A recent brief discussion in parliament, about whether the 0.7% of GDP we devote to overseas aid should be fixed in legislation, throws light on why DfID decided to run its own education programme in England (with its new pals in Pearson). It is clearly fearful that, without this dedicated input, people will not be persuaded that the government is right about having the 0.7% level of funding – as encouraged by the UN. It also no doubt hopes that all the principled arguments about the moral rightness of this policy will get round the awkward, persistent, real-world examples of such aid being misused or mislaid. Just imagine the fuss if the Ministry of Defence were to propose school programmes like this to justify and get round the awkward outcomes of our foreign wars.
Equally clearly, the DfID message is aimed not just at children, but at their parents and wider family – that is, current voters. Well, good luck with this; as the literature shows, the conditions necessary for getting to parents via their children are exacting, and only those sympathetic, or already signed up, to the policy are likely to be reached. Those indifferent to it will likely remain so, and those hostile will just be further irritated, sometimes to the detriment of the child. The more you look at this, the dodgier it all gets.
Respond