In the midst of the swift and brutal dismantling of USAID there has been a swell of voices in defence of aid. They have pointed to the good that aid does for the world’s most vulnerable; the importance of aid to US interests; and the fact that US aid spend is still just 1% of the federal budget. They also point to the human consequences of the freeze — the deaths of some of the most vulnerable who have been abruptly cut off from health support and protection, as well as the precarity of USAID staff and partners — some of whom will be forced to close down operations entirely. The lack of due process — and indeed illegality — that has characterised the process, as well as its consequences, have rightly been the focus of discussion.
There has been less focus on the opportunity that this difficult moment might present for development assistance (leaving humanitarian assistance aside for now). In the aid community’s understandable reaction to defend what we have known and how we have worked, we may be missing an important opportunity — a potential silver lining to be found in otherwise ominous clouds. That is, the opportunity to re-think and re-make development assistance in ways that we know have been sorely needed for some time — and not just for USAID.
Several commentators have pointed out that multiple things can be true at once. It can be true both that there is a terrible attack by some of the wealthiest people on the planet on spending to help the poorest; and that this spending to help the poorest has faced real challenges for decades.
While we understandably want to rail against the injustice of how quickly, irresponsibly and illegally the world’s largest donor has been taken apart, we need to look strategically for the opportunities that the hand dealt to us present. Now is indeed a time to fight — but we need to be clear on what we’re fighting for. It would be a disservice to the accrued learning within the aid industry for us to fight for a return to business as usual (see here, here and here for a start). We know there are deep flaws in the way aid has been delivered – increasingly laid bare by critiques to decolonise and support locally led change.
So, how do we turn what feels like an apocalyptic moment into a critical juncture for change – as we thought COVID-19 might have been? How do we build back differently? Here are some initial thoughts for a 2025 playbook.
First, listen to local voices. This might seem obvious, but it is striking how much commentary on the demise of USAID is overwhelmingly from Western voices. Absolutely there are local civil society organisations facing existential questions due to the funding freeze but most of the commentary is from Westerners. Pacific and African development workers I’ve spoken to are more sanguine and point out that the present system wasn’t working — it’s not that they don’t value aid, but they want it done differently. How do those leading social change in their countries think aid should be rebuilt?
Second, accept a smaller, lighter footprint for international organisations and staff. We often say that aid is about working ourselves out of a job. This might be the moment to live up to that. In remaking aid differently, there is likely less space at the table for people from donor countries, in order to make more space for local actors. That’s not to say international NGOs and managing contractors are out — they’ll no doubt still have a role to play but it’s an opportune time to think about how that might look different.
Third, rebuild political consensus around development assistance. It’s fair to say that the aid community has failed to land a convincing argument for aid to satisfy the political right in recent years (particularly as “the right” has itself evolved). Without a broader, bipartisan consensus, we leave aid as a polarised political issue that becomes a whipping boy every time a conservative government is elected. So far, the arguments for aid made to conservatives tend to rely on notions of charity, or playing the geopolitics card and instrumentalising aid for the national interest. They’re arguments that the aid community itself is uncomfortable with, and does not necessarily buy.
The geopolitical angle will also not help in remaking aid in the longer term, because it tends to lead to large spend programs that buy a political relationship, or crowd out other donors, rather than strategically support local change processes — which is what we know works. Rather, a broader consensus on development assistance is needed that speaks to values across the political spectrum and that supports locally led processes of social change, with donors playing a more hands-off role.
Finally, claim the space and shape the debate. At the moment the debate is happening on a left versus right political spectrum, characterised by pro-aid and anti-aid positions. This is purposeful — it focuses energies on a defensive response and whips up panic. We are being intentionally distracted. We need a cut-through to shift that debate from the defensive to the offensive; one that says ”we know what the alternative looks like”.
This playbook might seem improbable for the US right now, where the future shape of development assistance is so uncertain. But it is relevant for development assistance everywhere else, with a rise of conservative governments globally and wider cuts to aid budgets. This might be the most opportune moment to mount a case for change.
2025 feels exhausting already. But that’s how those that have dismantled USAID want us to feel. If we can show a path forward, and make the most of the silver lining, then we stand a better chance of shaping what comes out of this moment for the better. And it may just be an opportunity to remake development assistance in ways our sector has known we’ve needed to for some time.
Ashlee – since writing my response late last night I’ve been kicking myself for not remembering all the wonderful feminist playbooks re: how to progress social inclusion. You’re right that we don’t just hide it – we do all of it. Some parts of the sector clearly and actively set out why inclusion is central to development; other parts of the sector quietly work on inclusion issues in ways that keeps it away from the parapet; others protest; others use the legal system to push for change; and so on. We need an all-hands-on-deck and spreading our bets approach to keep that work alive under many different guises. Thanks for prompting me to remember that!
“I also think telling the stories of how aid supports local people to solve their own problems is a good approach”
Frankly, I think it is the only approach that makes sense. Almost everything else has a habit of looking like paternalism, saviour complex, is demeaning or outright insulting. “Development” itself is a loaded term.
In four decades of exposure to communities in Melanesia I have yet to meet one that was not supremely capable of solving almost any issue confronting them, albeit with a little assistance to get started.
It is noticeable that post-independence narratives around the delivery of health, education and law and order have without exception been top down. Never bottom up or more appropriately “we will meet you, half-way.” I believe I can safely say that almost without exception the inherited approach has failed everywhere.
