DRAFT no
0.7
An accepted number
Amy Pollard1
Introduction
Aid skeptics are fond of making the argument that 0.7 is an ‘arbitrary’ number. They say
that the calculations that lie behind the government’s commitment to spend 0.7% of
national income on aid are out of date, and that we are being bound by a target that no
longer has meaning.
But is it really fair to single out 0.7 as a number that is ‘arbitrary’? Is it any more
arbitrary than the other numbers that we use to set goals, establish rules and guide
behaviour?
In this short paper we will describe some other numbers which, like 0.7, have a longestablished, historic basis. The reasons these numbers were originally decided upon have
now eclipsed by the fact that they have achieved such wide acceptance. These are not
arbitrary, but accepted numbers – whose meaning is bolstered by the depth of their
establishment and long-standing.
The 100m sprint
The final of the men’s 100 meter sprint will be the most high-profile and hotly anticipated
event at this summer’s olympics. The fastest man over 100 meters will be considered the
fastest man in the world.
But speed wasn’t always assessed against who can run 100
meters in the fastest time. The Ancient Greeks tested speed
through the ‘stadion’ event – where runners had to run the
length of the stadium at Olympia. This was a distance of 192
meters. Before metrification, the best sprinters in the world
used to compete over 91.44 metres in the “100 yard dash” –
a distance which was used in the Commonwealth Games as
late as 1966.
Different individuals have a better chance of being “fastest man” depending on which
distance is used. The decision to choose 100m was bound up with wide adoption of the
metric system and with Olympic history. There is no natural quality about the distance
that makes it a more suitable as a measure of speed than any other.
Today, however, the 100m sprint is so well established that it is unlikely that a convincing
argument could be made to change it. Since it became an Olympic event in 1896, the
100m has developed a rich and prestigious history – with athletes making and breaking
countless records over the distance. Generations have admired the achievements of
100m sprinters and tried to emulate them. With so many people striving, for so many
years, to run 100m as fast as they can, it is difficult to imagine this target being given up.
This paper benefited from discussions with Ros and Andrew Pollard, Dominic Maxwell, Romilly Greenhill and
Joanne Green. Illustrations are by Paul Newsom. All mistakes are the responsibility of the author.
1
1
DRAFT no
Fruit and veg: “5 a day”
Since it was launched by the World Health Organisation over 20 years ago, “5 a day” has
become one of the most successful ever public health slogans. The USA, Germany,
France, Australia, New Zealand and the UK all have variations of the campaign which
encourages people to eat at least five portions of fruit and veg each day.
But the choice of five was not automatic or uncontroversial
– it was arrived at through a series of judgements and
negotiations between nutritionists, policymakers and
campaigners. A variety of other options were considered
as possiblilities. Whilst the slogan has remained, the
five-a-day campaign has endured controversies and been
subject to various qualifications and refinements over the
years.
After decades of reinforcement with the public, the
memorable “5 a day” slogan has become well established.
Arguments over whether five is exactly the right number have become something of a
moot point given the success of “5 a day” in encouraging healthy eating habits more
broadly.
Education: 5 good GCSEs
Attaining ‘five good GCSEs’ is a target to which schoolchildren across England and Wales
aspire. For young people, whether they achieve the magic number of five GCSEs means
the difference between whether they will be accepted for A levels and other courses or
not. Achieving these grades is a stipulation for many employers and has come to stand
for a ‘good, basic education’
GCSEs were first awarded in 1988 and were
designed to create a single, unified
qualification – thus overcoming the confusing
grading systems of the former General
Certificate of Education, O Level, and the
Certificate of Secondary Education. Under the
previous system there was a value placed on a
breadth of education, but no stipulation of 5
passes.
Today, by contrast, the rate of passes at 5 GCSEs at A*-C has now become a benchmark
by which the success or failure of schools is judged. It is crucial for the accountability of
schools and of the education system as a whole.
As one might expect, there has always been discussion, dispute and compromise about
the ways in which ‘5 good GCSEs’ should be interpreted. At present, the status of
vocational subjects is being reduced in favour or a more conventional academic
curriculum. Interestingly it is the definition of this number, not the number itself, that is
up for debate.
‘5 good GCSEs’ remains the minimum expectation for the outcomes of mainstream
education. Its origins are overshadowed by the enormous saturation of the target as
something employers, colleges, universities, schools, parents and young people think is
important.
2
DRAFT no
The 0.7% aid promise
The promise that rich countries should spend 0.7% of their
national income on aid has been established for over 40 years.
When targets for resources for rich countries to give to
developing countries were first discussed in 1958, the World
Council of Churches originally suggested a target of 1%.
This was subscribed to by all OECD DAC members during
the 1960s. In 1969, however, it was agreed that it was
important to have a distinct target for government flows
– rather than private flows which governments can’t control.
The 1969 Pearson Commission was asked to adjust the 1% target to deal with this issue.
From a series of calculations, negotiations and judgements, they recommended that the
1% target should be revised down to 0.7%. The 0.7% target was taken up by a UN
resolution on 24th November 1970 – over 40 years ago.
Since 1970, rich country governments have repeatedly promised that they will fulfill the
0.7% commitment. Decade after decade, the 0.7 commitment has been emphasised and
recognised by developing country governments, politicians, activists and the public as a
benchmark of the moral obligation that rich countries have to support people living in
poverty. It has become an iconic number, signalling international commitment to fighting
poverty around the world.
After being promised repeatedly for 40 years, 0.7% of national income has been fully
established as a modest and reasonable amount of money that governments should give
as aid. In short, 0.7 is a number that has become accepted.
Conclusion
Most important numbers have been arrived at through a series of negotiations. They
balance a variety of issues and contain an element of judgement. They depend on what
different people are saying, what happens elsewhere and what has been happening in the
past. This does not mean that they are arbitrary.
The promise to give 0.7 of national income as aid is no more arbitrary than the decision
to measure speed over 100 meters; to eat five fruit and veg per day or to strive for five
good GCSEs. It is no more arbitrary than the convention that job applicants should
provide two references; that a 50 year anniversary is gold, or that a formal dinner has
three courses.
When numbers are truly important, the reasons they were originally chosen becomes
eclipsed by the fact that the number has achieved a threshold of social, cultural and
historic establishment. Having been repeated pledged by governments and international
bodies for over four decades, 0.7 has reached this status as an accepted number.
The promise to give 0.7% of national income as aid is not an arbitrary, but an accepted
number. The historic negotiations through which it was established only serve to
reinforce its significance and legitimacy today.
3