Rebuilding Support for International Cooperation:
New Constituencies in a Global Village
Louk Box and Anje Kruiter

An ECDPM Publication, August 1997

For related ECDPM publications
To order a paper copy

This paper should be cited as:
Box, L., and A. Kruiter. 1997. Rebuilding support for international cooperation: New constituencies in a global village.
Maastricht: ECDPM.

Introduction

Decreasing aid budgets, especially in times of economic growth, call for attention to the changing landscape of public support for international cooperation in Europe and for ways to sustain and improve it. Elements of this changing landscape are:

• Changes in the support base for international cooperation: political-ideological, economic-financial or religious-moral.
• Changes due to the end of the "cold war", increasing unemployment and poverty in the European Union, and shifting values.

This paper provides a brief overview of changes in the international cooperation constistuencies that support the cooperation efforts of the European Union, its Member States, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The reasons for the changes and their impact are briefly discussed. Finally, emerging constituencies are identified, their value to international cooperation is assessed, and promising ways to re-build public support for poverty-oriented cooperation are presented.

Support: The Current Situation

The Eurobarometer is a public opinion survey undertaken every 4 years at the request of the European Commission. It measures, among other things, public support for international cooperation in Europe. The 1995 Eurobarometer(1) shows that the importance attached to aid declined slightly, from 81 per cent in 1991 to 77.5 per cent in 1995. The report interprets this decrease as being significant and mainly attributes it to the effects of the economic recession in the European Union and globalisation which lead European citizens to focus more on their own problems than on those of people far away. It suggests that "feelings of discomfort influence the perception one has of aid to developing countries."

The situation may not however be as critical as the Eurobarometer suggests. A longer-term look shows that the current "support percentage" is slightly lower than in 1991 but is still higher than in 1983 and comparable to 1987 (see figure 1). A downward trend is not yet apparent.

It can be argued that support for international cooperation is still strong in Europe. According to the survey, "helping people in poor countries" still ranks as high as "ensuring energy supplies", "defending our economic and political interests", "our military defense" and "reinforcing links with Eastern and Central European countries". Despite allegations that "aid fatigue" is reducing the public support for international cooperation, other national studies(2) also confirm that the level of support has not changed significantly in recent years. Most citizens still support development aid and only an average of 12 per cent are against it. But what about EU aid that is administered by the European Commission?

According to the Eurobarometer, most European citizens support "acting together instead of each country separately" in most issues - such as unemployment, terrorism and nature preservation - and including helping people in poor countries. This support for common action should bolster the aid efforts of the European Union which tries to foster precisely this "acting together."However, most citizens seem to be unaware of the scale and scope of development activities supported by the European Communities.

Conclusion: While opinion surveys in Europe indicate a continued support for international cooperation, "European" development cooperation does not seem to have a solid support base.

Official Aid: Declining Budgets

Regarding aid budgets, three main observations can be made. First, the level of public support varies between member states and is not related to the level of official aid budgets. In countries with high ODA/GNP ratios, such as Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, public support for developing countries is not notably stronger than elsewhere in Europe.

Second, the considerable level of public support contradicts current governmental policies in most member states where the trend is to cut back on aid budgets (see figure 2). One explanation for this lies in the design of the opinion polls. The barometer and most other surveys assess support for what the public understands to be international cooperation.

The studies do not distinguish between different types of donor agencies, such as international organisations, the European Union, national governments and NGOs. In the surveys, the public tends to recognise the United Nations and NGOs as "helping agencies" and to base their judgements of aid on the most "visible" activities of aid organisations. These activities tend to be those that attract media attention, either positive or negative.

Nevertheless, decreasing government budgets for international cooperation are a growing concern. The Irish ODA/GNP ratio is still growing. The Danish and Austrian ratios, though very much apart, are quite stable around respectively 1 per cent and 0.33 per cent of GNP. Further, in almost all Member States - like Portugal, Italy, Norway, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom - the proportion of GNP for aid grew until the early 1990s and then dropped, in some countries significantly.

The decline in aid budgets is worrisome. In response to this, many development officials are calling for more efforts to demonstrate the effectiveness of aid - as a way to alleviate poverty - as a pre-requisite for maintaining and building its support base.

Third, there is obviously a difference between what people say and what people actually do. It can be argued that if 77.5 per cent of the European public would act according to what they claimed to value in opinion polls, then real support for aid would be much stronger and Governments would act accordingly. However, the situation is more complex than it seems and we need to look closely at the actual constituencies that support or are somehow involved in decisions on aid.

Conclusion: Levels of public support for cooperation are not reflected in governmental policies. Most striking is the considerable decline in aid budgets while public support remains strong.

