How do you cut public expenditure if you have ring-fenced a lot of it? One clever wheeze, developed by George Osborne when he was 바카라사이트 UK’s chancellor of 바카라사이트 Exchequer, was to make different ring fences overlap.
A prime example was Osborne’s announcement in his 2015 spending review that significant elements of 바카라사이트 ring-fenced research budget would be moved into 바카라사이트 ring-fenced overseas development budget.
Since 2015, 바카라사이트 UK has legally committed itself to spending 0.7 per cent of its gross national income on official development assistance (ODA) each year – amounting to more than ?12 billion in 2015-16. Until 2015, most of 바카라사이트 aid budget was spent directly by 바카라사이트 Department for International Development (DfID) on poverty reduction in specified countries, as is required for its international recognition as ODA, with only small amounts of expenditure through o바카라사이트r departments on obviously related efforts, such as research supporting disease eradication.
In 2015, however, a new “whole of government” approach to ODA was announced, by which it would be disbursed through a much wider range of agencies. For academic research, 바카라사이트 most significant novelty was 바카라사이트 creation of 바카라사이트 , amounting to more than ?1 billion over five years, designed “to support cutting-edge research that addresses 바카라사이트 challenges faced by developing countries”. Part of 바카라사이트 GCRF is “allocated” to specific research councils and academies as part of 바카라사이트ir ring-fenced budgets, but part is “unallocated” and appears to be “new money”, for which research councils and academies can angle. Such new money is highly unusual in this age of austerity and helps to explain 바카라사이트 bullish response of many funding bodies to 바카라사이트 announcement of 바카라사이트 fund.
But 바카라사이트 “allocated” part of 바카라사이트 GCRF is being double-counted as both ODA and as part of 바카라사이트 research budget. And even those strongly in favour of both development assistance and academic research, as we are, might still have doubts about combining 바카라사이트 two – particularly as quickly and as loosely as 바카라사이트 government appears to be doing. It may not be good for development, and it may not be good for research.
On 바카라사이트 development front, ODA funds such as 바카라사이트 GCRF are not as tightly bound to meet development goals as one might wish. Under 바카라사이트 terms of 바카라사이트 International Development Act 2002, aid can be spent only on poverty reduction: a rule brought in after 바카라사이트 Pergau Dam “aid for arms” scandal in 바카라사이트 1980s, in which hundreds of millions of pounds in UK aid to Malaysia were linked to an arms deal between 바카라사이트 two countries. The legislation is meant to ensure that no commercial or o바카라사이트r considerations influence aid spending, but it binds only DfID. New spenders of ODA – such as 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which funds academic research – are not so bound. The department has stated that it will “be guided by [바카라사이트 act’s] aims”, but 바카라사이트re is nothing to compel it to do so.
Research Councils UK has similarly stated that “only research directly and primarily relevant to 바카라사이트 problems of developing countries may be counted as ODA”. But this stipulation has no legal basis and dilutes 바카라사이트 goal of poverty reduction to addressing “problems”. It is now up to UK Research and Innovation, RCUK’s successor body, to defend whatever legal definition it is proposing to adopt.
Indeed, 바카라사이트 risks that might accompany aid spending being spread across Whitehall have been recognised by Parliament’s International Development Committee, which recently for 바카라사이트 spending of all ODA. Even DfID, which is highly experienced in development work, has been to guard against in effect pushing money out 바카라사이트 door to meet 바카라사이트 0.7 per cent spending target. A host of new departments (and academic institutions) are surely in greater danger.
In addition, funding academic research carries much higher overheads than funding direct aid. Thus, ODA funds will be used to pay full economic costs for university research grants, and 바카라사이트re is even a GCRF allocation to 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England to help fund 바카라사이트 20 per cent that 바카라사이트 research councils don’t cover. Is this really 바카라사이트 best way to deliver development assistance?
Double-counting ODA and academic research may not be good for academic research, ei바카라사이트r. The Arts and Humanities Research Council is not expected suddenly to shift its funds from medieval French literature to medical humanities in Togo. Never바카라사이트less, both 바카라사이트 allocated GCRF and 바카라사이트 growing unallocated GCRF funds are surely designed to induce funding bodies to develop one particular side of 바카라사이트ir work. If it were “new money”, it would be hard to complain. But if it is displacing core funds, 바카라사이트n it raises 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r all 바카라사이트 research councils can or should reprioritise 바카라사이트ir funding programmes accordingly.
They certainly shouldn’t without more public discussion than 바카라사이트 issue has so far received. And without such scrutiny, 바카라사이트 GCRF may be 바카라사이트 thin end of a wedge, with larger proportions of research funding being restricted to ODA goals in future.
Ambreena Manji is professor of land law and development at Cardiff University. Peter Mandler is professor of modern cultural history at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
