Opinion: A new development conference can’t be just a Western echo chamber

“A conversation about reform is long overdue.” These were U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s words at a recent parliamentary committee session, referencing global development programs. For that conversation to happen, he has proposed a new conference for the Western community on development and aid, with the U.K. playing a leadership role. While it is encouraging to hear the U.K. foreign secretary call for reform of the international development system, these conversations are not completely new and reflect a pattern that has defined development for far too long: Western governments and institutions setting the agenda, determining the terms, deciding who gets a seat at the table, and excluding partners from the Majority World. For years now, low- and middle-income countries, civil society, and frontline communities have been pushing for a rethink on international development, humanitarian assistance, and the financial structures that underpin it. There is widespread agreement that the international “aid system” is no longer fit for purpose and that it must become more equitable, more accountable, and more responsive to the people it is meant to support. Lammy has previously spoken about the importance of treating partners in the global south as equals and about working together to reform the global financial system. These are important commitments. But if they are to carry weight, they must be reflected not only in what is said, but in how things are done. That includes how summits are convened, who shapes the agenda, and who holds decision-making power. Across the Majority World, movements, networks, and organizations are already questioning the status quo and leading transformative work. They are not waiting to be included in conversations; they are driving change. From Indigenous people-led climate advocacy to feminist and disability justice movements, people are reimagining development in ways that center care, dignity, equity and self-determination. These groups are not recipients of development and humanitarian assistance; they are co-creators of global solutions, and development funding is an investment in our collective future. A summit shaped by Western donors, without equal leadership from across LMICs and civil society, risks reinforcing the very dynamics we urgently need to change. If the U.K. wants to genuinely play a leadership role, it must show up and listen to the conversations that are already happening among Majority World groups. Some of these conversations have been at the heart of discussions in the lead-up to the United Nations’ Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, or FfD4, taking place in Spain at the end of this month. The Group of 77 — a coalition of more than 130 low- and middle-income countries and China — has collectively called for FfD4 to initiate a multilateral process where countries can build consensus on a shared understanding of official development assistance, or ODA, parameters and to develop a new framework that ensures equity, effectiveness, and accountability of ODA. This echoes global civil society’s long-standing call for an overhaul of the international development and aid system into a space where decisions can be more democratically made, with every country having a seat at the table. Majority World countries have tabled proposals aimed at democratizing global economic governance throughout the FfD4 negotiations. For example, the African Union called for a U.N. debt convention, aimed at creating a “comprehensive, fair, and effective multilateral mechanism for preventing and resolving sovereign debt crises,” championed by the Africa Group and Alliance of Small Island States throughout the negotiations. Meanwhile, the U.K. has been criticized for systematically blocking any significant reform to the international development cooperation and debt architecture throughout the FfD4 negotiations. Over 80 civil society organizations, members of Parliament, and economists recently wrote a letter to the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, calling out the U.K.’s role in blocking the key reform asks tabled by LMICs at a time when the U.K. should be finding ways to rebuild its reputation and to demonstrate that it can be a genuine partner in development following the UK’s decision to cut ODA to 0.3%. The gap between rhetoric and action does not go unnoticed by civil society in these spaces, and certainly not by the governments and peoples of the Majority World. Reforming international finance isn’t charity, it’s about justice, shared interest, and responsible leadership. If the U.K. is serious about playing a “leadership” role, it should approach the upcoming FfD4 conference as an opportunity to listen and build partnerships by supporting proposals from LMICs to truly reform and democratize the international development system. The conversations that have been taking place as part of FfD4 and the demand for greater representation show that the economic landscape is shifting and the U.K. is getting left behind. The U.K. government already recognizes this in its rhetoric but isn’t putting this new reality into practice. It can do this by ensuring that any U.K.-hosted convening on aid reform builds on the conversations initiated at FfD4 and includes meaningful Majority World participation. The U.K. has a choice: to lead by listening and sharing power in democratic spaces, or to repeat an outdated model of control that is increasingly out of step with today’s global realities. The future of development cannot be decided in Western echo chambers.