In conclusion, it also reflects on what an alternative vision for what a more limited aid future could look like.

One based on the principles of ‘working politically’, and embracing and navigating uncertainty, in contrast (or complement?) to a simplified ‘what works’ approach.

From a few ‘big wins’ on certain issues, it has demonstrated excellent value for money. The blog dives into these calculations and some examples.

As well as the need for a nuanced understanding of VFM:

The blog draws on our experience documenting the Traction programme in Malawi for several years.

The programme follows an issue-based approach, leveraging organic incentives for change and working with a principle of ‘keeping money (mostly) off the table’

This is fundamental to their theory of change, but a side-effect can be lower costs.

Politically smart approaches can embody a different vision of aid. One that is less fundamentally about transferring resources to fill resource gaps or ‘buy results’, and more about facilitating local partners to achieve their own objectives.

For over a decade now, the need for more politically smart aid has been a familiar refrain. Mostly based on a diagnosis of ‘development problems’ as fundamentally politically. But is what is less emphasised – and worth doing now! – is how they are often lower cost

Today’s more blatant infringements on freedom of speech should be met with just as wide dismay.

In 2024, Gove’s move saw opposition from those worried their activism would now be classed as extremist.

They were diverse groups, not natural allies: Countryside Alliance for fox-hunting, the National Secular Society for religion out of the state, alongside the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

More than a hundred people were arrested at protests this weekend, including a pensioner for holding a placard with this Private Eye cartoon. This is patently absurd.

The decision to class Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organisation – on a par with al-Qaeda and ISIS – and as a result making it an arrestable offence to express support for them, has had predictable consequences.

Yet now it is a Labour Government that has slid further down the slippery slope of expanding definitions of extremism and terrorism, and policing on that basis.

Some in the Labour Party critiqued Gove’s move then. Angela Rayner was described in the press as ‘picking apart new Tory extremism definition’ and ‘demolishing Michael Gove’s measures’

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kEu...

At the time, I wrote:

'Liberal democracies face a genuine balancing act in regulating hate speech, protection from intimidation and freedom of expression. But, if in tension, protecting fundamental democratic rights to free speech and protest should be the priority.'

In the piece, from March 2024, I argued that Michael Gove's move to redefine 'extremism' was dangerously anti-democratic and risked stifling activism.

4. The Trump effect: a sharp decline in perceptions of the US. Globally, China is viewed more positively than the United States for the first time.

3. Amongst citizens globally commitment to a ‘rules-based international order’ remains somewhat stable. But with large parts of Africa the notable exception.

Unsurprisingly: why commit to a so-called ‘international order’ shaped elsewhere, without their involvement?

2. Pretty much everywhere is dissatisfied with the performance of their Governments.

How do countries resist the anti-democratic tendencies of populism in such an universally anti-politics era?

1. Globally, ‘improving living standards’ is seen as the main purpose of democracy. More than free elections or protecting rights.

Attempts to build democratic resilience that don’t grapple with the need for, and difficulties of, effective governance could miss the point.