Development aid at a crossroads: Global reductions and emerging dynamics DevelopmentAid

Development aid has long been a cornerstone of the fight against global poverty. It has financed hospitals, schools, civil infrastructure, innovation, and emergency relief in the world’s most vulnerable regions. Yet in 2025, this essential pillar of international cooperation is coming under increasing pressure. Shifting political priorities, rising nationalism, and economic uncertainty –particularly in Western donor countries – are driving an erosion of aid commitments. Today, the world stands at a critical inflection point. Without renewed attention, the reduction in aid risks reversing years, if not decades, of developmental progress, exacerbating global inequality, and further destabilizing already fragile regions.

Why is development aid important, and what has humanity achieved thanks to international cooperation? What are the consequences of aid reductions, and who are the emerging donors to replace the richer countries? This article offers answers to these and other important questions about the emerging dynamics of the aid sector.

Development aid: A proven driver of global progress

Foreign aid, particularly official development assistance (ODA), has had a transformative impact on the Global South. Between 1990 and 2020, ODA played a significant role in lifting over 1 billion people out of extreme poverty, which is defined as living on less than $2.15 per day. Aid-funded programs have helped countries to expand access to food, clean water, vaccines, and maternal healthcare.

Studies suggest that aid can be effective when targeted appropriately, implemented efficiently, and supported by good governance in the recipient countries. For instance, aid directed towards pro-poor initiatives, such as social safety nets or agricultural development programs that directly benefit vulnerable populations, can have a significant impact on reducing poverty.

One of the most powerful illustrations of aid’s success is in global child health. Between 1990 and 2020, child mortality dropped by 59%, with targeted health campaigns such as measles immunizations and improved neonatal care saving millions of lives (UNICEF). Similarly, education initiatives supported by foreign aid have enabled millions of children to attend school, breaking cycles of poverty across generations and allowing nearly 420 million people to be able to complete secondary education.

Development aid is not just about charity; it is about shared progress, global health security, and creating conditions for sustainable development. ODA rose from US$73 billion in 2000 to a peak of US$223 billion in 2023 as per the graph below, before dropping slightly to US$207 billion in 2024.

Source: OECD

A shifting landscape of aid providers

For much of the post-World War II era, development assistance flowed from a relatively small group of high-income countries, primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan. These donors coordinated efforts through institutions such as the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, UNDP, and UNICEF.

However, this traditional aid architecture is now undergoing a significant transformation.

U.S. aid retrenchment: During the previous Trump administration (2017–2021), the U.S. proposed drastic budget cuts of over 30% annually for the State Department and USAID, the main foreign aid agencies. While Congress resisted the deepest reductions, key sectors such as reproductive health, climate aid, and UN contributions were significantly reduced. This marked a turning point in how the U.S. engaged with the global development agenda. Moreover, at the beginning of his second term as U.S. President, Donald Trump and his team cut 83% of USAID programs (USAID distributed nearly US$40 billion in aid programs in 2023).
China and new donors: China has emerged as a pragmatic development partner, primarily through infrastructure investments under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Its approach focuses on roads, ports, and energy projects, with funds often structured as loans rather than grants. While China does not label its support as “aid” in the traditional sense, and its loans are not counted as ODA by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it has become a top financier in dozens of countries, especially in Africa and Southeast Asia.
Private sector and philanthropy: Non-state actors, including tech billionaires and major philanthropic foundations, are playing increasingly prominent roles in the aid sector. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, is a leading funder of health and education initiatives. However, while these contributions are significant, they do not replace the scale or long-term reliability of state-to-state aid.

This new landscape raises questions of coordination, transparency, and accountability – challenges that must be addressed to ensure aid remains effective and equitable.

The consequences of aid reduction

The impact of the recent aid reductions is already visible on the ground, with the consequences being felt most acutely by vulnerable populations in conflict-affected and low-income countries. Reductions in aid create both immediate humanitarian risks and long-term structural setbacks.

Humanitarian shortfalls: Funding cuts have led to supply shortages in refugee camps, particularly in regions like Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, and Ethiopia. The World Food Programme (WFP) and UNHCR have both reported scaling back operations due to underfunding. In some areas, rations have been halved or eliminated altogether.
Health systems under strain: Reduced support for the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has raised alarm about the continuity of HIV treatment for millions in sub-Saharan Africa. Meanwhile, programs related to reproductive health and family planning, especially those funded through UNFPA, have suffered disproportionately.
Educational and infrastructure delays: Large-scale aid programs that once supported teachers’ salaries, school construction, and electrification have seen delays or cancellations. These disruptions not only undermine national plans but can destabilize communities that rely on basic services.

Inequality and fragility: Countries that relied heavily on aid to support institutions now face growing inequality, governance gaps, and increased risks of conflict. The strain is also causing them to be more susceptible to influence from political actors.

Strategic risks and global implications

The timing of the aid reductions could not be worse. The world is emerging from a global pandemic, facing escalating climate risks, and witnessing a resurgence in armed conflict and forced displacement. The weakening of development aid at such a moment carries significant geopolitical and moral consequences.

Post-pandemic recovery: Developing countries require sustained support to rebuild health systems, expand vaccine access, and recover lost educational progress. Without international assistance, economic recovery will be slow and uneven, fueling resentment and social unrest.
Climate injustice: Wealthy nations have pledged billions to climate finance but have repeatedly failed to meet those targets. Without adequate aid, vulnerable countries will struggle to adapt to rising seas, droughts, and extreme weather events, despite contributing the least to global emissions.
Geopolitical competition: The vacuum left by retreating Western donors could be filled by actors who prioritize strategic leverage over sustainable development. This could shift alliances, undermine governance norms, and reduce long-term aid effectiveness.
Erosion of multilateral trust: If traditional donors abandon their commitments, faith in global cooperation and institutions such as the UN, the World Bank, and the World Health Organization may decline. This threatens to fracture the collective approach needed to tackle transnational challenges such as pandemics.

As can be seen in the graph below, the WFP reduced rations by nearly 45% between 2020 and 2023 due to funding shortfalls. In 2024, the WFP halved the food rations for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.

Source: OECD

Strategically, reducing aid is short-sighted. It undermines peace, weakens markets, and leaves the world less prepared for future crises.

Rethinking aid

Despite the challenges and aid reductions, the development community is at the crossroads of a new era of international development. Rethinking the aid model is an opportunity to adjust the traditional approach which, as when looking at the numbers, is becoming less efficient. Here are a few instruments and approaches that could be implemented by the community:

Innovative financing: New approaches, such as green bonds, debt-for-climate swaps, and blended finance, can unlock capital for sustainable development.
Balanced partnerships: Development must be driven by the priorities of the recipient countries and local communities. South-South cooperation, such as that between Brazil, India, and African nations, offers promising models for peer-to-peer learning and capacity building.
Strengthening accountability: Aid effectiveness depends on transparency, data sharing, and local oversight. Donors and partners must commit to open data platforms and participatory program design to ensure funds deliver real impact.

Wrap-up

Development aid is at a crossroads. It is no longer guaranteed, nor is its leadership uncontested. While the last two decades proved the power of aid to transform lives, today the world risks losing that momentum. A resurgence in nationalism, combined with fiscal pressures and shifting geopolitics, threatens to undo decades of global progress.

If the world is to meet the challenges of the 21st century – from pandemics and poverty to climate change and migration – it must recommit to a smarter, more collaborative, and value-driven model of development assistance.

Sign in