corruption my.bond.org.uk/resource/ucl-corruption-messaging Aid Attitude Tracker Newsletter 3 – MDGs and SDGs my.bond.org.uk/resource/aid-attitude-trackernewsletter3 Aid Attitude Tracker Newsletter 4 – Trusted Messengers my.bond.org.uk/resource/aid-attitude-trackernewsletter4 Public Support Hub my.bond.org.uk/workspace/building-public-support-hub

Society Building 8 All Saints Street London N1 9RL, UK +44 (0)20 7520 0248 bond.org.uk Registered Charity No. 1068839 Company registration No. 3395681 (England and Wales)

We can support you to: • Access to the Bond Public Support Hub where you can find the latest research • Deliver presentations on the research and the implications for your organisation • Facilitate a discussion within your organisation about how you might use this evidence • Test new narrative messages in your communications Contact

Alice Delemare Campaigns Adviser [email protected] +44 (0)20 7520 2705