Official Aid: New Constituencies?

If levels of interest and support by the general public are apparently not crucial in determining government priorities on international cooperation, then what factors need to be considered? To answer this, we need to study more fundamental changes in the structures of European societies and the effect these have on the landscape of public support for international cooperation.

Traditional constituencies losing influence . . .

The main change is the diminishing support for aid from traditional groups such as social and religious organisations. In the past, support for aid programmes was based around specific political-ideological, economic-financial or religious-moral justifications and the organisations that espouse them. Political parties, trade unions, religious organisations, civil associations such as women and youth groups, development organisations and certain media groups played a key role in keeping international cooperation high on the agenda. These constituencies either no longer support official international cooperation as strongly as they have in the past 25 years, or they have seen their influence decrease.

This can be seen in the decline in membership in political parties, unions and churches. Declining numbers has reduced the influence of these traditionally important support communities on aid decision-making. The role they once played in both keeping international cooperation on the agenda and forming public opinion has diminished. They may still give priority to aid, but they have lost much of their strength to lobby for it. The part of the public that used to be informed through membership is no longer involved. One result is that relatively little debate and counter-pressure could be mobilised by these pressure groups, at the time when ministers for international cooperation were accepting significant budget cuts.

This has been compounded by shifting interests and priorities among politicians. The demise of the "cold war" and the emergence of economic recession have pushed other issues such as unemployment to the top of their agendas.

. . . the emergence of new groups . . .

The Eurobarometer identifies globalisation as the cause of feelings of unease among European citizens and their declining interest in international cooperation. On the other hand, the "global village" is provides all kinds of new opportunities for communication, much of which occurs outside the formal channels that used to dominate such cooperation. Contacts and cooperation with developing countries is no longer restricted to experts in governmental departments and universities and we have seen an explosion in non-official cooperation.

The huge growth in access to information about the South has created an awareness of development issues among the general public as well as the specialised development communities. The interest of different organisations such as schools, trade unions, local authorities, and broadcasting stations has been triggered. They have developed their own contacts and projects. Partly these are newly emerging constituencies, stimulated by the new opportunities. Partly these are traditional constituencies that have refocused their activities. Their activities include, for example, exchange programmes, sending tools, equipment, and clothes, and supporting Southern local initiatives. An indication of this is the growth in contributions to development NGOs by the general public (in the Netherlands, Ireland and Spain(3) for example).

It has also made it possible for an entirely new constituency to develop around ideological- commercial initiatives. Examples are "fair trade" organisations and the Body Shop. Still struggling in the 1960s and 1970s, they finally found broad public support in the late 1980s. Currently, a large audience buys fair trade bananas and coffee in supermarkets and, when buying shampoo, receives a brochure on problems facing the Amazon Indians.

Commercial enterprises have also started to include development projects in their activities, though usually to improve their image. European energy boards, for example, have started tropical forest preservation projects as a compensation for the carbon dioxide pollution they produce in their own countries. Others invite Southern colleagues for training, have established funds to support projects or fellowships, or make donations to development NGOs.

Such "democratisation" of the cooperation process has perhaps turned people's concern away from influencing government to more practical activities that the can do themselves.

Conclusion: While the traditional support base for development cooperation may be diminishing, new constituencies for cooperation and new ways of cooperating are emerging.

. . . but still cause for concern

Despite these positive trends, there is ample reason for concern among development NGOs and especially among public agencies. The changing landscape of public support calls for a closer look at the new constituencies identified above. Their interests are mostly on providing solutions for topical problems. We should realize that a large part of the current support base has thus a rather volatile and perhaps transient interest that is quite different from those of the traditional support communities.

The public's attitude to many issues is now largely shaped by the mass media which has become a major actor in discussions on aid and cooperation. In recent years, for example, we have seen the role of the media become even more important in setting the agenda and in conveying key messages. However, while its role has become more critical, it has also become less interested in the issues.

In the media, the performance of international cooperation is assessed against unrealistically high expectations. Reporting often focuses on one side of the coin only, concentrating more on solutions - UN peace-keeping, water wells, life-saving doctors and nurses - than on the underlying problems. In the Eurobarometer, "partnership" scores lowest as the main aim of our relationship with developing countries. Instead, international cooperation is seen as "helping people". The basis of developmental problems is often disregarded in the media since it is either too complex or not sensational enough.

