- Convenors:
-
Pooja Jain-Grégoire
(Sciences Po Paris)
Pedro Alarcon (University of Cape Town)
Pamela Jabbar
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Paper panel
- Stream:
- Reimagining development: From global cooperation to local agency
Short Abstract
In the face aid cuts, this panel seeks to revive and shape the debate on aid and development. We will examine the role of the OECD, the revival of domestic development policies, the claims for distributive justice and the future actors and semantics of development aid.
Description
Many traditional donors, including the UK, have cut back on their aid commitments; the Millennium Development Goals’ ambition for major donors to contribute 0.7 per cent of their budget as aid seems like a relic from a distant past. This changing landscape of aid begets a set of questions that this panel seeks to address:
• Would the retreat of traditional donors lead to a democratisation/decolonisation of the OECD-DAC, where the recipients would shape the future agenda of development through their own domestic political and economic redistribution policies?
• Would the OECD-DAC address the questions around the lack of accountability and shifting goalposts on the part of donors?
• What are the direct consequences of aid cuts on the ground and how are recipient countries dealing with them?
• How would recipient and non-recipient countries address their claims of distributive justice: through more affirmative calls for repatriation of cultural artefacts; compensation claims for past injustice?
• What would the aid cuts do to the existence of multilateral development organisations?
• Are private and non-governmental organisations the future of north-south development dialogue?
• What would be the impact on South-South Cooperation? Would actors like China and Saudi Arabia gain further prominence or are they likely to tread on the footsteps of the traditional donors?
In the face of aid cuts, the panel seeks to revive the debate on development and aid and analyse its effects on policy and academia.
Accepted papers
Paper short abstract
Uganda has been celebrated as a successful development model and often described as the ‘donor darling’. However, the reduction in global aid will have negative consequences on its development policy. This paper grapples with the changing aid landscape and its effects on state-society relations.
Paper long abstract
For the last three decades, Uganda has been celebrated by international donors as a successful development model and has been described as the ‘donor darling’. The country’s achievements in meeting various MDGs, as well as its decentralisation process, were seen as steps towards establishing an emerging democracy in Africa. At the time, the neoliberal reforms undertaken by Museveni’s government were in line with the donors’ push for democratic reform, which was promoted as a means of achieving greater citizen participation, more accountable institutions and improved service delivery. However, the ongoing global aid reduction and Trump’s stop-work order have had an immediate negative impact on development policy in Uganda, especially since the US has been the country’s largest international aid donor. Uganda’s heavy reliance on donor financing for social sectors leaves the country vulnerable amid increasing global aid reductions and a shifting aid landscape. According to the latest OECD data, Uganda received approximately $2.44 billion in ODA in 2023. The majority of these funds were grants, with some provided as loans. Against this backdrop, this article addresses two key questions: (1) How does a reduction in global aid affect the provision of social services in Uganda amid an impending debt crisis? Secondly, how does the decline in aid reshape state-society relations and the politics of accountability? Drawing on primary data collected during two rounds of PhD fieldwork in 2023, alongside recent aid statistics from the OECD reporting crediting system and other sources, the article provides an analysis of these questions.
Paper short abstract
Global health aid landscape is rapidly changing, presenting an opportunity for small yet stable donors (in absolute funding) to have a relatively disproportionate influence given their continued support. The paper describes key structural characteristics of their aid to countries and multilaterals.
Paper long abstract
For many low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has stalled. Crises, including COVID-19 pandemic, conflicts and climate change, have increased the need for Official Development Assistance (ODA). However, the financing gap is widening, largely driven by decisions from several large bilateral donor countries (notably the USA, United Kingdom and France) to reduce ODA commitments. This important change in the global aid landscape threatens to reverse hard-won gains in key sectors such as global health, further compromising progress towards the SDGs.
Despite this trend, smaller bilateral donors such as Luxembourg, Austria, Iceland, Ireland and New Zealand have committed to maintaining or increasing their aid in the next three-to-five year period. Though their ODA contributions are small in absolute terms (each providing less than three billion USD annually), the design and delivery of their aid has been independently assessed as high-quality, promoting principles of aid effectiveness such as ownership and transparency in their engagement with recipient countries and multilateral organisations. This emerging core donor segment referred to in this proposal as ‘small yet stable donors' could drive large influence in health agenda setting, implementation, and contribute to greater health impacts in the new aid landscape.
This paper aims to assess the key structural characteristics of health aid that this group of donors provide, using a mixed-methods approach of quantitative descriptive analysis and qualitative interviews. It will also assess whether their aid aligns with the key aid effectiveness principles and how it compares to larger donors.
