Most people don't think about foreign aid until they see a crisis on the news. Even then, it’s usually a fleeting thought about where the money actually goes. For decades, the Department for International Development (DFID) was the engine room behind that money. It wasn't just a government office; it was a global heavyweight.
Then it vanished.
In 2020, Boris Johnson decided to fold it into the Foreign Office. It was a massive shakeup. People are still arguing about whether it was a masterstroke of diplomacy or a total disaster for the world’s poorest people. Honestly, if you ask an aid worker and a diplomat, you’ll get two completely different stories. One sees a loss of moral mission; the other sees a "Global Britain" finally speaking with one voice.
What the Department for International Development actually did
DFID was weirdly unique. Unlike aid agencies in many other countries, it had its own cabinet minister. That gave it a seat at the big table. It wasn't just some sub-department of the Treasury or the Home Office. It had its own budget—a big one—tethered to the UK's legal commitment to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on overseas development.
They did the heavy lifting. We’re talking about massive vaccination programs that literally wiped out polio in certain regions. They funded girls' education in places where the alternative was no school at all. They also handled the unglamorous stuff. Think "public financial management reform." Boring title, right? But it basically meant teaching developing governments how to track their own taxes so they wouldn't need aid forever.
The shift from "Aid" to "Influence"
When the Department for International Development was standalone, the goal was poverty reduction. Full stop. It was written into the International Development Act 2002. That law was a big deal because it meant the Secretary of State couldn't just use aid money to buy political favors or grease the wheels for a trade deal.
📖 Related: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
The merger changed the vibe. Now, under the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), aid is explicitly a tool of foreign policy. Critics call it "mercantilism." Supporters call it common sense. If we're spending billions, shouldn't it help Britain's interests too? It's a prickly question that doesn't have a clean answer.
Why the merger was so controversial
The backlash was immediate. Three former Prime Ministers—Cameron, Blair, and Brown—all came out against it. That doesn't happen often. They weren't just being nostalgic. They were worried about losing the "soft power" that DFID provided.
When you lose a specialized agency, you lose specialized people. A lot of the top-tier development experts left. They didn't want to be diplomats; they wanted to build wells and fix supply chains. The cultural clash was real. You had "development nerds" in Birkenstocks suddenly having to report to "diplomats in pinstripes." It sounds like a joke, but the operational friction was intense.
Money talks, and the budget walked
Right around the time of the merger, the UK also ditched the 0.7% target, dropping it to 0.5%. Between the organizational chaos and the shrinking pot of gold, British influence in the Global South took a hit. You can’t tell a country you're their best friend and then cut their funding by 40% in the middle of a pandemic. It just doesn't work.
The legacy of the Department for International Development
If you look at the stats from 1997 to 2020, the impact was staggering.
👉 See also: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
- Over 10 million children supported in education.
- Millions of people gained access to clean water.
- Research into malaria treatments that saved countless lives.
But it wasn't all sunshine. There were definitely projects that failed. There was the "Airport to Nowhere" in St. Helena, which cost nearly £300 million and couldn't even take most commercial flights at first because of wind issues. These are the stories that make people skeptical of the Department for International Development.
The "White Elephant" problem
Every major aid agency has them. Waste is a part of any massive bureaucracy. However, the rigor DFID applied to its "Value for Money" assessments was actually world-leading. They were obsessed with data. They used a "Results Framework" that forced every project to prove its worth every single year. A lot of that institutional memory is what people fear we're losing now.
Where do we go from here?
Is the Department for International Development ever coming back? Probably not in its old form. Even if a different party takes power, un-merging a department is a logistical nightmare that costs a fortune. The focus now has shifted to how to make the FCDO work better.
We need to stop treating development like a charity and start treating it like global insurance. When we fund health systems in Africa, we’re preventing the next pandemic from hitting London. When we fund climate resilience in Asia, we’re reducing the number of people who will eventually be forced to migrate. It’s all connected.
Practical steps for staying informed
If you're interested in where your tax money is going or how the UK's global footprint is changing, don't just wait for the headlines.
✨ Don't miss: 39 Carl St and Kevin Lau: What Actually Happened at the Cole Valley Property
First, check the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI). They are the watchdogs. They don't report to the government; they report to Parliament. Their reports are brutally honest. If a project is failing, they’ll give it a "Red" rating and explain exactly why.
Second, follow the work of the Center for Global Development. They provide the nuance that newspapers usually skip. They track how the merger is actually affecting the quality of aid on the ground.
Finally, keep an eye on the "Secondary Legislation." A lot of the changes to how aid is spent happen in small committee rooms, not in big televised debates. Understanding the "Quality of Official Development Assistance" (QuODA) rankings can tell you more about the UK's current standing than any press release from a minister ever will.
The Department for International Development might be gone, but the needs it addressed are bigger than ever. The challenge now is making sure the new system doesn't just prioritize short-term political wins over long-term human progress.