Setting out the pathway to a modern system of international cooperation needs a clear vision and rationale. This has been difficult for some partners who have been hesitant about the way forward in a fast-changing and less certain wider global context. It is difficult to design a system of re-imagined development cooperation for the next forty years when it is hard to anticipate the disruptions of the next three to five years. That will have an impact on the best development model. Yet development demands a long-term horizon: it is an intergenerational challenge.
We need to be honest about what has contributed to this moment of disruption within the current international development system. Unequal power relationships, external security threats which mean reverting to national interests first, insufficient traction in building national systems and demanding mutual accountability, an international financial system under strain, challenges to prevalent values and dominant voices – and the fact that development itself over the last decades has been successful, leading to increased demands from partner countries and people. Understanding this gives us the building blocks of the re-imagined system.
Partnerships should be a means to achieve impact, not an end in themselves. The impact we seek is about reducing inequalities within and between countries and promoting convergence. It is about global public goods as well as national development and humanitarian assistance. Organising around policy coherence will be more effective than organising around ODA. Given the interconnectedness of global challenges, the pathway to success will include working within the current geopolitical reality but shifting the approach from one dominated by ideas of self-preservation to one that recognises mutual interests and interdependency. This will be particularly difficult on issues where interests are not aligned- and the imbalance of money and power makes the aspiration of real partnership harder.
Institutions and networks that include a wider span of diverse partners could be more effective at integrating efforts and harnessing different strengths to deliver progress. There is a question of which platforms will set the norms of the future: global (UN), like‑minded (OECD‑DAC), mixed (G20), South‑South (BRICS), or new majority‑led forums such as those shaped by China – and which of these support which sets of power relations, alliances, and outlook (self-reliant or dependent).There is a credibility gap for institutions perceived as exclusive or ineffective. Reform at the edges will only result in managed decline. The ideal is for system strengthening through transparent, diverse partnerships and this should be core to the new approach and narrative. New partnerships should aspire to safeguard, transform and scale cooperation, reform institutions to allow everyone to participate and contribute according to their ability and invest according to need.
Elements of the new partnership paradigm
New partnership initiatives must share a common goal: reduce dependency and increase self‑reliance, moving beyond the traditional aid paradigm. Achieving this often requires sufficient institutional reform to help national governments become more accountable and deliver more effectively for citizens, and cooperation that supports, and does not undermine these efforts. Building in transition from external to domestic financing and delivery of this transition against capability milestones is key. There will be practical questions that need to be worked through on how to ensure agility while remaining accountable; how to enable risk-taking without excessive additional bureaucracy.
Partnerships should be transparent about mutual benefit, reflect shared accountability, and have an investment mindset. This will include joint governance mechanisms, with jointly defined objectives, metrics and course correction mechanisms built in. With multiple partners, each should play to its comparative advantage. Shared dashboards on spend, results and learning, with independent verification can help track results. Lessons from recent decades demonstrate the importance of building in resilience and being able to adapt in the face of rapid change or uncertainty. Investment should be jointly managed, usually beyond grants-only, blending public, philanthropic and private capital with clear roles for each.
Knowledge exchange is becoming increasingly mutual, and multidirectional—South–South, South–North, North–North and Global, and should support and strengthen diverse international cooperation partnerships. It may be technical, indigenous or tacit, and will always be at least to some extent contextual. The system should move away from extractive models and invest in sustainable knowledge ecosystems, especially in the Global South. This can be done through investing in data and evidence, including local statistical capability, direct funding to local institutions and building platforms that interact. Traditional and new methods can work together, such as combining university exchanges and secondments with digital platforms, hackathons, and AI‑enabled collaboration. Multilateral organisations could support research and monitoring infrastructure to be used by a range of partners to support development. Centres of expertise can convene communities of practice and broker practitioner networks. Experience has shown that knowledge ecosystems can remain collaborative even if the politics are not. This makes them a source of strength in the new system of international cooperation.
There are huge opportunities to better integrate new technologies into existing cooperation, to address existing challenges and to anticipate those of the future brought about by technological disruptions to global problems. For example, technology can shape markets, using proven tools such as pooled procurement, and advance market commitments and open standards, drawing on lessons from health and vaccine markets. It can research technical climate and health solutions at speed. It should enable cooperation, not widen divides. It can connect partners, accelerate innovation and improve service delivery, with investments in digital foundations and access, and attention to governance. There is a role for a coalition of like-minded actors to shape systems, promote digital public goods and embed values within technology systems that support development.
In re-imagining international cooperation on development, we must be ready to listen to non-obvious voices. Those who stand to benefit the most from development- whose voices are difficult to find- should be actively sought out: the poorest, women and girls, youth, minorities, migrants, indigenous communities, persons with disabilities. It should be possible to publish how feedback influences decisions, and track participation as a measure of quality. Those who can help should also be included: diaspora, high net worth givers, who have resources and ideas to offer. Innovators should be part of the conversation: private sector, business, SMEs, students. Those who are willing to pay: taxpayers and politicians, and those not willing to pay because they are sceptical, should also be included.
And finally, we must not forge an agenda which leaves countries with the most difficult development contexts even further behind -countries that are conflict affected, ungoverned, unstable, and which cannot secure their development pathway. The majority of poverty is concentrated in fragile states: each has its own local realities. Local leadership in this context may not always be able to be grounded in partnerships with host governments. Partnerships with people and institutions, including civic groups and private actors, will help to diversify delivery and accountability. Development partnerships and interventions will need to be agile and flexible, open to windows of opportunity for change, as context can change quickly. Development and security approaches will need to work together.