International development cooperation is undergoing a transformation towards a more geopolitical approach, amid growing competition and questioning at both the international and, for some social and political groups, also at the national level.
This commentary draws on ideas from a closed-door meeting organised by the Elcano Royal Institute and the World Bank Group, aimed at reflecting on the narratives of development cooperation in a context of increasing needs and declining financial resources. The starting points were the World Bank Group Outcomes Department’s new outcome measurement system, as well as the Elcano Royal Institute’s research on different political proposals for Spanish development cooperation.
What to do?
The decline in available funding for international cooperation –at least from traditional channels (especially Official Development Assistance –ODA– from ‘traditional donors’)– makes it necessary to set explicit priorities. The World Bank Group’s Scorecard, launched in 2023, reflects this shift, reducing the number of indicators from 152 to 22 to focus on the outcomes that matter most. Among the widely shared priorities with high transformative potential are a focus on generating quality jobs and integrating security concerns across all dimensions (physical, human, climate, health, etc). Meanwhile, almost all Spanish political parties also agree on the importance of prioritising humanitarian aid, followed –by a broad national consensus– by the global health sector.
Given shrinking resources, it becomes essential that each organisation’s or government’s priority objectives guide strategic allocation, monitoring and even decisions on budget cuts in those countries and institutions where aid is being reduced. However, in a changing context marked by the proliferation of crises of different kinds, this clarity of objectives must be compatible with a reasonable and operational degree of flexibility in resource allocation.
The complex and multidimensional nature of development goals presents challenges that cannot be tackled individually. Indeed, the ambition of the World Bank Group’s Scorecard targets explicitly require cooperation with other entities. In this context, the Bank has removed the requirement for third-party participation rates in Bank projects. Similarly, AECID is complementing its traditional role as a financing agency with that of a partnership builder, forging new alliances with civil society, philanthropies, the Spanish scientific ecosystem and the private sector. This is where partnerships come into play, which –given the multiplicity of shared challenges across highly heterogeneous countries and entities– shift from dogmatic to pragmatic approaches.
Working in partnerships –for the World Bank Group or for Spain– requires clarity about shared objectives, complementary strengths and, where necessary, new ways of working across institutions that have traditionally operated separately. Partnerships must shape scale and not only narratives.
However, the current resource constraints and resulting prioritisation must not overlook the complexity of the social, economic, political, cultural and environmental factors that affect development and people’s well-being. It is therefore important to take into account the accumulated knowledge from decades of cooperation and research, which helps us understand the interconnections between different dimensions of development.
Precisely because of this complexity, cooperation can be driven simultaneously by solidarity, mutual benefit and self-interest, which are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ignoring any of these dimensions is risky, as each speaks to different sectors of society in which political support, priorities and relationships with partners may evolve. Anchoring cooperation politically only in solidarity has made it vulnerable to shifting priorities, just as relying solely on self-interest would.
All of this requires an international system that is rules-based, predictable and reliable. There is broad consensus across political lines on the importance of ensuring that, through necessary reforms, the international system serves as a functional means rather than an end in itself.
How to do it?
The international cooperation system has very valuable capacities, structures and experience. It should not fall into a crisis of imagination or effectiveness; rather, adaptation and creativity should contribute to improving the system. A good example is the World Bank Group’s shift from a logic of setting input-based targets (such as financing goals) to setting results-based objectives (such as the number of good-quality jobs created). Likewise, AECID’s reform in recent years has promoted greater transparency, accountability and impact, for instance through a new data portal or the ongoing roll-out of results indicators in all of its interventions. Through these efforts, transparency of data can empower citizens to hold governments and development institutions accountable for outcomes.
Accountability must also shift from pledges to delivery. In today’s geopolitical landscape measuring outcomes is no longer enough. Development institutions must develop an ‘outcome reflex’: the habit of using evidence continuously to ask whether current actions are still likely to produce the intended results.
This means shortening the distance between information and decision-making and requires greater flexibility in execution. Strategies should provide direction, but implementation must remain adaptive as conditions, evidence and opportunities change. Accountability should therefore focus not only on whether development institutions followed the original plan, but on whether they learned, adjusted and remained accountable for the outcome.
In fact, the focus on effectiveness and efficiency in international development cooperation efforts is widely shared across the Spanish and international political spectrum. At a time when aid policies and programmes are being questioned and reviewed, there is an international consensus on the importance of improving impact and results measurement.
Cooperation can achieve its objectives if it is understood –designed, analysed, evaluated and implemented– as part of broader policy frameworks, including a coherent and coordinated foreign policy. Addressing it in isolation, as a niche policy or a second-tier priority, is counterproductive both for its effectiveness and for its broader contribution to foreign policy goals.
And how to communicate it?
Clarity and honesty are highly valuable tools in this context. The constant and detailed evaluation and monitoring of ODA do not always translate into clear messages for the broader public about what this public policy is and what it does and does not do. This clarity, along with transparency, is essential when setting priorities.
Data and narratives around cooperation should foster a dialogue with the entire population. Many social sectors have not traditionally been part of debates on international cooperation, making it necessary to develop such narratives, linked to the coexistence of motivations –solidarity/responsibility, mutual benefit and self-interest– discussed above, while avoiding overly simplistic interpretations of a complex reality. A well-informed, constructive, democratic social dialogue –both nationally and internationally– must begin from an understanding of this multidimensional complexity.
Ultimately, a narrative of cooperation that resonates with different sectors, concerns and sensitivities in society, that better understands the perceptions of the audiences whose support is sought and that is shaped with clarity, effectiveness and honesty, can help protect and promote public trust in international cooperation.
¿Ha sido útil esta publicación?
