Objectives
This Wilton Park dialogue brought together diverse perspectives on how to achieve development outcomes in a disruptive world with a new approach to partnership, local leadership, ownership and accountability. It considered development architecture and financial system reform, exploring common threads between existing reform initiatives – including those driven by governments, multilaterals, civil society and philanthropies. It laid the ground for new forms of partnerships to support innovative, inclusive and viable solutions, including opportunities to create new coalitions, culminating in draft ‘Principles on International Cooperation’.
Context – development and its purpose
Changes and challenges in international development cooperation
The global system has entered a period of radical political and economic disruption. It was designed for a different era, with a different, more concentrated, distribution of power and resources and a different set of problems. The system of development cooperation as it existed brought about significant change. In the 1980s, 45% of the global population was in extreme poverty. Today, that figure is about 9.9%, roughly 808 million people, and 48 countries have graduated from developing-country status. There is much to celebrate. But with so many people remaining in extreme poverty the job is far from done.
As we home in on addressing extreme poverty and inequality, the way we work will need to change. Multipolarity is the new normal, with global cooperation fragmenting as countries turn inward and prioritise national interests. The consequences of global challenges such as debt, climate and nature, migration, conflict and security feel more intense. While new technologies and artificial intelligence hold transformative potential, they also risk deepening inequality. There has been stalling and reversal of gains made over previous decades, including on rights and civic space. The opportunity cost of getting things wrong is much higher than in the past.
Arguably, what some term the “aid industrial complex” no longer has the same legitimacy. The tacit and much more active civil support for aid that existed over several decades has been under strain in northern countries, where citizens are struggling with rising inequalities and domestic funding pressures at home, while sometimes raising concerns about how well aid is being used overseas. This is sometimes compounded by negative populist messaging. In southern countries, increasingly critical narratives have developed, highlighting the weaknesses of the current system, questioning incentives and spotlighting the emerging alternative sources of support, both domestically and internationally.
The impact of aid is also under challenge, with only 18% of SDGs on track to be met by 2030. Understanding why we are falling short, strengthening accountability, and building consensus on the purpose and focus of international development is essential. At a time when trust in institutions and the global system is eroding; there is a need to be careful about creating more promises that cannot be delivered.
It can be argued that the end of aid has arrived, following a decade of dwindling assistance[1], with a global system under strain, particularly when one of its key architects, the US, is turning it upside down. The Chinese have an alternative story for the world economy of south-south cooperation in which ‘development’ can be characterised as an obsolete Western concept. “Global South” governments will listen to partners who will engage on their priorities, for example, infrastructure, debt, jobs, trade, but they do not want to listen to lectures.
The purpose of international development
The former consensus on international development – what it is and who it is for – must evolve. Although there is strong agreement on the trend from ‘aid’ to ‘cooperation,’ partners from different groups define development differently- naturally focusing on those aspects most of interest to them (Box 1). As long as there is no consensus on purpose, it is difficult to find normative consensus on what success looks like. This makes it more difficult to form shared partnerships and risks entrenching outdated ways of thinking and working on global issues. Perhaps because of this lack of clarity, public consensus and political support for investing in development from the richest countries has declined.
What is development for, and how do we need to rethink it?
Box 1: Contested Purpose of Development
-
Is it ‘development as’….
Aid – as a form of financial flow?If so, relevant questions would be on allocation balance, and accountability to taxpayers and those whom the money is intended to help. NO
Financial flows (beyond aid)? – ensuring the right money, in the right place, on the right terms. PARTLY
Economic growth – requiring policies domestically, global trade, new technologies, Intellectual Property, corporate governance YES
Working on shared goals (SDGs) – is there still a global normative agenda? How do we create structures, and accountability around that? Should it focus on tackling extreme poverty? PERHAPS
Solving global challenges that require shared solutions – such as climate and migration? How do we agree on priorities, establish coalitions and flows of expertise and money? Can we envisage this as mutual interest in global public goods? YES
Foreign and security policy –reconciling self-interest with cooperation. PARTLY
Building countries’ ability to govern, finance and deliver their own development – domestic resource mobilisation, effective governanceto deliver and enabling business to flow are what matters for citizens – question is how we are equipping governments to deliver effectively and accountably. PARTLY
Implementing policy to meet the aspiration of citizens (social compact) specific to their setting, supported by collective action and strong accountability mechanisms. In effect, this is called politics and public policy in some countries and development in others. Is now the time to remove the dividing line between global north and global south as we confront these shared challenges? PARTLY
There has been too narrow a focus on development as finance or projects, even while acknowledging and understanding the importance of policy and systemic change. This has been driven partly by the development of institutions and networks at a time when large finance flows were prioritised, leaving donor partners in a prominent position. Even though this need to move beyond a ‘donor’ ideology is widely recognised, traditional development actors (“donors”) have continued to over-estimate their centrality.
Geo-political framing and considerations have largely replaced the focus of development on pro-poor approaches. The system, built for official concessional financing from a relatively narrow set of actors, does not easily accommodate a broader set of complex interests and sources of finance. There has been an over-focus on sectoral progress versus building sustainable systems. These developments require all partners to invest more heavily in understanding the new context (geopolitical drivers, multilateral system strengths and weaknesses, and the diversity of actors that can support development) as well as re-focusing on the underlying governance context in partner countries. The aim is to ensure that cooperation efforts do not harm and instead strengthen systems and the social compact between states and their citizens.
However, the aspiration for development remains highly valid. People want agency and governments largely welcome the right kind of support to be able to meet national aspirations. There is also increasing realisation that there are mutual benefits to tackling development challenges. Good health, progress on climate and nature, security and stable or growing economies deliver global public goods and benefits.
[1] US decision takes 70bn USD out of the system – every year.