Australian Journal of International Affairs
ISSN: 1035-7718 (Print) 1465-332X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caji20
Examining recent shifts in Australia's foreign
aid policy: new paradigm or more incremental
change?
Jack Corbett & Sinclair Dinnen
To cite this article: Jack Corbett & Sinclair Dinnen (2016) Examining recent shifts in Australia's
foreign aid policy: new paradigm or more incremental change?, Australian Journal of International
Affairs, 70:1, 87-103, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2015.1085955
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2015.1085955
Published online: 18 Nov 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3152
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 7 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caji20
,AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2016
VOL. 70, NO. 1, 87–103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2015.1085955
Examining recent shifts in Australia’s foreign aid policy: new
paradigm or more incremental change?1
Jack Corbett and Sinclair Dinnen
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
On taking office in late 2013, the incoming Abbott government aid; AusAID; Australia
proclaimed the advent of a new aid paradigm. This article asks
whether or not this is the case. It does so by situating the new
coalition policy in the context of more than two decades of
development thinking. Focusing on the way Australian aid policy
reflects trends in both global development and geopolitical
discourses, the article parses out continuity and change. It finds
that Australia’s new aid paradigm is in fact largely the old aid
paradigm reincarnate, with aid policy continuing to follow the
well-established parameters outlined over decades of global
thinking and practice that emphasise the significance of private-
sector-led economic growth. However, while the overarching
paradigm remains relatively intact, incremental change is also
apparent, including alterations to the geographic focus, level and
administration of the program.
Introduction
On taking office in late 2013, the incoming Abbott government proclaimed the advent of a
new aid paradigm. As outlined by Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, the
new aid paradigm encapsulated a view that:
The world has changed—and our aid program must change too. Today, many developing
countries are growing rapidly, with aid representing an increasingly small proportion of
development finance. To be effective in this new context, our aid needs to be more innovative
and catalytic, leveraging other drivers of development such as private sector investment and
domestic finance. Our aid needs to support economic growth as the most sustainable way to
reduce poverty and lift living standards. We need to recast our aid paradigm in light of this
new development paradigm.2
For Bishop, aid is a form of ‘economic diplomacy’ that serves Australia’s foreign policy
and commercial interests by promoting prosperity among its close regional neighbours.
Initially, the restructuring of the program’s administration, including the abolition of
the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), was the primary
means by which this shift in emphasis was to be achieved. However, successive budgets
have brought considerable funding cuts, to the extent that Australia’s aid as a proportion
of gross national income (GNI) is predicted to fall to its lowest ever levels by 2016–17.3
CONTACT Jack Corbett jack.corbett@griffith.edu.au
© 2015 Australian Institute of International Affairs
, 88 J. CORBETT AND S. DINNEN
Our central argument is that, despite these recent changes, Australia’s new aid para-
digm is in fact largely the old aid paradigm reincarnate. By delving back into the
history of development thinking over the last two decades, both in Australia and interna-
tionally, we show that recent changes in development policy that claim to privilege a
private sector growth model are hardly novel. In fact, the more recent focus on ‘insti-
tutions’ and the tentative ‘political turn’ in development discourse (Carothers and De
Gramont 2013) are historical anomalies in an area of theory and practice that has long
been dominated by neoclassical economics and resolute faith in the primacy of markets
as the drivers of economic growth. And yet, despite the recent changes taking place
against the backdrop of a broadly familiar paradigm, the ideational contours of Australian
aid policy are not fixed. As such, our analysis identifies both broad continuity and incre-
mental change.
Having outlined our argument, let us state from the outset that we do not and
cannot provide an exhaustive history of Australian aid policy in the space provided
here. Our more modest and fundamental aim is to place recent claims about the
future of Australian aid policy in their historical context. Our discussion is organised
around two policy narratives: a development narrative and a foreign policy narrative.4
We find that these intersecting narratives are underpinned by the dominant debates of
their respective disciplines: development economics and international relations. Our
approach is conceptual rather than empirical. We are interested in mapping broad idea-
tional trends rather than analysing data to prove a specific hypothesis. Our contribution is
twofold: we provide a discussion of immediate interest to questions about the nature of
Australian aid policy and, in doing so, place this conversation in the context of broader
trends that have framed thinking about aid and development assistance over the last
two decades.
The term ‘paradigm’, as it has been employed thus far in the public debate about aid, is
an implicit reference to the pioneering work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn’s (1962) seminal
work on paradigms emphasises that revolutionary changes in epistemic communities
occur when the entire world view that underpins the way we see and understand what con-
stitutes knowledge is overturned. By arguing against the idea that we have indeed wit-
nessed a paradigmatic shift in Australian aid policy, we draw heavily from the logic of
the narrative turn in the social sciences (see, especially, Dodge et al. 2005). However,
we do not seek to ‘prove’ that narratives matter for how we understand the purpose
and function of aid—we take it as a given that they do—but rather show how they interact
and thus give meaning to the development enterprise in Australia.
There are a few caveats before we begin. Throughout, we use the terms ‘aid’ and ‘devel-
opment’ interchangeably. We acknowledge that these terms can be taken to mean different
types of intervention, but, given our aims, we have pragmatically conflated the two. In
doing so, we are conscious that our focus is primarily on Australia’s efforts to increase
living standards among the world’s poor, rather than humanitarian relief, for example.
Similarly, while each of the narratives we identify provides a somewhat parsimonious
treatment of the ideational trends that underpin the development enterprise, we neverthe-
less argue that they bring conceptual clarity to what is otherwise a disparate field. Finally,
we acknowledge that there may be differences in the way that we conceptualise a ‘para-
digm’ shift and the use of that term in political rhetoric, where minor differences are
often artificially inflated for strategic gain. Nevertheless, we feel that the claim warrants
ISSN: 1035-7718 (Print) 1465-332X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caji20
Examining recent shifts in Australia's foreign
aid policy: new paradigm or more incremental
change?
