16 Oct Protecting Soft Power in a Time of Cuts

Upon their election into Government, Labour declared that they had ‘inherited the worst set of circumstances since the second World War’. That statement is undoubtedly hyperbole, but it is clear that the UK’s economic situation is challenging. Inflation rates have finally dropped below 2% for the first time in three years but slow economic growth and heavy government borrowing mean the fiscal environment remains difficult. The budget, scheduled for later this month, will therefore necessitate some difficult choices, with tax increases and budget cuts expected.

With the NHS on its knees, prisons at capacity and ongoing debates about winter fuel payments, these decisions won’t be easy. But the danger with any cuts is that the perceived ‘nice-to-haves’, such as culture, sport and international development, are often the first to go. 

Indeed, this week we’ve already seen the realities of cost-cutting measures, with the BBC axing ‘HardTalk’, as part of its efforts to save £700 million a year. HardTalk has served an invaluable role for decades in conducting in-depth interviews with global figures, not least with world leaders, providing an opportunity for critique and accountability in environments where that is often sparse. Its role, and the role of other BBC and BBC World Service programmes, in promoting democracy, accountability and tackling disinformation globally should not be understated.

And it’s not just the BBC that’s struggling. Recent research has shown that the UK has some of the lowest levels of government spending on culture among European nations, and is one of just a handful of European nations to reduce total culture spending per person between 2010 and 2022. The upcoming budget is widely expected to initiate further cuts, not least to international development, with rumours abounding that Rachel Reeves’ plans for international development spending will leave it at a 17-year low.

And the position is understandable. When tough decisions have to be made, it can be hard to justify spending money on international and cultural activities when there are so many pressing issues to tackle at home. Indeed, it’s a position that consistently comes through in our public opinion research when it comes to international development, where support for development spending remains low, not least driven by the view, held by 61% of Britons in 2023, that international aid and development spending takes away money that should be spent on domestic needs.

But ultimately it’s not that easy to disentangle the UK’s domestic and our international activities. The Strategic Framework that we released last year as part of our work co-convening the UK Soft Power Group, highlights in detail how the UK’s sports, creative industries, education, governance and wider soft power institutions are not only making a significant economic contribution to the UK (e.g. in 2019 the UK’s creative industries contributed £115.9 billion to the UK economy), but also have a significant impact on how the UK is perceived internationally. This ultimately impacts the UK’s ability to trade, produce and protect global systems that support UK interests, and develop deep international partnerships that protect the UK’s national security and prosperity.

Take sport for example. Not only do UK sporting institutions attract huge global audiences (the Premier League alone is broadcast to 4.7 billion people globally), but they also help drive the UK’s attractiveness – after the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 36% of viewers stated that the Games had made the UK more attractive as a place to study or do business, and 35% of viewers said they were subsequently more likely to visit the UK. Given 50% of the world’s population watched the 2012 Olympics, this drove substantial potential for future engagement between the UK and other nations. 

Sport can also crucially be a driver for peace and development through initiatives like Try Rugby which uses rugby lessons as a tool to engage with children and young people across Brazil, and promote health, education and social cohesion. These non-governmental soft power engagements can also keep lines of engagement open with a diverse array of nations, even when state-level relations are challenging, creating a foundation of mutual understanding and respect which can be essential for driving peace.

There are many other examples too – from the benefits derived from the pervasiveness of the English language to the opportunities the UK gains from its leadership in global standard-setting. Ultimately these aren’t just ‘nice-to-haves’, they are essential for the UK’s long term security and prosperity. And other nations know it. While the UK has stripped back its investment in soft power in recent years, our strategic rivals and allies have been substantially scaling it up. K-pop has already proven to be a major soft power asset for South Korea, while Russia has been investing heavily in their soft power in Africa and Central Asia, as has China, for which they are already reaping rewards in ways that will fundamentally undermine the West’s security and prosperity.

So while cutting soft power, or even just failing to invest in it, might feel like an ‘easy win’, saving money for more immediate domestic spending, it would be short-sighted. The UK’s soft power has been built up over hundreds of years. It’s hard won but easily lost and while we need to be hard-nosed about the reality of the UK’s economic position, we must not lose sight of the importance of the institutions that help define who the UK is, and how it is perceived in the world.