If the old real estate adage is “location, location, location,” you could say that the equivalent development adage is “localization, localization, localization.” It’s all the rage — and the rhetoric — but is it the reality?
That’s what we explored in three must-read pieces this week based on the Thursday release of a widely anticipated report detailing USAID’s latest localization metrics.
It’s difficult to quantify how much power and money are going to local organizations, but USAID is at least trying. It laid down a marker of shifting 25% of its funding to local organizations by 2025. And while the agency has earned plaudits for its transparency in updating the public on that target, the newest figures don’t exactly inspire confidence that it can ever achieve its goal.
This is a preview of Newswire
Sign up to this newsletter for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development, in your inbox daily.
My colleague Elissa Miolene breaks it all down: The data revealed that just 9.6% of the agency’s eligible dollars were channeled toward local groups last year, a backslide from 10.2% the year prior.
The 25% goal is actually just one of a two-part promise. The other half says that by 2030, USAID wants at least half of the initiatives it funds to place local leadership at the center. It’s an ambiguous metric, so to better define it, USAID developed a locally led programs indicator to track progress — and based on a pilot program, it’s not doing too badly.
But not everyone is reveling in the gains on the ground. Moses Isooba, the executive director of the Uganda National NGO Forum, tells Elissa that he continues to see two sides of USAID that are “diametrically opposed.”
There’s the program side, which is trying to push out more local funding. And then there’s the finance side, which is more attuned to risk — and Isooba feels local partners continue to be boxed into the high-risk category.
“We really want to see more convergence and more of these two work streams singing from the same hymn book,” Isooba says.
The USAID report admits that “there is room to improve,” though it adds: “Recent efforts to increase staff, reduce barriers to entry, and partner in more accessible ways are starting to gain momentum and will underpin future progress.”
There may be more room than USAID is admitting, though. Nonprofit Publish What You Fund calculated that roughly 5.2% of eligible funding went to local organizations in 2023 — far lower than USAID’s estimate of 9.6%.
So why might USAID’s localization figures be inflated? In part it’s because the agency only counts “eligible funding” — which excludes money that goes to governments and multilaterals such as the United Nations, among other things. That means only something like half of the agency’s total spending qualifies as eligible to go to local organizations.
The other gray area is the definition of what constitutes “local,” with Publish What You Fund accusing the agency of playing loosey-goosey with the term, counting local spinoffs of large international contractors.
But USAID Administrator Samantha Power is still laser-focused on hitting her goal, according to her exclusive opinion piece for us that details how her agency plans to dismantle the barriers local organizations routinely run up against.
“As we work to advance dignity and opportunity around the world, we see again and again that local leadership is critical for transformative and sustained impact,” Power writes. “Many of our own teams at the U.S. Agency for International Development have taken this learning to heart and made progress both in elevating local leadership over program design and implementation and channeling more resources to local organizations.”
Read: USAID going backward on localization funding, agency report shows (Pro)
Opinion: How USAID is working to hit its localization targets
ICYMI: Are USAID localization results even worse than reported? (Pro)
+ Want to get our complete breakdown of USAID’s localization efforts in one convenient spot? Then download: USAID and localization: A progress report.
Stingy new sheriff in town?
Still, localization requires agency staff to dole out smaller contracts to local organizations. And those resources have been constrained by Republicans in the U.S. Congress who regularly preach the virtues of slashing foreign aid spending. This year is no different, with Republicans on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee proposing an 11% cut to foreign assistance funding. That includes slicing $485 million off USAID’s operating expenses, despite multiple calls for more contracting officers in the bill’s text.
And if Republicans seize control of the presidency and Congress come November, the next four years won’t be much different. Just the opposite — foreign aid cuts are likely to come down like a sledgehammer on USAID.
My colleague Michael Igoe put together an essential primer on what changes a Donald Trump administration might usher in — and the word “sweeping” doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Among the Republican operatives he talked to was Max Primorac, lead author of the USAID chapter in a nearly 900-page transition playbook for a second Trump administration put together by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Primorac accuses the Biden administration of aggressively pursuing what he calls an international campaign of “social reengineering” to push progressive policies such as abortion, gender equality, and climate change on recipient countries that don’t even want them.
Among other things, the playbook calls for stripping away such “radical ideology,” clawing back years of emergency foreign aid spending that some Republicans deem wasteful, stacking USAID with political appointees, and shifting resources away from USAID toward Republican-created initiatives such as the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.
Read: The Republican plan to ‘rightsize’ US foreign aid in a Trump presidency (Pro)
+ We are delighted to announce Devex Pro Week 2024! From July 22-26, we’ll have a packed agenda with events, insider articles, and in-depth reports available exclusively to our Devex Pro members.
If you’ve been considering signing up for Devex Pro, now is your chance! For a limited time we’re offering $100 off on an annual Pro membership. Sign up now to join us for Pro Week and gain access to our premium content for a full year.
What else you missed
• We talk quite a bit about USAID — OK, we talk about them a lot — in large part because it’s the biggest bilateral donor in the world, and money talks. But other emerging players are increasingly making their presence known. These countries, which have transitioned from aid recipients to donors, could help plug the funding gap as the group of wealthy countries that have traditionally provided the bulk of foreign aid shrink their budgets. To find out who these new players are, check out my colleagues Miguel Antonio Tamonan and Alecsondra Kieren Si's analysis.
• My colleague Colum Lynch plumbed into the inner workings of the U.N. to explain how its top jobs get parceled out. Hint: It’s not based on merit, but rather on what kind of passport you own. And if you want to reach the highest peaks of postings, that passport better be American, British, Chinese, French, or Russian. In other words, you need a seat on the all-mighty U.N. Security Council, or else you’re out of luck. The rest of the U.N. hiring system doesn’t fare that much better, in part because of an arcane regional rotational system that, again, rewards your place of birth rather than your qualifications.
• Consultant, founder, agriculture expert, nonprofit entrepreneur, and businesswoman: Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli has a slew of job titles on her resume, but she was reluctant to add another one — president and CEO of ONE. Ultimately, though, she was convinced to take on the role, becoming the first African head of one of the world’s most influential advocacy organizations, writes Elissa. Now she must steer it through a turbulent chapter of departures, layoffs, and a shift in strategy. Part of that strategy will be putting African agency at the heart of ONE’s work — “to have a shared vision about what Africa wants, not what the world thinks we need,” Nwuneli says.
• The U.N. Climate Change Conference of the Parties’ annual midyear talks in Bonn, Germany, succeeded in not agreeing on much. One big holdup? What else — money, specifically how much wealthier nations will fork over to help less well-off nations cope with climate change. There were four other major snags. Tais Gadea Lara breaks them down for us.
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.
About the author
Anna Gawel
Anna Gawel is the Managing Editor of Devex. She previously worked as the managing editor of The Washington Diplomat, the flagship publication of D.C.’s diplomatic community. She’s had hundreds of articles published on world affairs, U.S. foreign policy, politics, security, trade, travel and the arts on topics ranging from the impact of State Department budget cuts to Caribbean efforts to fight climate change. She was also a broadcast producer and digital editor at WTOP News and host of the Global 360 podcast. She holds a journalism degree from the University of Maryland in College Park.