Jack Corbett & Sinclair Dinnen
To cite this article: Jack Corbett & Sinclair Dinnen (2016) Examining recent shifts in Australia's
foreign aid policy: new paradigm or more incremental change?, Australian Journal of International
Affairs, 70:1, 87-103, DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2015.1085955
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2015.1085955
Published online: 18 Nov 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3152
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 7 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caji20
,AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2016
VOL. 70, NO. 1, 87–103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2015.1085955
Examining recent shifts in Australia’s foreign aid policy: new
paradigm or more incremental change?1
Jack Corbett and Sinclair Dinnen
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
On taking office in late 2013, the incoming Abbott government aid; AusAID; Australia
proclaimed the advent of a new aid paradigm. This article asks
whether or not this is the case. It does so by situating the new
coalition policy in the context of more than two decades of
development thinking. Focusing on the way Australian aid policy
reflects trends in both global development and geopolitical
discourses, the article parses out continuity and change. It finds
that Australia’s new aid paradigm is in fact largely the old aid
paradigm reincarnate, with aid policy continuing to follow the
well-established parameters outlined over decades of global
thinking and practice that emphasise the significance of private-
sector-led economic growth. However, while the overarching
paradigm remains relatively intact, incremental change is also
apparent, including alterations to the geographic focus, level and
administration of the program.
Introduction
On taking office in late 2013, the incoming Abbott government proclaimed the advent of a
new aid paradigm. As outlined by Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, the
new aid paradigm encapsulated a view that:
The world has changed—and our aid program must change too. Today, many developing
countries are growing rapidly, with aid representing an increasingly small proportion of
development finance. To be effective in this new context, our aid needs to be more innovative
and catalytic, leveraging other drivers of development such as private sector investment and
domestic finance. Our aid needs to support economic growth as the most sustainable way to
reduce poverty and lift living standards. We need to recast our aid paradigm in light of this
new development paradigm.2
For Bishop, aid is a form of ‘economic diplomacy’ that serves Australia’s foreign policy
and commercial interests by promoting prosperity among its close regional neighbours.
Initially, the restructuring of the program’s administration, including the abolition of
the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), was the primary
means by which this shift in emphasis was to be achieved. However, successive budgets
have brought considerable funding cuts, to the extent that Australia’s aid as a proportion
of gross national income (GNI) is predicted to fall to its lowest ever levels by 2016–17.3
CONTACT Jack Corbett jack.corbett@griffith.edu.au
© 2015 Australian Institute of International Affairs
, 88 J. CORBETT AND S. DINNEN
Our central argument is that, despite these recent changes, Australia’s new aid para-
digm is in fact largely the old aid paradigm reincarnate. By delving back into the
history of development thinking over the last two decades, both in Australia and interna-
tionally, we show that recent changes in development policy that claim to privilege a
private sector growth model are hardly novel. In fact, the more recent focus on ‘insti-
tutions’ and the tentative ‘political turn’ in development discourse (Carothers and De
Gramont 2013) are historical anomalies in an area of theory and practice that has long
been dominated by neoclassical economics and resolute faith in the primacy of markets
as the drivers of economic growth. And yet, despite the recent changes taking place
against the backdrop of a broadly familiar paradigm, the ideational contours of Australian
aid policy are not fixed. As such, our analysis identifies both broad continuity and incre-
mental change.
Having outlined our argument, let us state from the outset that we do not and
cannot provide an exhaustive history of Australian aid policy in the space provided
here. Our more modest and fundamental aim is to place recent claims about the
future of Australian aid policy in their historical context. Our discussion is organised
around two policy narratives: a development narrative and a foreign policy narrative.4
We find that these intersecting narratives are underpinned by the dominant debates of
their respective disciplines: development economics and international relations. Our
approach is conceptual rather than empirical. We are interested in mapping broad idea-
tional trends rather than analysing data to prove a specific hypothesis. Our contribution is
twofold: we provide a discussion of immediate interest to questions about the nature of
Australian aid policy and, in doing so, place this conversation in the context of broader
trends that have framed thinking about aid and development assistance over the last
two decades.
The term ‘paradigm’, as it has been employed thus far in the public debate about aid, is
an implicit reference to the pioneering work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn’s (1962) seminal
work on paradigms emphasises that revolutionary changes in epistemic communities
occur when the entire world view that underpins the way we see and understand what con-
stitutes knowledge is overturned. By arguing against the idea that we have indeed wit-
nessed a paradigmatic shift in Australian aid policy, we draw heavily from the logic of
the narrative turn in the social sciences (see, especially, Dodge et al. 2005). However,
we do not seek to ‘prove’ that narratives matter for how we understand the purpose
and function of aid—we take it as a given that they do—but rather show how they interact
and thus give meaning to the development enterprise in Australia.
There are a few caveats before we begin. Throughout, we use the terms ‘aid’ and ‘devel-
opment’ interchangeably. We acknowledge that these terms can be taken to mean different
types of intervention, but, given our aims, we have pragmatically conflated the two. In
doing so, we are conscious that our focus is primarily on Australia’s efforts to increase
living standards among the world’s poor, rather than humanitarian relief, for example.
Similarly, while each of the narratives we identify provides a somewhat parsimonious
treatment of the ideational trends that underpin the development enterprise, we neverthe-
less argue that they bring conceptual clarity to what is otherwise a disparate field. Finally,
we acknowledge that there may be differences in the way that we conceptualise a ‘para-
digm’ shift and the use of that term in political rhetoric, where minor differences are
often artificially inflated for strategic gain. Nevertheless, we feel that the claim warrants
