The DSA are convening a series of discussions around aid. The events are online and open to all: researchers, practitioners, students and especially those from aid recipient countries who would like to be part of a discussion on the future of aid. The next event is 29 April on UK aid: where do we go from here.

Recent upheavals in aid programmes have had devastating consequences for vulnerable populations worldwide. As well as attracting widespread denunciation, such disruptions have prompted critical reflections on the aid system as a whole. While some critics point towards inefficiencies within aid agencies, others question the geopolitical motivations that drive and shape foreign aid provision. So, at a time when scholars and practitioners are actively debating the effectiveness and equity of aid delivery, could these dramatic changes serve as a catalyst for reform? In the long term, how can we move beyond an international aid system controlled by global North states? This panel discussion will explore whether the current crisis presents an opportunity to build a more resilient, just, and sustainable aid system – one that is less susceptible to political shifts and funding volatility.

This event is in partnership with the Global Development Institute, at the University of Manchester. Date: 8 April 2025.

Panellists: Nicola Banks, Global Development Institute; Divine Fuh, University of Cape Town; Nick Jepson, Global Development Institute; Sue Roberts, University of Kentucky; Bright Simons, ODI. Moderator: Peter Sutoris, University of Leeds.

Peter Sutoris: “Crises tend to result in the narrowing of the imaginative space, of what we think is possible or even desirable of the kinds of worlds that we are trying to build or rebuild through development.”

Nicola Banks Power resists change: There’s deep, entrenched power in the current aid system, and while some powerholders are willing to give ground, others will resist fiercely. Real change comes from people, not elites: Movements of people, not politicians or institutional stakeholders, are the ones who can demand and drive transformative change. These movements can highlight injustices and help bring broader publics into the conversation. Critique alone isn’t enough: While critique is essential, we’re now at a point where too much critique without constructive action has crippled the system. “We’ve been critiquing to try and make change, but actually it’s pulled the entire system to its knees, and because we haven’t been doing the right types of building, we don’t yet have that reimagined future.” Referencing Marshall Ganz, she stresses that building new structures is essential, not just tearing old ones down. We haven’t built the alternative yet: The aid system has been undermined by criticism, but there’s no fully formed, better system ready to take its place because there hasn’t been enough focus on building. Mass public engagement is essential: To move forward, we need to mobilize broad domestic constituencies globally—not just experts and insiders—to create and support a new vision for aid. “Civil society is left out of the equation where we discuss aid, but civil society is also a very necessary condition for a reimagined system of flourishing.”

Divine Fuh: “It’s an opportunity to ask a lot of questions about us and about the things that we take seriously. We have been located in a system which has trained us to outsource these questions, and that our response is first to ask the question outside, without having to look internally: what we have done or what has happened to us? Because there, there is something that we must have done and something that we should be doing, that should help us to build or to rebuild internally… I just saw the rankings of happiness the other day, and I saw or two or three of the top 10 countries ranked happy, and I was wondering, “what is happiness when other people are unhappy? I thought happiness was something that you shared.” So, when we get to a point where we begin to rank people happy when they are operating in a world where there’s so much trouble, I think those are the questions that we need to ask ourselves. we have to ask questions about ourselves, who we are, why we exist, and our relationship to other people in order to move to that place, and that’s a difficult part.”

Bright Simons tackles the myth that the amount of money we spend on aid is huge. “If you took all the money that is spent on global health aid, on global health and you added it all up, that is still half the amount of money that the rich world spends on chocolate.” Aid is not just for “hopeless” or poor countries: He also pointed out that historically, wealthy nations like the U.S. also received foreign aid. For example, the U.S. used Dutch and French funds for infrastructure and the Louisiana Purchase. More recently, Japan has provided massive aid to China showing that even powerful countries benefit from aid.
He points out that the source of aid is shifting from rich governments to capital markets; in places like Ghana, aid from rich countries is now minimal. Most development financing comes via institutions like the World Bank and IMF, which raise over 95% of their funds from capital markets—not governments. However, only a small fraction of committed funds are effectively disbursed, which limits impact. These misconceptions limit how we think about aid and debunking them is crucial to reimagining a more effective, fair, and scalable aid system. “If you’re really keen on making sure you fix aid, it’s not rich government aid you want to fix, not the US that allows the UK. It’s really the World Bank IMF system, not US aid or UK aid.”

Sue Roberts: Sue sees the US AID crisis as both a symptom of internal political turmoil and an opportunity. While the destruction of USAID was chaotic and ideologically driven, it may open the door for a much-needed, values-based rethinking of America’s global role in development. “What are our values? Do we value being a country that can be counted on for humanitarian assistance, to provide food aid in conditions of famine or of extreme displacement? And if not, what do we value?” She points out that trade is not separate from aid—it reshapes the entire global political economy and when trade policy changes dramatically, it alters the ground on which all other forms of global interaction (including aid) are based.