Does the global south still want localization — or does it want more?

Just a little over a year ago, localization was one of the biggest talking points in aid. After decades of discussions, momentum was finally building to move the sector’s center of gravity away from Western capitals and the international organizations headquartered there, and toward the national governments and local communities most affected by aid. Even as the sector edged apprehensively toward the inauguration of Donald Trump as U.S. president in January 2025, there was talk that the incoming president might embrace localization for its greater efficiencies. That was not how things played out. Instead of attempting to reform aid, Trump took a sledgehammer to it. Thirteen months on, experts told Devex that there are plenty of people in the sector who still believe in localization and that moves toward it are still happening. But for many, there is now a bigger question about whether localization remains relevant in a rapidly changing world — or whether more radical changes are needed. Donors go quiet Despite everything that has happened, conversations about localization are continuing, said Gunjan Veda, global secretary of the Movement for Community-Led Development. Prior to the aid cuts, there were people who were deeply committed to localization and locally led development as a way of making the aid system “fairer,” or at least “less unjust,” she said, and those people are still grappling with how to make it happen now. In particular, some foundations have continued their work in this area. In a Council on Foundations survey published in September, three grantmakers reported giving more than 90% of their funding to local organizations, although many others did not provide data. In some ways, despite the pain of the past year, the turmoil has also opened up more opportunity for change. With everything up in the air, some organizations have made changes that might otherwise have taken years to materialize — whether motivated by principle, financial constraints, or a combination of the two. For example, Christian Aid announced in April that it would drop its country-office model and channel more money to local partners instead. And Save the Children International announced in December that it would stop bidding for contracts under the United Nations’ country-based pooled funds. It encouraged other international NGOs to follow suit, “to open space for local and national actors … a step toward genuine localisation.” Another organization making changes is CDA, a U.S.-based nonprofit that undertakes research to improve development and humanitarian work, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected areas. It is now in the process of formally integrating with a long-time strategic partner, the Kenyan-registered INGO Local Capacities for Peace International, or LCPI. The jolt of the past year seems to have made NGO boards more open to supporting radical changes and considering creative solutions, said Ruth Rhoads Allen, president of CDA. “From all the devastation and destruction … of last year in the aid community, this [merger] feels certain and abundant and generative, and there’s so much potential,” she said. In other ways, however, the events of the past year have created new obstacles to localization. Under the Biden administration, the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development had been the biggest institutional proponent of localization, pledging that 25% of its funds would be given to locally led organizations, although it never reached that target. But without USAID, which was shuttered by the Trump administration, there is a lack of leadership or coordination on localization in the international space, said Rhoads Allen. “Obviously the localization agenda is much larger than USAID, but USAID was a really loud voice … and made it a priority for many different funders,” she said. “With that voice gone, some INGOs have chosen to carry that [mission] on, but there isn’t a coherent voice right now related to the localization agenda.” What’s more, said Veda, is that “the funding cuts have been driven by, or justified through, a narrative which increasingly positions civil society as unreliable, corrupt [and] untrustworthy. And this narrative erodes public trust in civil society and enables shrinking civic space.” As a result, she said, some donors are actually increasing their reporting requirements, making it harder for small and local organizations to get involved, and reversing the progress that had been made in recent years. Similarly, the experts agreed that many donors, particularly governmental ones, have gone quiet on localization. Amid uncertainty, they said, there is a tendency to retreat back into the status quo. Although there is nothing inherently risky about funding local organizations, said Veda, many donors nonetheless perceive it to be a risk — and they do not want to take risks right now. Time for a bigger shift But the events of the past year have also caused many to feel that localization was always a Band-Aid, said Veda. “To me, localization was always a way of making an extremely unbearable, unjust, colonial system slightly more bearable, slightly less unjust. It was much more about ‘do less harm’ than ‘do no harm,’” she said. Prior to 2025, it seemed to be the best option available, because “there was this whole idea that the current system is infallible. We can’t transform it, it can’t be changed, so we have to do what is possible within that,” said Veda. But now there are existential questions about the future of the aid system. Veda said there is a large constituency of former localization supporters, particularly in the global south, who have walked away from the idea, realizing that it doesn’t matter whether the money is directed toward local or international actors, it can still be taken away overnight. “That realization shook a lot of supporters of the localization agenda,” said Veda. “Whatever the rhetoric, the reality was that it was really just about shifting resources — it was never about shifting power.” Kennedy Odede is one of those disillusioned former supporters. As the founder and CEO of Kenyan grassroots organization Shining Hope for Communities, or SHOFCO, he had been part of USAID’s advisory committee under the Biden administration. “I really pushed for 25% [of USAID’s funding] going to local organizations, and they made some progress,” he said. “And then now we’re back to zero.” In his view, with cuts coming not just from the U.S. but also from European donors, the era of relying on the West for aid is coming to an end. Even if aid levels were to rise again, the trust is gone, he said. His organization has seen a surge in demand for medicines from patients in informal settlements since the USAID cuts caused some government clinics to close. “Local organizations for me are the real [agents of] systems change,” he said. “They’ll be there when there’s no other person. They are part of the community.” Development was always an “unfair business,” he said. But now “it’s black and white: We are on our own.” Beyond localization For many onetime advocates of localization, what has happened has demonstrated just how much countries and communities need to take back control of their own development — and this is something bigger than localization, they said. “The term localization, I don’t think makes sense anymore … because localization still assumes that the power is held and the resources are held outside of the local,” said Rhoads Allen. Veda added: “The system that we thought was infallible — and therefore localization was our only response to it because that’s all that was possible within the confines of the system — well, that system has crumbled. So now we actually have the opportunity to build a better system.” Exactly what that would look like, and how it would come to be, is still unclear. The appeal of localization was that it was a “neat little package,” offering concrete steps that could be taken even by individual players, said Veda. Yet “what we need is much bigger … It’s not a neat answer that I can tie up and give you like localization.” She pointed to the role of the “international financial architecture,” including the debt crisis and tax system, in preventing some governments from being able to provide services to their citizens. The problem is that those working in development do not have control over the international financial architecture. Still, there are small steps that can be taken in the direction of a new and more equal development system, said Veda, including resisting the temptation to backtrack on progress — such as reduced reporting requirements — that had already been made under the banner of localization, offering local organizations more unrestricted core support, and focusing on strengthening local civil society infrastructure. Many of the tools that were helpful for localization will also be helpful in going beyond it. Veda noted that the past year had resulted in a turn to government-to-government funding, as donors pull back from attempting to do service delivery themselves. That creates an opportunity to return service delivery to governments, which had always been their rightful mandate, she said. Civil society then has an important role to play in making sure that local communities and local governments are involved in decision-making about how that money is used, and in holding national governments accountable, she said. “Progress, even for big change, can happen with small things that everybody does,” she said. For Odede, the development sector is in a moment of flux and it is difficult to predict what will happen next. But in his mind, “Now is the era to reimagine development … Let’s give ourselves time.” Like Veda, he believes that development partners need to come together and discuss where to go from here. But the most crucial step, he believes, is for countries to end their dependency on donors, with the onus on national and local governments to step up. The events of the past year might even open up the opportunity for a more honest conversation. Aid was always political, said Odede, even if it was framed as altruistic. Now that has become more explicit, he believes it could give global south countries a better chance to negotiate on an even footing. “It’s a wake-up call for us,” he said. “We are entering a post-aid [era] … The journey has just started.”