Everyone in the UN Development System (UNDS) is hunkering down, waiting for the budget cuts to blow over. But unless you have become too melancholic to engage with the world, you may want to check out the just published IDOS paper. As a co-author of “Beyond Aid”, here is my summary of selected key points.
Traditional Aid is not working
The poorest countries and failed states have received most of the aid, and have not made good use of it. The more successful countries never needed it. One of the reasons for the failure of traditional aid lies in the misconception of how development occurs. Development aid does not change the structural underpinnings that are responsible for the insufficient or non-existent progress in the poorest countries.
- Within countries, development does not depend on technical fixes. Good development decisions are the outcome of a sound political progress, discussed and agreed upon within and by the country itself. There is a growing understanding, including by African aid critics, that “aid projects” often cause harm by taking away accountability of governments to their own citizens.
- External conditions that facilitate or hinder a country’s development trajectory include trade conditions; world market prices; foreign investment; degrees of indebtedness; or the actions of neighboring states. Project aid plays a minor role in the economic growth of developing countries.
- In an increasingly multi-polar world, development aid as a form of philanthropy – dividing the world into rich donors and poor recipients – becomes intellectually and practically problematic.
The UNDS is not a good conduit for earmarked development finance
- Entrenched patronage prioritizes the interests of donors, recipients and UN agencies over development impact.
- The UNDS does not analyse what the country needs; instead agencies provide what they have to offer, resulting in a system that lacks meaningful purpose and project overload.
- The typical country programme approach does not address any of the external or internal conditions that hinder development.
- Increasing amounts of money are spent on the administration of an organization; on projects with little documented impact; and on projects that are only marginally relevant to a country's needs.
We propose that the UNDS:
- Positions itself as a knowledge broker and supports governments in managing complex policy trade-offs in ways that are independent, politically informed, and normatively grounded.
- Provides important public advocacy: participates in public discourse and shapes national debates. Focusses on normative issues.
- Applies universality in practice by overcoming the outdated distinction between donor and recipient and involving all Member States. Engages with high income countries to bring about an external environment favourable for the economic growth of developing countries.
So far some of the main theses of the paper.
Many of you may agree and even argue that all of this has already been done. But it is equally important to consider what, by implication, will no longer be done. Here is my take:
Drop earmarked donor-funded programmes. Do not be the conduit for donor funds. Don’t do what others do better. Instead, focus on tasks that require a UN organization to complete. Build on the UN’s comparative advantage.
It will result in a financially smaller but politically stronger UN development system that is less dependent on donors and more relevant to today’s polycentric world.
I couldn't agree more - just weeks from retirement - I attended a UNCT retreat last week - the last one I attended was 3 duty stations ago some 12 years ago. I felt like I was in a time machine that was broken. We talked about the "empowered UNRC" (as we sat in a room that was half UN agency Reps and half UNRC staff - i kid you not HALF of them were UNRC staff of all shapes and sizes - drawing on the 1 % coordination levy now imposed on each UN agency grant that is not a joint programme - the UNRC is now exploding with some cash - so they hire more staff to work on more things for UN agencies to do: more matrixes, more platforms, more frameworks, more plans, more theme groups, more you name it) and we talked about the government offer for a UN House - and how we could fit a few more people in and divided up the running cost. We talked about common services like banking and travel - so we can avoid getting soaked for huge inflated cost that UN enjoys. We talked about every EXCEPT how we need to more more efficient, cut down overlap, focus, and be more relevent for government. We did not even reflect on the disasterous retreat we had last year - at an equally exotic location well beyond the UN DSA rate - where we had a complete mutiny over the arduous and non effective coordination structure that took up all our time and did not resolved any of our issues. So much room to improve. Will it happen in the last 8 weeks of my 30 year career - who knows. Meanwhile UNHCR cuts 5000 posts, UNICEF cuts 3000 - similar for WHO and UNFPA - but not a peep about UNDP cuts? Hmmm Maybe all people losing their jobs at UN agencies can join on of the newly empowered and fast growing UNRC offices worldwide???
