English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper considers the opposition within Conservative parliamentary ranks to the decision of the Cameron administration to ring fence spending on overseas development aid (ODA) or international aid. Using documentary analysis from a range of parliamentary debates and divisions in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, the paper pieces together the arguments against legally enshrining spending on international aid at 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) made by Conservative parliamentarians. We define each Conservative parliamentarian as either aid critics (voted or spoke out against the 0.7 percent target); aid sceptics (abstained and did not publicly speak out for the 0.7 percent target); and aid advocates (those who voted and spoke out for the 0.7 percent target). We then consider the overlap between hard Euroscepticism (i.e. Brexit) to see the extent to which issues of national identity may explain hostility towards international aid spending.

Conservative backbench opposition to international aid: is it driven by hard Euroscepticism?