IMHO development assistance should be anchored around empowering local actors, women, men and children to lead the effort to solve the issues that matter to them, be it around economic empowerment, health or education services.
Sadly, the AID game has become just what you would expect. What’s the latest buzz word and how do we make a fortune tapping into that zeitgeist?
I challenge any contractor to go to locations where women do not get antenatal services and tell that community they are doing everything in their power to work with the “government” to strengthen services.
I have stood in communities in western PNG that have angrily proclaimed that if they want health services, they carry their sick over the border into Indonesia. Further that they have never had a visit from a PNG government officer and if they did it might not end well.
This is the grim reality to the immense treasure expended over the decades and all the pearl clutching over what has happened recently comes as no surprise. While ever we conflate human capital development with ‘State Craft” nothing will change.
Very important and relevant comment. Perhaps should be the focus of the next AAC?
Thanks for your comment, Linda. Devpol is currently taking suggestions for what the sector would like to see featured at this year’s conference.
Today we also launched a podcast to announce the dates for AAC2025 and encourage speakers from across the sector including early career researchers and researchers from developing countries. Listen now.
AAC2025 will be held from Wednesday 3 to Friday 5 December. The call for papers will be launched in July with posts on all Devpol channels including our fortnightly newsletter. Sign up now.
Thanks for this Lisa, it is good to see some optimism among the frustration and disappointment.
One of my fears though is that this is going to push back the localisation and decolonisation agendas and fuel an even more arduous approach to risk from donors. The ‘efficiency’ and ‘waste’ narrative, the fake news and misrepresentation of some of the programs USAID was supporting, the obsession with labelling anything to do with equality and rights as ‘woke’ — fighting a disinformation machine seems like a challenging task for an already gutted sector. Among aid sceptics there is very little understanding that localisation is a tool for effectiveness, not a ‘risk’ to donor funds, for example. There’s still even scepticism among the uninformed about the effectiveness of cash, for example, despite so much evidence. It worries me. Especially as we are heading into an election campaign period ourselves.
One thing I would add to your list is that we need to ensure we don’t walk away from rights-based approaches just to appease loud, uninformed voices. We should be loudly and firmly communicating why we invest in this work and addressing disinfo head on. On that note, I was really pleased to see Australia’s new International Gender Equality Strategy come out in the midst of all this — I was heartened that our government was clearly affirming our commitments.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Ashlee. I certainly think you’re right to be concerned. And don’t get me wrong – the push for localisation is hardly going to come from the MAGA movement. But I think that 1. Those not working immediately in the US system (ie: many working for DFAT, FCDO and others) can make a real shift in what development assistance is and looks like that gets on the front foot of what may well be attacks that emerge on aid elsewhere. And where there is still political space to carve that out currently.
2. I wonder if those in the know about what good support to locally led processes of change needs to look like can be strategic in packaging and framing that in ways that speak to conservatives. I’m nervous about that and share your concerns about whether in being strategic we pander to loud voices. But, for instance, rather than talking about decolonisation and locally led development; can we talk about local leaders solving their problems – maybe even entrepreneurially – with peer learning from ‘donor’ countries? Do we hide gender and inclusion in other issue-based programming (parts of the sector have been doing that increasingly on governance and justice for instance). There are absolutely risks but I think those conversations need to be had and that there’s an opportunity to really push for change, rather than defending ‘aid’ territory and the status quo.
It strikes me that other sectors do better than aid at repackaging themselves for different political narratives and the aid community need to get better at that if they don’t want it to forever be a pet issue of the ‘left’. Scarily, I don’t think more evidence is going to help us here – for just the reasons you highlight. I think the story and the narrative matter more – which is certainly new and uncomfortable ground for me and likely many of us!
Thanks Lisa — I couldn’t agree more re strong and clear messaging (perhaps not surprising given my comms obsession!) and being strategic about the way we talk about our work. The sector has not been the best at this.
I’m not sure it is the time just yet to hide inclusion programming (…maybe SRHR…) but it definitely needs strong supportive narratives around it that are not seen as just being ‘woke’, particularly around the economic/human development/human capital angles. And honestly, we have practice in doing this… under the last Coalition government climate change was a dirty word for a long time (this shifted a bit towards the end of their term), and lot of mitigation and adaptation work was ‘hidden’ as resilience, DRR, livelihoods, etc.
There are ways to construct pro-aid messaging that align with bipartisan values and priorities, and this is an important protective approach in these dangerous times. For example, I liked the effective core message that the FM delivered with the gender strategy launch: “Gender equality is not a ‘special interest’. Gender equality is a matter of national interest.” Direct and to the point.
I also think telling the stories of how aid supports local people to solve their own problems is a good approach — unfortunately there still seems to be a lot of mainstream appetite for ‘white saviour’ type aid narratives, which is hard to shift. But the USAID purge tells us that it doesn’t matter who is delivering aid when it is all thrown together in a basket and labelled as waste, so perhaps this is an opportunity to make a strong effectiveness and efficiency argument about localised aid delivery.
I agree with you that it is less about evidence and more about effective, strong and consistent messaging. Disinfo isn’t based on any kind of truth and it cuts through, so how can we ensure our messaging cuts through?
I am always saying the risk of not communicating is usually greater than the risk of communicating, and I think this is a time where the risk of silence is especially high.