Ian Mitchell

Wait till the court learns that not only have we calculated liabilities for climate change damage but that we've also added an adjustment for differentiated responsibilities!

www.cgdev.org/publication/...

Research Assistant - UK and Development - Center for Global Development - Career Page Apply to Research Assistant - UK and Development at Center for Global Development in London, London, United Kingdom.

We're hiring!

We're after a recent graduate with quant and comms skills to work with me on ideas for the UK's development policy; and on benchmarking development performance.

You need to have the right to work in the UK

Full details here:
centerforglobaldevelopment.applytojob.com/apply/gIODpv...

New survey: Brits think that the UK's new aid budget is too low.

One of many interesting findings in the BFPG survey.

How the UK Should Focus Its Aid in 2026: Three Tests to Help Ministers Deliver on Commitments and Maximise Impact The FCDO must cut nearly £3 billion from its aid budget by 2027. Ian Mitchell and Sam Hughes set out three tests to protect impact.

The UK Government needs to cut £3bn from its aid budget.

But can it also fulfill commitments on greater multilateralism, targeting poverty, and ensuring impact?

@samhugh3s.bsky.social and I set three tests on aid allocation that would signify the 'change' promised.

www.cgdev.org/blog/how-uk-...

Indeed. Plus, the OBR is only so important because the Govt is choosing to meet its own rules so narrowly. If there was $100bn of headroom, no-one would care about forecast tweaks.

Very rough and ready estimate of the most affected countries by the new tariffs, apologies for errors. Sources in thread. Cambodia, Vietnam, Nicaragua Guyana all *highly* dependent on exports to US (= to 25%+ GNI), facing tariffs 18-38%.

Great that you're getting your kids involved in drawing your infographics ;-)

New blog by @justsand.bsky.social and me on USAID cuts by country and updated (again) sectoral cuts based on the list that went to Congress today.

Ukraine $1.4bn cut. Ethiopia, the DRC, Colombia, South Africa, Palestine, Bangladesh, Kenya, Afghanistan, and Tanzania >$200m

Make America Great Again by slashing basic health services in the Congo.

Hopefully Congress doesn't take these numbers as given.

5. Overall, these are a brutal set of spending plans for aid with the vast majority of the cuts happening a year earlier than expected.

4. The Government is presumably hoping that savings in around £3bn of refugee costs will reduce the size of these impacts - but there's no specific commitment to get them down. Perhaps that will come in the spending review.

3. The Govt has also confirmed it will no longer adjust th aid budget based on GNI -

So, if GDP/ national income rises more quickly than expected, the aid budget will not; and if it falls then the aid budget will stay flat.

Some stability at least.

2. Between 25/26 and 26/27 the aid budget will fall by around £3.7bn, which is 27%. This is extremely steep for any area of public spend.

Boris Johnson's cut in 2021 was £3.1bn, which was a 21% reduction.

1. Almost three quarters of the cuts will happen in 26/27.

The spring statement confirmed aid cuts of
- £0.5bn in 2025/26
- £4.8bn in 2026/27
- £6.5bn in 2027/28

This is relative to what aid would have been; and so most (74%) will have taken effect in 2026.

Today's spring statement quietly revealed that the vast majority of the aid cut the PM announced for 2027 will actually happen in 2026.

In fact, 2026/27 will see a 27% cut. That is steeper than the Boris Johnson aid cut in 2021.

A short thread on the figures:

Helen Miller appointed as new Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies | Institute for Fiscal Studies The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is delighted to announce that Helen Miller has been appointed as its next Director.

We are delighted to announce that @helenmiller.bsky.social has been appointed as the next IFS Director, following on from @pjtheeconomist.bsky.social in July 2025.

Find out more:

Fascinating this - do Chinese contractors delivering World Bank projects achieve worse outcomes than others?

Answer: no.

[US and UK contractors also perform around the average but Australian and French ones do less well]

Why a Cliff Edge Is Better than a Glide Path for the UK’s Aid Cut Would a steep cut to the UK’s aid budget in 2027, rather than a gradual reduction, better preserve flexibility, protect international commitments, and minimise project disruptions?

The Prime Minister told Parliament the aid cut was in 2027. If he meant 2026, he should have said so.

Defence spend needs to increase; but not at the expense of the UK's international credibility.

Full blog here:
www.cgdev.org/blog/why-cli...

3) The UK's commitment to the World Bank last November wasn't historically generous and should remain a priority.

Even as a share of the reduced aid budget in 2027, it's still under 8% of ODA, in line with previous shares

2) These are extremely steep cuts of ~34% by 2027.

Trying to do 15-20% in a year is even more challenging.

During austerity, the largest annual resource budget cut was under 10%.

New @cgdev.org blog from me on the UK aid cut in 2027 as HM Treasury finalise budgets. Just three points:

1) Many are saying the cut needs a 'glidepath'.

But this is misleading - glidepaths are supposed to soften cuts. But in this case, it just means making cuts a year sooner.

Incredibly clear thread on the US cuts, and the responsibility Secretary Rubio bears for them

I actually think this decision will galvanize them (or us, if you count me!).

If we live in a more basic world; then we should make the basic arguments again and stop apologising for doing so.

Good question - others have said they've been too focussed on their own silos (vaccines, nutrition, climate, education etc).

Some have weakened reputations from staff scandals.

There's also been admirable desire for aid to more 'local'. But recipients can't really advocate to UK taxpayers.

At last some courage and leadership from someone in Labour on international development

A mid-sized economic power like the UK cannot spend just 0.3% of income on international issues.

Keir Starmer to carry out largest cut to UK overseas aid in history NGOs accuse prime minister of following US by accepting ‘false choice’ of cutting aid to fund defence

"Sir Keir Starmer is to take UK overseas aid to its lowest level as a percentage of national income since records began"

Great to see the @theguardian.com lead with our @cgdev.org analysis.

www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

Even the PM instinctively understands that aid should be spent overseas - his official statement on the cut refers to "Overseas Development Assistance' (usually "Official" Devt Assistance).

Let's hope he stops counting the £4-5bn spent in the UK as aid.

www.gov.uk/government/n...

At the very least, he must guarantee that every penny of this reduced aid budget is actually spent overseas--not on admin costs or refugee hotels in the UK (4/4)

Just months ago, at the UN and in his manifesto, Starmer promised to restore Britain’s global leadership on international development. Instead, he’s pushing through a 40% cut, taking the aid budget to its lowest level in over 25 years (3/4)

In the face of Russia’s aggression, history will remember that the UK’s response was to slash its already diminished aid budget. Is that the legacy this Labour government want? (2/4)