Opinion: The limits of localization in the decolonization debate

The concept of localization has been a prominent topic since the World Humanitarian Summit of 2016. Recently, it has been promoted as a progressive step toward decolonizing the development and humanitarian sector. On the surface, localization in humanitarian response seems to enable meaningful engagement and leadership of local and national groups from the countries where programs are being implemented. The apparent aim of localization is to enhance capacity exchange, increase direct funding, and empower local groups to lead initiatives. However, while well-intentioned, localization is not the definitive solution to decolonization and does not address its deep-rooted issues. Colonization involves the restructuring of economies, political systems, societies, and knowledge systems, imposing Eurocentric ways of understanding the world. Decolonization, therefore, is not merely about improvement but about shifting power, altering forms of knowledge, and changing the understanding of the world away from a Eurocentric perspective. In the recent push for localization by aid and development agencies including the U.S. Agency for International Development USAID and the United Nations among others, while local groups may receive more prominent roles, the frameworks, funding mechanisms, and accountability structures often remain controlled by the same international organizations touting the concept. This perpetuates dependence on external validation and resources, undermining the sovereignty and autonomy of local communities. Why localization is falling short Localization falls short of achieving true decolonization, resulting in a superficial transfer of responsibilities without dismantling the underlying power dynamics. The international NGO Peace Direct, in its work, argues that the emphasis on engaging local groups still implies that global south stakeholders remain passive recipients of the discretionary goodwill of global north groups. Furthermore, localization risks becoming a technocratic exercise rather than a holistic approach to supporting genuinely locally owned civil society efforts. In addition, as Oxford Brookes University’s Farah Mihlar argues, localization fails to address the underlying logic of colonialism embedded within the humanitarian and development sector and is inadequate to respond to the asymmetrical power dynamics it seeks to dislodge. While localization focuses on reforming processes within the existing framework of humanitarian and development work, it does this without questioning whether the system itself needs a significant overhaul from its conceptual basis. “We need a decolonial perspective that interrogates the localization agenda.” --— Decolonization, in contrast, calls for changing the entire system to which the sector subscribes — systems that oppress racialized and marginalized groups. It seeks to address the deeper systemic problem of asymmetric power that stems from a pedagogy suggesting that nonwhite people are not ready to control their destiny. This questions the underlying model of development and humanitarian action as a "grandchild" of colonization and colonial missionaries shaped by egoistic values of paternalism and a superiority complex of "White is Right." These paternalistic values strip local people of their agency and propagate the notion that those from the West must help the global south, assuming that these people cannot think for themselves. This colonial legacy persists in contemporary laws, policies, and actions by humanitarian and development organizations, reinforcing colonial power dynamics and systematically oppressing those from the global south. This influences humanitarian assistance and development activities, making affected people feel that services are not programmed with their input and needs in mind. However, there is a reluctance to address this issue holistically, reflected by what William Ackah, a senior lecturer in Black and community geographies in the University of London, describes as the “hypocrisy” of the West regarding international relations. This reluctance means that conversations around decolonization are easily diverted to discussing diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI — and not anything deeper. A fundamental paradigm shift is in fact needed We must change the paradigm of the conversation. We need a decolonial perspective that interrogates the localization agenda, provides agency to the "local," and adopts a pedagogy of liberation and freedom in partnership with affected communities. It involves disrupting the system and upending structures according to local voices, cultures, and traditions. It requires having the right groups at the table to hear their voices. It implies questioning whose expertise we value, whom we listen to, who holds power, and who gets a vote. It also necessitates dismantling the construction of communities we work in as passive recipients without agency instead recognizing them as places where solutions are generated, and capabilities exist. Most importantly, we must transform power structures so that those holding power reflect the communities where the work takes place. We need to democratize humanitarianism by creating forums and tools that allow the widest engagement of all humanitarian workers, especially national staff in project areas, to inform and guide decisions. Ultimately, we need to change the framework to develop a better, interdisciplinary understanding of the globalized vulnerability landscape among policymakers and operational decision-makers and adopt a holistic approach to providing alternatives, including different funding mechanisms for local people. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization he works for. Any content provided is of a personal nature and should not be taken as an organizational position. Dig into Roots of Change, a series examining the push toward locally led development. This is an editorially independent piece produced as part of our Roots of Change series. Click here to learn more.