"You can’t help people who, for whatever reasons, aren’t interested in developing the capacity to help themselves." Should read: "You can’t help people who are interested in self developing the capacity to help themselves." Development assistance is about "allowing rich countries to maintain their prosperity by creating new markets" and should be forgotten.
Good perspective on the need to reform the development assistance industry. However, on the proposal to incentivize the aid recipients, in previous discussions as highlighted by Dambisa Moyo, this resulted in entrenched corruption among the aid recipients elites. Thus, preceding the reforms would be a need to relook at governance among aid recipients and understand the nuances that characterize the operating context that despite over $300 billions dollars being spent in Africa for the last 50 years there hasn't be any significant change. What are these barriers and enablers that even if we were to reorient the delivery of aid, the desired impact will be achieved?
There’s a charming delusion at the heart of this piece — the notion that by smashing the old aid model, we’ll finally get the sleeker, recipient-led, results-focused development machine we always wanted. As if the demolition crew is here to make renovations.
The people dismantling USAID aren’t frustrated idealists, fed up with inefficiency and eager to unleash a new era of recipient-led development. They’re nationalists. They’re shutting it down because they don’t want foreign aid at all — unless it serves U.S. commercial interests, rewards allies, or plays well in domestic politics. Their slogan isn’t smarter aid. It’s America First — and everything else, including poor people in countries they can’t find on a map, comes dead last.
So what will we get in place of reform? A weaponized aid budget used to reward political loyalty to MAGA, performative anti-wokeness, and offloaded agricultural surpluses from Iowa.
USAID, for all its flaws, was trying to do something very hard: serve both the vision the author wants and the political reality of Congress, State, and the broader American public. That balancing act wasn’t elegant, but it kept the project alive. That wasn’t mission drift. That was the price of admission.
So no — this isn’t the birth of a new aid model. It’s the funeral for the only one that ever tried to balance American interests with global development. And the fantasy that something better will rise from the rubble is just that: a fantasy. The people tearing down the house aren’t planning a rebuild. They just like the sound of breaking things.
..... not to be argumentative, but there is a charming myopism in this response: it is focused on USAID, not knowing or forgetting that similar changes happened 10+ years ago with other western development agencies (ausaid, Canada aid, did, etc) and continues today with the French, Norwegians etc. I think this response is an example of aid operators' oft deep reluctance to structural change (for understandable lost livelihood, professional survival, do-gooderism reasons) that the original author already mentioned. I am one of those rare individuals with 20+ years of experience in the overseas aid space that is celebrating its end, even as I too need to pivot professionally. Perhaps it's because I've always favored the notion of aid facilitators working ourselves out of a job, and faced absolute resistance whenever I tried to do so via front-end project design or back-end program evaluation. Wishing all of us acceptance and successful professional pivoting.
..... not to be argumentative, but there is a charming myopism in this response: it is focused on USAID, not knowing or forgetting that similar changes happened 10+ years ago with other western development agencies (ausaid, Canada aid, did, etc) and continues today with the French, Norwegians etc. I think this response is an example of aid operators' oft deep reluctance to structural change (for understandable lost livelihood, professional survival, do-gooderism reasons) that the original author already mentioned. I am one of those rare individuals with 20+ years of experience in the overseas aid space that is celebrating its end, even as I too need to pivot professionally. Perhaps it's because I've always favored the notion of aid facilitators working ourselves out of a job, and faced absolute resistance whenever I tried to do so via front-end project design or back-end program evaluation. Wishing all of us acceptance and successful professional pivoting.
"You can’t help people who, for whatever reasons, aren’t interested in developing the capacity to help themselves." Should read: "You can’t help people who are interested in self developing the capacity to help themselves." Development assistance is about "allowing rich countries to maintain their prosperity by creating new markets" and should be forgotten.
Good perspective on the need to reform the development assistance industry. However, on the proposal to incentivize the aid recipients, in previous discussions as highlighted by Dambisa Moyo, this resulted in entrenched corruption among the aid recipients elites. Thus, preceding the reforms would be a need to relook at governance among aid recipients and understand the nuances that characterize the operating context that despite over $300 billions dollars being spent in Africa for the last 50 years there hasn't be any significant change. What are these barriers and enablers that even if we were to reorient the delivery of aid, the desired impact will be achieved?
There’s a charming delusion at the heart of this piece — the notion that by smashing the old aid model, we’ll finally get the sleeker, recipient-led, results-focused development machine we always wanted. As if the demolition crew is here to make renovations.
The people dismantling USAID aren’t frustrated idealists, fed up with inefficiency and eager to unleash a new era of recipient-led development. They’re nationalists. They’re shutting it down because they don’t want foreign aid at all — unless it serves U.S. commercial interests, rewards allies, or plays well in domestic politics. Their slogan isn’t smarter aid. It’s America First — and everything else, including poor people in countries they can’t find on a map, comes dead last.
So what will we get in place of reform? A weaponized aid budget used to reward political loyalty to MAGA, performative anti-wokeness, and offloaded agricultural surpluses from Iowa.
USAID, for all its flaws, was trying to do something very hard: serve both the vision the author wants and the political reality of Congress, State, and the broader American public. That balancing act wasn’t elegant, but it kept the project alive. That wasn’t mission drift. That was the price of admission.
So no — this isn’t the birth of a new aid model. It’s the funeral for the only one that ever tried to balance American interests with global development. And the fantasy that something better will rise from the rubble is just that: a fantasy. The people tearing down the house aren’t planning a rebuild. They just like the sound of breaking things.
..... not to be argumentative, but there is a charming myopism in this response: it is focused on USAID, not knowing or forgetting that similar changes happened 10+ years ago with other western development agencies (ausaid, Canada aid, did, etc) and continues today with the French, Norwegians etc. I think this response is an example of aid operators' oft deep reluctance to structural change (for understandable lost livelihood, professional survival, do-gooderism reasons) that the original author already mentioned. I am one of those rare individuals with 20+ years of experience in the overseas aid space that is celebrating its end, even as I too need to pivot professionally. Perhaps it's because I've always favored the notion of aid facilitators working ourselves out of a job, and faced absolute resistance whenever I tried to do so via front-end project design or back-end program evaluation. Wishing all of us acceptance and successful professional pivoting.
..... not to be argumentative, but there is a charming myopism in this response: it is focused on USAID, not knowing or forgetting that similar changes happened 10+ years ago with other western development agencies (ausaid, Canada aid, did, etc) and continues today with the French, Norwegians etc. I think this response is an example of aid operators' oft deep reluctance to structural change (for understandable lost livelihood, professional survival, do-gooderism reasons) that the original author already mentioned. I am one of those rare individuals with 20+ years of experience in the overseas aid space that is celebrating its end, even as I too need to pivot professionally. Perhaps it's because I've always favored the notion of aid facilitators working ourselves out of a job, and faced absolute resistance whenever I tried to do so via front-end project design or back-end program evaluation. Wishing all of us acceptance and successful professional pivoting.
Thanks for this in-depth analysis.
The problem starts with the fact that the donor countries do not agree on their development goals:
Do they it for charity, for avoiding migration, for promoting their own economic interests or for expanding their political influence in the world?
And in Africa they take the money without believing in development aid.
You are right this system has become obsolete.
And you are also right: We urgently need to shape a new, a better one.
It can only work if it’s the result of a large dialogue between the North and the South.
Let’s get it started.