Public interest in understanding poverty issues is needed. There is scepticism among the public about the results of development programmes. However, these impression are often based on little knowledge of the actual situation. There is lack of in-depth information on development issues in the press. In the United Kingdom, eleven NGOs produced a Manifesto(4) in which they point at the positive results of international cooperation and plead for at least its continuation. In the Netherlands, what was and is a strong development community recently expressed its serious concern about the future shape of Dutch international cooperation after the current minister's term ends? Will there be a future? They argue that not even the development NGOs manage to coherently lobby in support of the interests of the South.

Conclusion: The level of public attention gives no reason for contentment. Interest in development issues is rather unstable and does not support fundamental solutions.

The Challenge: Re-building Support for Cooperation

The remaining question is how to operationalise what we know about the new constituencies. Obviously, the role of the mass media and the NGOs cannot be ignored. The first increasingly report on emergencies and disasters in developing countries, the second have started to fulfill an important function in development information(5).

Another significant "channel" is education. In primary and secondary school curricula, more room could be reserved for social issues, including migration and international cooperation. Higher education institutes and universities could be kept involved through exchange of staff and students. Further, other opportunities in the private and commercial sectors need to be explored. New interest groups like the military, but also ethically oriented bankers and investors, may become part of new alliances for international cooperation.

Information campaigns of governments have not been very effective. This is probably because their development programmes are not very visible, when compatred to NGOs for example. Thus they are not seen as important actors. The spending of governments on development education varies considerably but is on average rather limited. Apart from increasing these budgets it also seems worthwhile to establish cooperation with others such as NGOs.

NGOs are perceived as the most credible actors by the public and have a high visibility. Northern NGOs thus have a role in development education. Tthey form a strong, perhaps the strongest, representative constituency of the South in donor countries. Many Northern NGOs used to have awareness raising as one of their main objectives but shifted the focus of their work to activities in the South during the 1970s. Perhaps the time has come for them to redress this balance.

Perhaps one can learn from environmental NGOs. The European Voice newpaper recently noted the success of NGO lobbying in Brussels(6). The strategy was built on a European alliance of environmental organizations in a so-called "rainbow coalition". In this campaign, it was crucial to inform the public and to counter the powerful public relations activities of the industry. The Eurobarometer also did some research in this area: 62 per cent of respondents rated environmental protection associations as reliable information sources. The industry's score was 2 per cent. The Voice concludes that public opinion is a powerful weapon in western European states. It seems that development NGOs could be more effectively brought together in coalitions to raise public support for international cooperation towards poverty alleviation.

However, one thing is clear. There is no simple strategy to strengthen public support for international cooperation. To increase public understanding of development issues is complex. The issues cannot just be presented in terms of problems and solutions.

The public includes different constituencies that need different approaches. On the information supply side, several providers are active. But, none of them can make a decisive impact alone. Helmich(7) therefore pleads for permanent and professional engagement in which governments, NGOs, the media, educational institutions and other actors coordinate their efforts around four main tasks:

• defining clear goals for development cooperation, so people will know the standards against which performance should be measured;
• re-orienting development education, so challenges and constraints are portrayed realistically rather than in sensational terms;
• intensifying efforts to improve the efficiency of development programmes and demonstrate results to the public;
• creating awareness that development cooperation deserves support not only because of mutual interests but also because of fundamental humanitarian imperatives.

Notes

1. Eurobarometer 44.1. The way Europeans perceive developing countries in 1995. March 1998. INRA. European Coordination Office. Brussels.
2. See: NIPO. 1992. Bereik- en effectmeeting campagne ontwikkelingssamenwerking.Tekstrapport. NIPO. Amsterdam; NOP Consumer Market Research. November 1995. Omnibus research concerning public opinion on ODA and aid in the United Kingdom. London; Informe de resultados del estudios aobre conocimiento, imagen y atitudoa de la ayuda al tercer mundo. 1988, Riddel Invest. Madrid; Campo, del S. 1995. La opinion publica eapañola y al politica exterior. Universidad Complutense da Madrid. Madrid
3. Information from other European countries was not available at the time of writing.
4. The case for aid, a manifesto was produced by ACTIONAID, BOND, CAFOD, Christian Aid, OXFAM, Save the Children, Intermediate Technology, VSO, UNICEF, World Development Movement, World Wide Fund for Nature.
5. See the emergence of OneWorld Online as an Internet meeting and broadcasting centre on development information and education; and increasing attention by European development NGO networks to information exchange as a key function. (http://www.oneworld.org)
6. Article in the European Voice, 13-19 February 1997: NGOs perfect the fine art of lobbying on the campaign trail.
7. Helmich, H. 1997. International Development Co-operation in Transition: The Challenge to Increase Public Support. OECD. Paper for the European Conference on Public Support for International Co-operation. Maastricht, April 1997.