Foreign Aid - Stephen Brown

Posted on Friday, June 14, 2019



Two hands holding earth

Canada’s foreign aid spending has been stagnant for over a decade, even though development assistance plays an important role in improving the lives of poor and marginalized people around the world. It also provides Canada with “soft power” tools, including a place at the table and credibility at international fora and in developing countries. At a time when the government is trying to achieve greater international influence, including being elected to the UN Security Council, Canada can champion branded aid initiatives, increase aid or do both.




  • While Canada has no plans to significantly increase its aid, several European countries have either reached or surpassed the 0.7% target (the international norm), or have committed to a calendar to reach that level – including Norway and Ireland, Canada’s rivals for the elections for a United Nations Security Council seat in 2021.
  • A flat and relatively low level of aid spending not only generates criticism for the Canadian government among Canadian civil society organizations, the media and academics, but can also hinder Canada’s credibility internationally.
  • New initiatives without any additional funds imply that they will be financed by reducing or eliminating funding to other initiatives and sectors.
  • Effective, highly visible, Canadian-branded initiatives can contribute more to “soft power” than low-profile contributions, especially if the latter are pooled with other donors’ or recipient governments’ funds.
  • Short-term, high-visibility projects, on the other hand, are generally considered less effective and less sustainable for poverty reduction. Moreover, the high profile can backfire if the projects do not reach their goals, like Canada’s signature projects in Afghanistan.
  • Canadians are generally supportive of foreign aid, even if they do not necessarily rank it high in their list of priorities.


The Canadian government can:

Option 1: Continue to keep its aid levels relatively low and promote branded initiatives.

This option has the advantage of potentially achieving more influence without increasing spending. However, such aid programming will be criticized by some observers and practitioners for being less effective, and will attract extra negative attention if a high-profile initiative proves disappointing. Branded initiatives are also more likely to be abandoned when there is a change of government, thereby making Canada seem like a less dependable partner.

Option 2: Increase its aid levels.

Increasing Canada’s foreign aid would have a positive impact on the global fight against poverty and inequality. It would give Canada more credibility among its donor peers and the international community more generally. This would grant the Canadian government a more prominent place at the table and potentially more agenda-setting influence, including a greater chance of obtaining support in the Security Council elections, especially from vote-rich Africa. It implies, however, increasing the federal budget deficit or cutting other government expenditures.

Option 3: Combine options 1 and 2.

Greater funding levels would multiply the credibility and impact of Canadian policy initiatives. If successful, they would help justify the additional spending. However, if the extra funds are seen as being not well spent, it would undermine Canada’s credibility and support for the government, as well as for future aid spending.

Stephen Brown

Stephen Brown is a professor at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. His research focuses mainly on the intersection of the policies and practices of Northern countries and other international actors with politics in Southern countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Back to top