ReplyDeleteExcellent piece of work - thanks to you and the others. Three observations. First, I hope you will publish your very pertinent summary on LinkedIn where it will both be more widely seen and help the reports messages reach a wider audience (we can repost it). Second, I am not sure it's accurate to describe the recommendations as new per se. To me they look more like a modern reworking of the original principles and intent of the Charter. Those of us who agree with this argument should be presenting the period from about 1985 to 2015 as the anomaly and the "smaller, smarter" UN you and your co-authors advocate for as more faithful to the Charter than the character of the organisation today. Third, this argument is somewhat taboo in senior leadership spaces even if there are those at ASG and USG level who think similarly but keep quiet. They understandably don't want to deal with the consequences, not least with their own staff, of advocating for it. Good then to marry this argument with an honest reflection of how incredibly hard it would be for the UN itself to reform in this direction and how it could only happen with Member State leadership. But chapeau - great piece of work.
ReplyDeleteOne cannot help but get the impression that the work of IDOS is yet another attempt to rearrange the deckchairs on the massive ship, the UNDS is.
ReplyDeleteThink tanks are a bit like consulting companies; they must be a bit critical to retain credibility, but not so critical that they jeopardise future funding or contracts.
What is needed for a country to develop is no rocket science, and quite frankly, to the best of my knowledge, no country has ever developed with the help of UNDS or aid, for that matter.
For those who need to have it spelt out, just task a master's student in development economics to analyse which countries have developed fast over the past hundred years and which countries fell behind. What did it take to develop? What caused countries to fall behind?
They are simple questions that are quite easy to answer. Those that developed fast all had elements of good, competent and caring governance that had corruption under control and got along with most of the rest of the world. Those who fell behind lacked one, two or more of these.
There is a horde of perhaps 600,000 aid workers around the world who will denounce what I have said as simplistic and outright dangerous. Development is a complex issue that calls for their expertise. That Sub-Saharan Africa is relatively poorer today than it was 50 years ago, having been the beneficiary of this expertise, is just an inconvenient fact.
Agree with the central thesis (which is familiar from the 1990s and continues to be valid). With the caveat that the humanitarian role of the UN - for all its inefficiencies - is still incredibly important. See Gaza. See failed state and other no-state situations. The UN should help save lives (and, by the way, immunization + ORS + VitaminA = humanitarian) and do more and better to facilitate effective NGOs and civil society, where present, to do the same. For the rest, yes, advocacy, norms, knowledge and universal principles. And humility.
ReplyDeleteThe terrible emergency in Sudan caused by the civil war has been interfered in by states like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many more. Do they have a role in addressing the consequences? Or is that what organisations such as WFP and UNICEF, financed by the West, are there for? Perhaps that could be an issue for IDOS to look into.
DeleteAnother suitable issue for IDOS attention may be whether an organisation such as the Sudanese Emergency Response Room is better positioned to deal with the fallout from the civil war than the UN agencies.
"And humility", have we found religion?
Delete@ Richard. Agree with the humanitarian role of the UN, but our discussion paper was primarily about the UN Development System
DeleteThis is what AI offers, as regards what it takes to develop rapidly, free of charge, in less than three seconds:
ReplyDeleteHere’s a breakdown of the core elements required for take-off and rapid development:
🏛️ 1. Strong, capable, and reform-minded state
Competent government institutions matter far more than ideology. The state must be able to plan, execute, and enforce policies — from infrastructure to education to trade.
This usually means a bureaucracy insulated from corruption and political chaos, as seen in South Korea’s Economic Planning Board or Singapore’s civil service.
Political stability — not necessarily democracy at first — tends to be a precondition for sustained growth.
⚙️ 2. Economic freedom and private-sector dynamism
Even in the more state-led “Asian Tiger” models, market forces were allowed to operate. Entrepreneurs could invest, produce, and export profitably.
