Aid Sector at Breaking Point: Dinosaurs Must Adapt or Die
The dinosaurs of international aid must adapt or die – their expensive era is over, writes Halima Begum. Shiny headquarters, layers of management and pricey overheads are hard to defend when funds are far better spent at local level.
As the UK government-sponsored Global Partnerships conference convened in London this week, against a backdrop of high living costs, reduced aid budgets and oil tankers stranded in the strait of Hormuz, it is increasingly clear that the aid sector is nearing breaking point.
The international charity network that props up the broken aid system is both under strain and part of the problem – unable to adapt to the times and increasingly unfit for purpose.
For years, large international charities have championed localisation of aid, expressing their collective commitment to transformation and decolonisation. But they have not achieved it.
Despite being some of the strongest voices calling for change, internally they remain structurally resistant to evolution. Not necessarily from bad intent, but because large institutions are designed to sustain themselves.
Power, funding and decision-making remain concentrated in the hands of staff and boards far removed from the grassroots. This creates a fundamental contradiction. The very organisations advocating for change are often the least able to deliver, and logical questions arise that the sector is simply not prepared to answer.
For instance, is it morally right that a large charity based in the UK spends £120m a year on fundraising primarily on the business of generating and supporting jobs in the UK, instead of giving to organisations working in Sudan, Bangladesh and Myanmar that are under national leadership to resolve their own development challenges?
The public expect that their donations go directly to needs at the grassroots level or on the frontline. I spoke about this issue on a panel last year with other international NGO leaders at a humanitarian leadership conference in Doha.
Despite visible commitments to equitable partnerships, I discussed the fact that international structures remain so bureaucratically layered – from head offices to regional hubs – that they often unintentionally drown out local voices. I am in favour of drastically reducing large infrastructure and allowing national civil society, particularly feminist and grassroots organisations, to shape the agenda.
Large international charities and agencies should step back, redirect unrestricted funds, and let civil society lead. Current efforts to transform big international organisations from within aren’t going to work.
As resources shrink, more is absorbed by the overcrowded intermediary system formed by leading international charities, and less support reaches frontline communities. If we are serious about shifting power, we must stop defaulting to structures intent on hoarding it.
Not all these organisations should continue to play the same role they do today. Some may transition, merge, shrink or step aside. Others could demonstrate real change and remain relevant. But the system cannot be preserved in its current form.
What I believe is needed is not just better aid charities, but a new model of giving, one that channels resources directly to local and national actors, builds trust and solidarity rather than control-heavy compliance and redefines accountability around communities, not intermediaries.
Our big aid charities need to learn to let go and accept that those closest to a problem are often best placed to act towards effective resolution.
This is not about abandoning partnership, it is about redesigning it. If we continue to invest in maintaining the existing system, we will reproduce its limitations. If we are willing to invest in something different, we have a chance to shift power in more than name. The question is no longer whether change is needed, it is whether we are prepared to let go of the structures that prevent it.
If international NGOs, official donors and philanthropic actors are serious about shifting power, the test should be simple: where does the money go? Let’s follow the money. Can organisations show that at least 90% of their funding is flowing directly to locally led organisations – with real decision-making force behind local leaders? If organisations cannot show this, then they are propping up a system that benefits the elites, not the grassroots.
This is not about punishing, it’s about letting go of expensive dinosaurs. The volume of commentary from NGO leaders defending their continued centrality to a last-century aid model is remarkable. Much of it feels less like thoughtful reflection than self-preservation masquerading as strategic insight. At a time of shrinking aid, maintaining large international headquarters, layered management structures and expensive overheads is hard to defend when a diminishing share of funds reaches frontline communities.
Those that can meet this bar – by shifting funding, devolving authority and rethinking their role – should be supported. Those that cannot, must not be the default channel for resources. In a constrained funding environment, we cannot afford to support both transformation and inertia. If we are serious about locally led development, then investment should follow those who are already practising it – not those still “aidsplaining” why it is difficult.
Halima Begum is a charity executive who has been chief executive of Oxfam, Action Aid and the Runnymede Trust.
