Making the case for “fairness” in development communications

In a recent statement announcing a government clampdown on cowboy builders, Andy Burnham used a word that I have been thinking about for a while.

He presented this policy as “the latest in a series of everyday fixes to give people room to breathe and make Britain fairer”.

“Fairness” is a strange construct. It is both unique and universal. We each have our own concept of what is fair; yet, regardless of the interpretation, there is consensus that fairness is a worthy ambition.

In politics, a striving for fairness can be used to justify a whole range of policy decisions, from increasing income tax for the highest earners to cutting Universal Credit allowances. However, it is not a word I see being used much across the international development sector, especially when trying to engage the public in debates around development spending. This is an opportunity missed.

Finding the right approach

Following Keir Starmer’s decision to cut the UK’s Official Development Assistance to 0.3% of GNI in February 2025, it was easy to be pessimistic about the future viability of international development in the UK.

Despite there still being cause for hope – public support for development spending remained solid – one thing was apparent. As a sector, we were no longer the ones framing the discourse around the merits of poverty eradication. It became clear that we needed to rearticulate why global development should be considered important.

In the 18 months since, those tasked with rebuilding public support to end poverty have faced a dilemma: cast your net wide, using multiple messages for broad appeal, or focus on a single message in line with what you really believe and hope it resonates.

More in Common’s Seven Segments of Britain (which places the public on a spectrum from dissenting disruptors to progressive activists) has been a key tool when exploring how best to reach different parts of the public. However, while I appreciate that understanding your audience is vital, I wonder if too much emphasis has been placed on finding specific lines that appeal to each segment. At times, this has led to messaging which seems indecisive and inauthentic in a political environment where authenticity has never been more essential.

On whose terms are we speaking?

When making the case for development, it’s important that authenticity is not sacrificed to appease people who do not value international efforts to bring people out of poverty. This is happening too much across the sector. Since that February 2025 announcement, I have sat in many meetings and workshops where different narrative approaches to the current political situation were discussed. This includes a renewed focus on ODA and 0.7%, messaging centred on the value of partnerships, or which highlighting the reciprocal benefits, stability and security that development spending brings. Often, the agreed upon course is all, or a combination, of the above.

These are worthwhile responses, but they are reactive and often formed with those dissenters in mind. We need more proactive ways of changing how the debate is framed.

I wonder if there is a new way to misseapproach the development debate with the UK public – one which our new prime minister has quickly adopted. A singular message built around the word “fairness”.

The case for fairness

People in the UK really value fairness. It’s why there was such outrage at Partygate and the expenses scandal.

A fairness development narrative is not overtly focused on ODA budgets or the taxpayer. Importantly, it does not take a moralising approach, which can lead to backlash and division between those who believe in global development and those who are cynical of its necessity or effectiveness.

Instead, an approach centred on fairness targets the systems that have created an uneven playing field for so many around the world, systems the “Global North” has established and maintains.

In the past year, Results UK has published two reports which speak to this. Trading Hunger explores illicit financial flows, and how they rob countries of vital tax income which could be spent on nutrition programmes. Equity by Design highlights consequences of disparities in the production power of vaccines between between Global South and North countries.

From the pub to party conference, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who approves of UK tax havens being used to harbour cash which should be in the coffers of countries hardest hit by child undernutrition. Or that African nations should have their vaccine buying capabilities dictated by foreign governments and corporations that do not have their best interest at heart.

Fairness is broadly non-political. Instead it is values-based. It evokes a notion of “British values”, creates a sense of pride and speaks to something in many of us that feels we should strive to create an even world.

It is also recognisable because the UK is not a fair country. It is completely reasonable for someone to say it’s unfair that their local community has suffered chronic underinvestment over the past 50 years. It is not that surprising that a consequence of this is the belief that government budgets should prioritise domestic spending over ODA.

A fairness-centred narrative counters that logic by showing how inequalities in the UK and globally are a product of similar unfair systems. It is unfair that you can’t regularly access a GP. It is also unfair that people from countries with the least resources didn’t have access to vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic. Or that the 16 countries most affected by food crises have paid $40.3bn on external public debt service in 2023. Both things can be, and are, true. Messaging that highlights this may be the way we shift perceptions on development spending.

A fairness narrative is by no means a silver bullet. However, I do see it as a proactive approach to current circumstances. It is neither political, technical, nor moralising (compare it with concepts like “equity”’, “equality”’ and “solidarity”). And it resonates with ideas of British values, offering a sense of pride in creating and upholding systems that are designed for all.

How to create those systems is a bigger conversation. But using the language of fairness may go some way towards getting enough people on board to even begin such a debate.