Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on the #DfIDmerger. It's a full-fat merger, not just DFID as an agency sitting under the FCO. This makes it harder to deliver, but the potential upsides are greater.
There's an assumption that the FCO is 'taking over' DFID, but it might be the other way round.
1/5
There's an assumption that the FCO is 'taking over' DFID, but it might be the other way round.
1/5
DFID, after all, has a far larger budget and more senior staff. It is also culturally much more self-confident: DFID in recent years has had a clear objective and the resources to achieve that. The FCO has had neither and is dispirited, directionless and marginalised.
2/5
2/5
One of the things DFID has been good at is recruiting and retaining real experts, and then basing its work on their advice. The FCO has had limited resources for specialists and has tended to ignore their views. If DFID's culture reaches the FCO, that will be a good thing.
3/5
3/5
Some say now less focus on human rights, as FCO prioritises relations with host govts. In my direct experience it's often the opposite: DFID's #1 priority is poverty reduction, not human rights. Key change is that aid will be more political, with upsides and downsides.
4/5
4/5
But if the intention is to caricature aid as a "giant cashpoint", that's just playing to the gallery. As is well-established, 'Global Britain' is a meme to impress domestic audiences. It has no real strategic or policy framework. Let's see if DFID can help fix that.
5/5
5/5