Paper short abstract
Despite billions in aid, Nigeria faces record hunger. The old donor model is broken. This paper argues that to survive the 'polycrisis' of conflict and climate, aid must pivot from permanent relief to "food sovereignty" investing in local systems to break the cycle of dependency.
Paper long abstract
Nigeria currently represents a paradox in global development: despite being a primary recipient of international agricultural assistance, the nation faces its most severe food security crisis in decades. As the global aid architecture fractures under the weight of shrinking budgets and geopolitical shifts, the traditional donor-recipient model in Nigeria is proving increasingly insufficient. This paper examines the correlation between Official Development Assistance (ODA) volatility and agricultural resilience, arguing that the current aid model of humanitarian relief is failing to address the root causes of systemic hunger.
Drawing on recent disbursement trends and food security projections, this study analyses the impact of the "polycrisis", the convergence of conflict in the Northern regions, climate-induced disasters, and macroeconomic hyperinflation, on aid efficacy. The analysis reveals that while external aid has successfully averted famine in the short term, it has inadvertently created a "resilience deficit," leaving local food systems exposed to global shocks.
The paper posits that the future of aid in Nigeria must undergo a radical structural pivot: from funding consumption to de-risking production. It argues for a transition away from commodity-based food aid toward a framework of "Food Sovereignty." This includes the localisation of aid delivery, the prioritisation of climate-adaptive agricultural technologies, and the use of development finance to unlock private sector investment in the value chain. Ultimately, this submission contends that for aid to remain relevant in Nigeria’s future, it must cease acting as a permanent safety net and instead function as a catalyst for indigenous, self-sustaining food systems.
Paper short abstract
This paper examines how USAID funding cuts have affected Venezuelan migrant integration and reshaped humanitarian governance in Colombia, drawing on ethnographic fieldwork. It analyses shifting power relations, state responses, and the impacts on humanitarian workers and recipients alike.
Paper long abstract
In January of 2025, the Trump Administration slashed 83% of all USAID funding worldwide (approximately 54 billion USD), resulting in a loss of 309 million USD for Colombia. Much of this funding had gone towards projects supporting humanitarian assistance and integration efforts for Venezuelan migrants, as over the past decade, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled economic and political instability, with about 3 million settling in Colombia.
One of these projects focused on migrant integration is the Intégrate Centre initiative. Created in 2023, the Intégrate Centres provide information and various migrant services relating to regularisation, mental health, entrepreneurship, employment, and women and LGBTQ+ assistance, amongst others. Though USAID stopped funding the Intégrate Centres entirely after the cuts, they are currently being operated by the Colombian Ministry of Equality and Equity.
Through ethnographic fieldwork in the Intégrate Centres in the Colombian cities of Bogotá and Riohacha, this paper examines the devastating financial and structural effects of USAID’s withdrawal on both the humanitarian workers as well as the migrants themselves. Furthermore, it analyses the shifting power dynamics of humanitarian governance– seeking to understand how the Colombian government has navigated the unprecedented withdrawal of USAID, shaped by national and local political motives.
This original empirical research is extremely timely and important, as it investigates an evolving humanitarian situation with limited coverage. In doing so, it interrogates how aid withdrawal reconfigures power and responsibility within humanitarian governance, raising broader questions about the future of humanitarian aid and Global South recuperation amidst geopolitical uncertainty.
Paper short abstract
This paper discusses the transformation of the DAC and examines its limitations through the comparative analysis with OECD Development Centre. It will elucidate the challenges of the DAC in regaining its role by critically reviewing the concept of “partnership” embedded in development cooperation.
Paper long abstract
While the OECD DAC has coordinated bilateral donors’ aid policies since 1961, global aid architecture has changed over the last few decades. The emergence of the global south (both the providers and the recipients) has endangered the role of the DAC in the global aid architecture. In response, the DAC has transformed its organisational structure by both expanding membership as well as inviting non-DAC actors in different forms. Yet, the image of “rich nations’ club” of the OECD is said to have prevented the emerging countries from being associated with the DAC. At the same time, the DAC norms are changing with the surge of nationalization and politicization of aid in the traditional DAC countries.
Against this backdrop, this paper analyses the transformation of the DAC and its limitations by taking a comparative analysis with the OECD Development Centre. OECD Development Centre has a membership of 56 countries both from emerging countries (including China) and the recipient countries, whereas the DAC’s membership is 34. The paper will discuss how the DAC has expanded both its membership as well as non-DAC actors’ involvement by transforming its organisational structure and then examine its limitations through the lens of “partnership”. By contrasting the modus operandi of the DAC and the Development Centre, it will elucidate the fundamental concept of “partnership” embedded in development cooperation and the challenges faced by the OECD DAC in the global aid architecture. The paper is based on existing literature and the OECD documents as well as interviews.
