A behavioural study conducted by GlobalGiving UK in collaboration with Professor Hanna Zagefka from Royal Holloway, University of London surveyed more than 2,000 participants in the UK and Germany to examine how awareness of government aid cuts influences public attitudes toward generosity and charitable giving. The research found that when government aid reductions were mentioned in survey questions, participants were less likely to consider international aid important and showed lower motivation to donate. Instead of encouraging people to give more, reminders of aid cuts appeared to normalise the reductions and signal that such support was no longer a major priority.
Participants who were informed about reductions in government aid were less likely to view aid as essential, less inclined to see it as a moral obligation and generally showed lower emotional engagement with the issue. The findings suggest that the public may interpret government cuts not as an urgent call for greater personal action but rather as a sign that aid has become less significant. For charities and development organisations facing shrinking public budgets, this raises concerns that fundraising messages focusing heavily on government cuts may unintentionally weaken public support.
Although individuals appeared less motivated to donate after hearing about aid reductions, expectations regarding responsibility for filling funding gaps increased significantly. Around 80 percent of respondents in the UK and 90 percent in Germany believed that philanthropists should help address the shortfall caused by government cuts. In addition, many respondents expected companies to contribute more, with 64 percent in the UK and 78 percent in Germany indicating that businesses should step in. Despite this, governments were still viewed as having the primary responsibility for international aid, while individual donors were considered the least responsible for covering funding gaps.
The study also highlighted that donation behaviour is strongly influenced by social norms and emotional engagement. Participants who felt emotionally affected by funding withdrawals or who believed aid to be a moral necessity were significantly more likely to donate and pledge higher amounts. Generosity was more resilient when giving was framed as part of a collective effort rather than an isolated action, suggesting that people are more motivated when they feel connected to a wider response.
For charities and development organisations, the research indicates the need to rethink fundraising strategies. While the reality of aid cuts cannot be ignored, focusing appeals primarily on reductions may undermine generosity. Instead, campaigns may be more effective when they emphasise shared purpose, visible impact and collaboration among governments, philanthropists, businesses and civil society actors.
The findings also underline the importance of showing donors how their contributions fit into a broader ecosystem of support. When individuals understand that their donations complement philanthropic funding, corporate partnerships or pooled initiatives, they are more likely to feel that their participation is meaningful and impactful. This sense of collective action can strengthen confidence and encourage continued engagement.
Emotional and moral connections remain central to sustaining generosity. Stories of real people, tangible outcomes and community impact can help maintain public interest and reinforce the human value of charitable efforts, especially during periods of financial constraint. By presenting philanthropy as a force that strengthens public and community systems rather than replacing them, organisations can maintain trust and legitimacy.
Overall, the study concludes that government aid cuts do more than reduce funding levels. They also influence social norms, public expectations and perceptions of responsibility. Maintaining generosity in such an environment will require not only alternative sources of funding but also stronger narratives of shared responsibility and collective action among governments, businesses, philanthropists and civil society.
