When Less Is More: Rethinking the Future of Aid and Development

Image - Moses Londo

‍

Aid has long been seen as a major tool in spurring economic development, championed by many governments, NGOs, and multilateral organisations alike. However, there has been a sudden withdrawal of aid from many major donors such as the US, where Trump dismissed aid spending as pointless and anti-American. The continuous cuts to aid has raised a critical question: how can countries continue to deliver and achieve meaningful progress to local communities with fewer external resources?

‍

Cuts in aid across regions represent a broader pattern in the framework of development finance. According to the OECD, four major economies - France, Germany, the UK, and the US - all cut their official development assistance (ODA) budgets in 2024 for the first time in almost 30 years, representing a drop of 9%. These same economies have cut their budgets once more in 2025, marking the first time they have all simultaneously reduced ODA for two consecutive years. Shifting priorities of key leaders in the global economy have largely driven these decisions. For example, the UK has reduced aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%, diverting funds towards national security. Many development programmes rely heavily on government funding to sustain grassroot initiatives, yet developing countries now face a 17% drop in ODA this year alone.

‍

As a result, the budgets of many organisations, such as the Global Fund to Fight Aids and the United Nations Development System which comprises of “43 funds, agencies, and programmes that provide country-level development support and humanitarian assistance”, are under major pressure. The de-prioritisation of some of the world’s most vulnerable people is made very clear with the abrupt withdrawal of aid overnight – many countries are left scrambling to prevent critical programmes and initiatives that depend on access to predictable funding from collapsing, even as the gap between resources and development needs continues to widen.

‍

The problem not only lies in the shrinking supply of aid, but the way the aid itself is structured. The kind of aid that has dominated much of the system so far has often been conditional, with financial assistance being subject to the geopolitical and economic interests of the donors themselves, undermining its credibility. When decisions on financial assistance are made by those in major capitals, far removed from the day-to-day realities of poverty, can their assistance every truly be aligned with the needs of those it is meant to support and genuinely foster development? Despite the influence that this has on the potential policies implemented in developing countries, they still rely on state intervention and are compelled to accept “contributions attached to narrowly defined projects”.

‍

There is an inherent contradiction in imposing conditions that already constrain the recipient country’s autonomy, only to later withdraw support when it no longer suits the donor. What does it mean to first dictate the course of another country’s development and then suddenly cut their aid, knowing that they remain dependent? This cycle of dependency without stability or predictability, where less fortunate countries are left to deal with the repercussions, is unjust. With this in mind, although a cut in aid cannot be deemed a complete blessing in disguise, it could perhaps be seen as a catalyst for a new model of development finance – one that encourages reform and ensures governments are less tied down to the demands of the few remaining donors.

‍

With these significant cuts in aid, developing countries are now facing an urgent need to reassess development strategies. To move beyond this cycle, there should be a greater focus on enhancing the institutional frameworks required to efficiently manage economies at the national level, so that countries can fully control and optimise the use of their public resources for themselves. For the remaining aid they receive, governments should ensure it is channelled into the highest impact programmes, such as child nutrition and education, to reduce as much human suffering as possible. At the same time, building a more diverse ecosystem of development partners beyond traditional Western contributors, will help to find solutions to move into finance gaps left by retreating donors – this could be through regional development banks or private sector investment.

‍

Crucially, developing nations must aim to become “active participants in their own recovery and resilience-building processes”, reclaiming sovereign agency. This will be by no means easy, but domestic accountability can be strengthened through mechanisms such as parliamentary oversights and independent audits, to ensure that new financial frameworks actually support development rather than operating under the assumptions of what a donor deems to be sufficient. Such measures will help to improve transparency and the effectiveness of development initiatives, particularly in the allocation and responsible management of domestic resources.

‍

Ultimately, current aid cuts are painful but the current aid system that perpetuates dependency was never truly sustainable. Kenyatta, former president of Kenya from 2013 to 2022, summed up the predicament that many developing countries face quite bluntly: “People are crying, saying Trump is not giving us any more money. Instead of crying, we should ask ourselves, ‘What are we going to do to support ourselves?’”. In this situation, the principle of ‘less is more’ may actually apply - less donor interference can allow for more domestic ownership and locally driven decision making, and less dependence on a handful of major powers can create more resilient and diverse pathways to development. By shouldering more of the burden, developing countries can truly build more sustainable and self-reliant economies, provided it is paired with robust governance and strategic planning.