How government aid cuts influence generosity in the UK and Germany

A new behavioural study conducted by GlobalGiving UK in partnership with Professor Hanna Zagefka at Royal Holloway, University of London surveyed just over 2,000 participants across the UK and Germany to explore how awareness of government aid cuts reshapes social norms around generosity.

The research found that mentioning government aid cuts within survey questions was associated with lower perceived importance of aid and reduced motivation to give. Rather than galvanising generosity, reminders of cuts appeared to normalise them.

When participants were shown information about aid reductions, they were less likely to describe aid as essential, less likely to frame it as a moral duty and less emotionally engaged overall. The signal many appeared to take from government cuts was not “the need is greater, I must act”, but something closer to “this is no longer a priority”.

For a sector navigating shrinking public budgets, this has significant implications. Fundraising strategies that spotlight cuts in an attempt to generate urgency may unintentionally dampen support.

Shifting expectations of responsibility

While individual motivation to donate appeared to weaken, expectations of who should step in shifted sharply upwards. Around 80% of UK respondents and 90% of German respondents said philanthropists should help fill funding gaps created by government aid cuts. In the UK, 64% also expected companies to step in, rising to 78% in Germany.

Governments were still seen as primarily responsible overall. After governments, respondents looked to high-capacity private actors rather than individual donors. In both countries, individual donors were consistently viewed as the least responsible for filling the gap.

What actually drives giving

The study also found that donation behaviour was strongly associated with social norms and emotional engagement. Participants who were emotionally affected by the withdrawal of funding, and those who viewed aid as morally essential, were significantly more likely to donate and to pledge higher amounts.

Generosity proved most resilient when it felt collective. When giving was framed as part of a shared effort, people were more engaged. When it felt isolated or detached from a broader response, motivation weakened.

What this means for charities

Taken together, the research points to the need for charities to strategically recalibrate how they approach fundraising. While aid cuts are real and consequential, they need not sit at the centre of appeals. Urgency matters, but generosity appears more durable when anchored in shared purpose rather than framed primarily as a reaction to government withdrawal.

Secondly, contribution pathways need to be visible and credible. Findings from the research suggests that individual donors are more motivated when they can see how their support connects to a wider response, whether alongside philanthropic funding, corporate partnerships or pooled funds. When there is a clear ecosystem, individual givers feel connected and participation feels purposeful.

Charities, social enterprises, responsible businesses and mission-driven investors already form an economically significant donation landscape. NPC’s latest UK Impact Economy report estimates that the impact economy contributes £428bn in gross value added; around 15% of UK GDP. For many individual donors, understanding that they are participating in this wider network, rather than acting alone, can reinforce confidence and commitment.

Emotional and moral connection remain central, with the research reinforcing what many in the sector already know: that human stories, credible outcomes and tangible impact sustain engagement, particularly when money is tight. Grounding appeals in lived experience and community impact can help maintain that moral clarity. Generosity is less abstract when it is attached to real people, places and progress.

Finally, language matters. Positioning philanthropy and private giving as reinforcing and strengthening public and community systems, rather than replacing them, helps preserve legitimacy and trust. Framing support as part of a broader ecosystem of action maintains the idea that international development is a collective movement, even when the balance of funding shifts.

Aid cuts influence more than government budgets. They reshape expectations, social norms and perceptions of responsibility. Sustaining generosity in this environment may depend not only on mobilising alternative capital, but on reinforcing the social foundations that make giving feel shared, meaningful and effective. For the sector, this creates an opportunity to articulate a confident, collective vision of how actors across public, private and civil society spheres contribute to lasting change. When that collective effort is visible and credible, generosity is far more likely to endure.