Who Really Owns Global Cooperation? Multilateralism and Dogs That Bite
Welcome to Bits, Bobs & Big Ideas #19 curated by Tomorrow Is Possible — Your Bi-Monthly Dose of Insight, Ideas, and Impact!
Thank you for being a regular reader of Bits, Bobs & Big Ideas. If you haven’t done so yet, please hit subscribe to receive timely updates along with our other subscribers. If you like this post, consider sharing with some colleagues and friends.
Whose Agenda Is Development Really Serving?
Over the past weeks, I’ve been reading more and more about what some are calling the “end of development cooperation.” Headlines highlight the closure of USAID and shrinking aid budgets. Much of the discussion is focused on how to fill the financial gap as if the only solution were to keep doing more of the same. But the deeper question is rarely asked: whose agenda is development really serving?
I’m working on a longer piece that argues that the end of development cooperation, at least in its current form, may not be a bad thing. This moment offers a chance to rethink the model: less of a North–South dynamic, less dependence on Official Development Assistance (ODA), and less paternalism where recipient countries have little say. The future may not look bright right now, but there is an opening to move closer to universal sustainable development. I hope to share that article in the coming weeks, along with another piece (co-authored with three others) on what this shift means for UN reform, also expected to be published in September.
One example that crossed my screen while writing this was an article titled Don’t overpromise and underdeliver by Heiner Janus and Tim Röthel from IDOS. The authors argue that European donors should “declare that their primary objective is to improve the living conditions of the population in the recipient countries” rather than pursue their own interests. On paper, that sounds right. But in practice, donors still dictate priorities and decide where the money flows. That is not partnership. A genuine shift would mean trusting governments and societies to define their own strategies, with external actors in a supporting and not a directing role. In this regard, it is telling that very few actors from the Global South have lamented the decline of aid. Some have even welcomed it as a chance to finally reset the discussion.
Does this mean money doesn’t matter? Of course it does. But ODA is no longer the crucial source. Today, meaningful cooperation should be built on knowledge exchange, technology transfer, access to markets, and trade opportunities. Financial flows will remain essential for fragile and conflict-affected states. But for most middle- and high-income countries, the real challenge is not receiving external resources. It is mobilizing and sustaining domestic ones.
If you know of alternative thinkers who are challenging today’s aid orthodoxy and exploring new models, I’d welcome their perspectives. Please share. Use the chat function below for those that would be interested to discuss online…
A nuanced perspective - that aligns with the above in the sense that it even while helping recipient countries, donors gain in economic, geopolitical and security dommains. The Kiel Institute study: Identifying Mutual Interests: How Donor Countries Benefit from Foreign Aid provides evidence showing that aid for trade and infrastructure can generate real, short- to medium-term returns for both donors and recipients—boosting exports and foreign direct investment. It underscores that ODA doesn’t have to be zero-sum (even though that could open quite a different discussion on the nature and origins of development). As the authors write: “For proponents of aid, our analysis offers a rationale that affirms that moral imperatives and national interests are not mutually exclusive. For skeptics who question the return on investment for donor countries, we provide evidencebased assessments of the economic, geopolitical, and security-related benefits that aid can yield for donors”. In short, there are models in which cooperation can be both effective and mutually beneficial. That said, systemic reliance on donor discretion and earmarked funds still undermines broader multilateral resilience which you can read also more about in the below articles.
Multilateralism in the Red
A recent article in IPS Journal, Multilateralism in the Red by Nilima Gulrajani and John Hendra, is focusing on the financial crisis, but within the UN system: billions in unpaid contributions, a growing reliance on unpredictable voluntary funding, and mounting pressure on the organisation’s ability to deliver. The authors do outline very well that underlying problem runs much deeper - similar to what I describe above. The multilateral model depends too heavily on donor priorities and short-term funding cycles. Two Funding Compacts have tried to resolve some of the issues. The UN - to a large extent - delivered on those Funding Compacts. Member States not so much.
While the focus is here on financing and how the plug the gap, the real issue is structural. Who sets the agenda of global cooperation? Whose priorities shape mandates, funding streams, and strategies? And how can multilateralism be made less dependent on donor discretion and more responsive to the needs and ownership of member states?
In other words: the UN’s budget crisis is not only a technical problem; it is a political signal. Like the debate around the “end of aid,” it exposes how fragile and donor-driven the system has become. If anything, this is a chance to design multilateralism fit for purpose — grounded in sustainability, shared responsibility, and local ownership. In the words of the authors: “If done right, [UN Reform] could mark a turning point for both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the UN. But success will require the UN to avoid the mistakes of past reform efforts, which have sought to decentralise and improve coordination between agencies but avoided deeper questions about the UN’s purpose and financing.”
And that’s also the focus of another interesting article UN80 should help solve long-term problems before they become irreversible catastrophes by Adam Day and Daouia Chalali. Summarized in their words: “the UN80 initiative should be more than an administrative tune-up (…) The real measure of effectiveness is whether the UN can help the world solve long problems before they become irreversible catastrophes.” But do read the full article as well…
The Far Right Not Only Barks, But Also Bites
On funding multilateralism - and specifically the rise of earmarking, where donors push their own priorities - a new study deserves attention: The far right and international organizations: How the far right in government affects foreign aid funding by Alexandros Tokhi & Lisbeth Zimmermann in The Review of International Organizations (2025) has just been published. Among other findings, the authors show that 2025 was not the beginning of the end of development cooperation. Looking at 30 years of data, they demonstrate that the fractures in development finance have been evident for decades.
The evidence is stark: when the far right enters government, multilateralism pays the price. Drawing on data from 37 OECD donors between 1990 and 2020, the research shows that their participation leads to a 30% reduction in voluntary, earmarked contributions to international organizations (IO). Bilateral aid budgets, by contrast, remain largely intact. This is no accident; it is a deliberate strategy.
Earmarked contributions are what give IOs the flexibility to design and deliver programs aligned with global norms — human rights, refugee protection, sustainable development. Precisely the areas far-right governments contest or deprioritize. By withholding funds, they weaken institutions where they matter most, while redirecting resources into bilateral channels they can control. As the authors put it, far-right parties “not only bark but also bite”: they translate ideology into policy by starving the multilateral system of resources.
The implications are serious. For decades, reform debates around IOs have focused on effectiveness, legitimacy, and representation. Yet this study underscores a different vulnerability: financial fragility in the face of political backlash. The multilateral system is not only weighed down by outdated governance structures—it is being deliberately weakened by governments hostile to its core mandate.
Tomorrow Is Possible has recently studied thematic funding patterns across UN entities (thematic and inter-agency pooled funds). The picture is clear: with a few exceptions, IOs remain heavily dependent on OECD-DAC donors. If they remain reliant on earmarked generosity, are they truly building resilience or simply chasing donor priorities? And what happens when a critical mass of governments decides that global cooperation is expendable?
Multilateralism is not an automatic good that governments will continue to underwrite. It is a political choice. And right now, some governments are making very different choices.
One last reflection…
"But we can choose a different world. In fact, we will choose a different world. The world will be different a generation from now. The question is whether we will look back in gratitude at the virtuous cycles, or in horror at the vicious ones."
From Everything Is Tuberculosis, by John Green (A good book recommended by a Reader of Bits, Bobs and Big Ideas)