Rethinking outsourced aid delivery
Image taken from UK Parliament TV. Copyright © Parliamentary authorities, licensed under the Open Parliament Licence.
When Dr Brendan Whitty, Lecturer in Non-Profit Management in the Business School’s Department of Management, recently gave evidence to the UK Parliament’s International Development Committee, he did more than present the findings of a four-year ESRC-funded research project. He offered a powerful and timely challenge to the way the UK government delivers aid.
Here he discusses how his research, drawing on a substantial dataset of more than 1,100 contracts and over 100 interviews across government and contractor communities, and carried out with colleagues across the UK, cuts through the rhetoric to expose a deeper issue in public sector outsourcing.
Our work suggests that public officials have become increasingly separated from the practicalities of aid delivery, not solely through outsourcing, but also through the way these officials have structured it. In particular, the use of large prime contractors, responsible for delivering programmes and managing sub-contractors, has created layers between the state and the work it should oversee. These arrangements have made it harder for officials to maintain oversight, understand delivery or stay connected to what is happening on the ground.
I am not saying that contractors are failing to do what they are paid for. In most cases, they are delivering exactly what is asked of them. The problem lies in the system’s structure. The way we contract has weakened both state capability and accountability. The system is designed to manage risk, but it ultimately distances decision-makers from the very programmes they fund. It becomes harder to ask the right questions, let alone evaluate the answers.
Development work is not usually the same as procuring products. Some aid is transactional, such as distributing malaria nets or textbooks. These programmes can be delivered effectively through established multilateral organisations, which often offer more efficient routes. But much of the most meaningful development work is transformational. It depends on relationships, political insight and adaptive decision-making. It cannot be easily specified in advance or managed from a distance.
I argued to the Committee that the UK must think more carefully about when and how it uses private contractors. For transactional programmes, existing multilateral systems can offer stability and value for money. For transformational work, smaller and more directly managed programmes may provide better results. These should be designed in close partnership with local organisations and supported by civil servants who understand the context.
This is not a rejection of outsourcing. If we are serious about improving outcomes, ensuring public accountability and making better use of limited budgets, we need to recognise that outsourcing is not simply a commercial or technical decision. It is a governance decision. The way we structure delivery shapes not only what we achieve, but also the kind of public sector we enable.