“That is a moral imperative for most people,” says Lars Engberg-Pedersen in his reflection about the reason Danish people give generous amounts of development aid to poorer countries. “Most people would think, ‘We are a rich country and there are many poor people, so we have to share a bit.’ But also, it is part of how we look at ourselves; we are a rich country and the way of underlining that is by offering development assistance.”

Many years have passed since Danish society decided that it wanted to provide foreign aid to the developing world. The willingness to share is rooted in the humanitarian aspiration of helping others but also in the self-perception of being good. Thus, the question of whether or not to give foreign aid is not on the Danish agenda. The matter is whether to reduce or maintain the current level of support for development causes abroad.

Engberg-Pedersen, a senior researcher on development issues at the Danish Institute for International Studies, draws the attention towards a rather paradoxical phenomenon revealed by recent opinion polls. About 70% of Danes “agree” or “agree very much” with a foreign policy framework that maintains the current level of development assistance. Yet, at the same time, 47% think that aid ends up in the wrong pot.

In Engberg-Pedersen’s opinion, the discrepancy between so many people supporting the act of giving aid and, at the same time, not believing that it actually brings results, is a persistent irony. The likely explanation is the moral obligation which motivates giving in the first place. Apart from the moral imperative, solidarity with other donors is a factor motivating generosity towards countries in need.

“Denmark is a small country that is dependent on international collaboration, and a large portion of the population is internationally oriented and genuinely interested in international affairs,” says Jan Agerholm Høybye, a Danish consultant with ViSKon ApS. He has over two decades of experience in implementing development projects around the world.

Høybye sheds light on the less apparent – and less noble – intentions behind Danish generosity. “We often use development aid to make us look good and disguise the fact that we want to go and make business that mainly benefits the Danish companies,” he says.

During a lecture at Lund University in Sweden in February 2010, Høybye explained the extent to which the Danish government expects its aid dollars to serve its own interests. A solid return on investment – 67% in1997 and 64% in 2004 – is a national requirement; supposedly Danish legislation demands that over two-thirds of the provided foreign assistance has to return back to the country in the form of procurements or consultant and service contracts. This means that almost 30% of the total allocated aid stays in the receiving country.

No data from official sources were found to support such claims made by Høybye. Several employees of the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) vehemently dismissed these allegations as old and outdated.

“Twenty years ago that was true, it was a political demand that we could actually say how much money came back to Denmark,” explains Peter Ellehøj, Deputy Head of Quality Assurance and Development Cooperation Department at MoFA. He speaks with confidence and force. “But that is long time ago. And that the figure you came up with – about 64% – I can not recognize at all.”

Previously, Danish development assistance and foreign aid was managed by an autonomous institution: Danish International Development Agency (Danida). Nowadays, assistance and aid is the responsibility of MoFA, a political entity. This situation is a consequence of 1991 restructuring efforts, when MoFA and Danida were merged.

The official purpose of the fusion was to create a unified and coherent service serving the interests of the Danish people and the surrounding world.

MoFA is a complicated ministry within the government of Denmark. It hosts two ministers: first, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and second, the Minister of Development Cooperation. Both ministers have to work under the same roof and divide development tasks between their respective subordinate.

As revealed by several employees of the unified MoFA, initially it was rather difficult to integrate these two different institutions; each had its own culture. The Minister of Foreign Affairs focused on war, diplomatic relations, Washington D.C., the United Nations, Brussels, etc. – all falling within the domain of “high politics” – and the Minister of Development Cooperation engaged in “low politics,” such as development work.