Paper short abstract
Recent cuts in development aid have increased the importance of evaluation in international cooperation. This study analyses the evaluation practices of Italian civil society organisations (CSOs), highlighting the role of evaluation in strengthening the effectiveness of development initiatives.
Paper long abstract
In recent years, the amount of resources allocated to international development cooperation has begun to decline. This trend has accelerated sharply over the past few years, particularly following the Trump administration's decision to dismantle USAID. Since then, numerous other countries, including some OECD members, have also decided to significantly reduce their official development assistance (ODA).
In response to these cuts, public opinion and donors are demanding greater accountability and transparency in the use of funds. At the same time, humanitarian organisations are seeking to maximise the impact of their actions.
Against this backdrop, the evaluation of international development cooperation initiatives is becoming increasingly important. As a research activity geared towards action and improvement, evaluation is not only a tool for ensuring financial accountability, but also an opportunity to learn how to make development interventions more effective. Thus, the practice of evaluation can help to rationalise the use of scarce resources.
This contribution focuses on the evaluation practices adopted by civil society organisations (CSOs). The reflections presented are based on doctoral research involving fifteen Italian CSOs that are active in the field of cooperation and receive the most funding from institutional donors. A qualitative approach was employed to conduct the research, utilising semi-structured interviews.
Analysing the evaluation culture of Italian CSOs provides in-depth information on some of the dynamics present in the cooperation system, including the effects of recent aid cuts. This contributes to the broader debate on development, intending to design increasingly effective initiatives.
Paper short abstract
With OECD aid retreating, if aid is changing hands, is it also changing outcomes? This paper combines political economy with an econometric analysis of Qatari aid to ask whether emerging donors transform development, recipient agency, and justice.
Paper long abstract
As traditional donors scale back aid commitments, the global development architecture is entering a period of heightened uncertainty and experimentation. This paper revisits the political economy of aid retrenchment by asking not only who fills emerging financing gaps, but whether alternative development modalities generate measurably different outcomes.
Do non-DAC donors reproduce the practices and outcomes of traditional aid regimes, or do distinct incentives, impact timing and financing? And can such differences be empirically identified, rather than rhetorically asserted?
The paper combines a conceptual analysis of aid pluralisation with an econometric assessment of development outcomes associated with Qatari development assistance. Using cross-country panel data and quasi-experimental methods, the analysis compares recipient countries engaged with Qatari aid to appropriate counterfactuals and to recipients of traditional OECD-DAC assistance. The empirical strategy focuses on outcome trajectories, aid volatility, and sectoral concentration, allowing for an evaluation of whether alternative aid models exhibit distinct development effects.
This quantitative strand is embedded within a broader inquiry into development, recipient agency, and distributive justice. How do emerging donors navigate conditionality and sovereignty? Does the diversification of aid sources strengthen bargaining power for recipient states or exacerbate coordination failures? And what do observed outcomes imply for the future of multilateral development institutions amid fiscal retrenchment?
This paper contributes to ongoing debates on the future of development cooperation and offers evidence-based insight into whether emerging donors, such as Qatar, China, and Gulf states more broadly, are reshaping development practice or converging towards the established aid paradigms.
Paper short abstract
Is the global associational revolution (Salamon, 1993) becoming undone? Foreign funding restrictions to NGOs are on the rise not only in authoritarian regimes but also among democracies and aid-dependent countries.
Paper long abstract
This study investigates the rise of legislative restrictions on foreign funding to NGOs, a global trend occurring not only in aid-dependent, non-democratic regimes but also more recently in developed economies and democracies. Do foreign funding restrictions reflect pushback to civil society, or are they part of the natural development process? What explains the rise of foreign funding restrictions? To answer these questions, I use cross-national panel data from 1993-2022, polynomial interpolation, logistic regression, and survival analysis to examine variables related to foreign funding restrictions, in particular, foreign aid, natural resource extraction, and democracy. By collapsing the wide variety of cases into regime type, and within regime type, differentiating between resource-rich countries, I provide explanations for legislative restrictions across diverse political and economic contexts, and pays close attention to the paradox of the rise of foreign funding restrictions in developing country democracies. The presence of the extractive industry is significant across regime types and even in democracies in particular as the majority of countries with restrictions are resource-rich. With the trend of ongoing foreign aid reductions, the NGO model of aid delivery may become increasingly resource-constrained, with reduced internal support in a context of rising populism. This trend may be more acute in resource-rich developing democracies, where ultra-wealthy individuals may be more likely to influence civil society from within.