Accepted Contribution
Contribution short abstract
In crises, South Africa's aid needs tomerge relief & development through ubuntu-led, community solutions. Donor control heightens fragility amid cuts; a 2015–2025 review shows reliance risks. It calls for 50% localization by 2030, ubuntu nexus frameworks, & epistemic justice for resilient economies.
Contribution long abstract
Amid multiple global crises—including pandemic outbreaks, wars, environmental disasters, high poverty, unemployment, inequality and financial instability—reforming assistance involves breaking down divides between emergency relief and long-term growth to support community-driven solutions in South Africa's aid-reliant society. Conventional funding systems sustain outdated dominance patterns, deepen vulnerability and slow progress to meet the 2016 Grand Bargain's commitments by donors. Recent policy shifts, such as aid cuts and reprioritisation have exposed the vulnerability of silo managed systems in donor dependent communities. Receiving communities experience prolonged years of joblessness, hardships, and disparity, since isolated efforts favour market-driven indicators over local wisdom and community-centred approaches rooted in ‘ubuntu’. This paper conducts a structured review of 25 publications spanning from 2015–2025 from Google Scholar, JSTOR, OECD iLibrary, and other sources, analysing themes of unequal control, broken commitments, funding inefficiencies, grassroots approaches and reformed funding architectures. Results highlight how reliance on donor created solutions deepens fragility, with scenarios indicating that without these divides, local driven programs could generate jobs, strengthen community sustainability, reduce poverty and income inequality. It suggests transformative strategies, urging 50% locally managed funding by 2030, blended nexus models incorporating ‘ubuntu’, and fairness checks on knowledge systems to shift authority, nurture interconnected markets, and strengthen independent endurance amid withdrawals from wealthy nations.
Decolonising development and redistributing power: Is it time to reject traditional humanitarian and development siloes and support more cohesive, equitable, locally driven responses?