Asia's rise and the politics of Australian aid policy

Abstract

Abstract The economic rise of developing Asia has given impetus to debates over the geographic orientation, strategy, organisation, and collaborative relationships of the Australian aid programme. This paper examines these debates, Australian government responses, and the politics underlying these responses. It points to, among things, the different ways in which the Labor Party and the Liberal–National Coalition have dealt with these issues, reflecting their different constituencies and foreign policy philosophies. The paper also assesses the future trajectory of Australian aid policy, in particular, the extent to which it is embracing the Chinese model of aid.

Keywords:

• Australia
• aid
• DFAT
• AusAID
• neoliberalism

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council under grant number DP130102323.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. I use these terms to distinguish between ‘major, contentious policy issues (often crisis engendered)’ and, ‘routine, politics-as-usual policies’ (Walt and Gilson 1994: 367).

2. Less dramatic differences over the size of the budget emerged in the run-up to the 2007 federal election when Labor promised to increase aid spending to 0.5 per cent of gross national income (GNI) by 2015 in contrast to the Coalition's commitment to merely double aid spending by 2010. The 2013–2014 cuts are expected to reduce Australia's aid budget to .22 per cent of GNI by 2016–2017 (Howes and Pryke 2014). For Labor's post-2013 position on aid policy, see Plibersek (2015).

3. It should be noted that the Lowy Institute has also employed some former AusAID officials, most notably Anne Maree O'Keefe, a former Deputy-Director General of the agency, making it a platform not just for the views of former diplomatic and security personnel but also aid officials. That said, the Institute's linkages appear to be predominantly to the diplomatic and security services rather than the foreign aid programme. In this respect, it can be contrasted with the Development Policy Centre at the ANU's Crawford School which is led by two former senior AusAID officials. Between them, the Lowy Institute and the Development Policy Centre have constituted a forum through which intra-bureaucratic debates play out in the public domain via the agency of former diplomatic, security and development officials. To the extent that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, an independent think tank with close links to the security forces has participated in aid policy debates, it has also played a role in this respect.

4. Oxfam's position with regards to the geographic orientation of the aid programme has been unclear. In its submission to the 2011 aid effectiveness review, it expressed support for a broadening of the programme to sub-Saharan Africa so long as key risks were well managed and the expansion was driven by a concern to promote reduced poverty (Oxfam 2011). However, in a co-authored op-ed piece with Tim Costello, Hewett emphasised the need for Australia to continue providing aid to Asia (Hewett and Costello 2011).

5. Despite the continued focus on the Asia-Pacific, there were significant shifts in aid allocations within the Asia-Pacific region as a result of the US ‘War on Terror’, the end of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, the onset of violent conflict in the Solomon Islands, and the 2004 tsunami. Country programmes to the Solomon Islands, Pakistan, and Indonesia all experienced big increases while large new country programmes were created for Afghanistan and Timor Leste.

6. In the 2006 aid White Paper, the Howard government stipulated that the official objective of the Australian aid programme was ‘To assist developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia's national interest’.

7. In contrast to the 2006 White Paper (see endnote 6 above), the Gillard government's response to the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness states simply that ‘The fundamental purpose of Australian aid is to help people overcome poverty’, noting that ‘this also serves Australia's national interests by promoting stability and prosperity both in our region and beyond’.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [grant number DP130102323].