The most successful states didn’t run industries; they guided and disciplined them, rewarding efficiency and punishing failure.
Property rights, contract enforcement, and access to credit are all essential for private investment.
📚 3. Massive investment in education and skills
Virtually every “take-off” case began with near-universal basic education and a major push for literacy and technical skills.
South Korea in the 1960s and 70s invested heavily in schools and technical training — long before it was rich.
This creates the human capital needed for manufacturing and technology upgrading later on.
🚢 4. Export orientation
Rapid development almost always coincides with integration into global markets.
Countries that tried to grow by self-sufficiency (import substitution) stagnated; those that produced for export learned faster, competed globally, and earned hard currency.
Export discipline forces firms to improve productivity and quality.
🧱 5. Infrastructure and industrial policy
Roads, ports, electricity, and communications are non-negotiable.
Successful governments often use targeted industrial policies — supporting strategic sectors like steel, textiles, or electronics — but with performance-based rewards rather than blanket subsidies.
The aim is not to protect, but to help industries climb the value chain.
💰 6. High savings and investment rates
Development requires capital — both domestic and foreign.
The Asian Tigers had very high savings rates, often encouraged by fiscal prudence and trust in stable financial systems.
These savings funded infrastructure, factories, and education rather than consumption or corruption.
🌍 7. Pragmatic openness to foreign investment and technology
Successful countries learn from others, import know-how, and welcome foreign investors — but on their own terms.
Japan, South Korea, and China all extracted technology transfers from Western firms while protecting strategic autonomy.
⚖️ 8. Social cohesion and national purpose
A shared sense of national ambition — often born from crisis or external threat — can unite elites and citizens around the goal of “catching up.”
South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore all combined discipline, hard work, and a strong work ethic with relatively equitable growth that kept social tensions low.
High inequality and ethnic or tribal divisions tend to derail take-off efforts.
🚫 9. Avoiding the common traps
Many countries fail because of:
Corruption and patronage politics draining public resources.
Overreliance on natural resources (“resource curse”) rather than productivity.
External debt dependency and inflation.
Populism that undermines long-term policy consistency.
🧩 In short:
Rapid development = capable state + open economy + education + exports + investment + discipline.
The precise mix varies, but the story is similar: when governments create stability, reward hard work and productivity, and connect their economies to global markets, growth follows.
Can UNDS be fitted into such an agenda?
DeleteIDOS has, at long last, understood that development aid did not help countries develop, and a new role for the UNDS is needed. That it took IDOS so long to arrive at that conclusion, which has been obvious to everyone in the industry for decades, puts into question their suitability to provide advice. The proposed new role is all theoretical and has no basis in the practicalities of how countries actually develop. The impact on the development by this new approach will be near impossible to measure. Also, the strong advocacy role calls for skills that UNDS staff don't have. What is proposed is an experiment for which no one can foresee the outcome. To suggest experimentation after more than 50 years of failure and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted may not be the best path forward. Clearly, something much more radical, practical, and down-to-earth that is known to work is called for.
ReplyDeleteI have been reminded that this is about a New Vision for the UN Development Function, not about development in general. I stand corrected, however, surely that is not an end in itself.
ReplyDelete@ Thomas. Yes, it helps to read a paper before commenting on it. Now you may add your thoughts as to a new role for the UNDS, as described in our discussion paper. As you said above, a new role is needed.
DeleteThanks, Detlef. I commented on your summary. I wonder how many have read the rather dense 22 pages? None of this makes my comments above redundant or irrelevant.
DeleteNow here we go, as per your request:
1) It is of limited use, looking at aid, to cut out a thin wedge (UNDS) out of a big aid pie and analyse that alone.
2) It might have been more appropriate to be a bit more critical in analysing the failings of the UNDS. We all know the truth and often discuss it.
3) Had you made a presentation of this paper to the Heads of Agencies' rather large weekly meeting in my last duty station, you would have seen many, if not all, eyes glazing over. And that was an experienced group in their mid to late 50s who had worked in the business for decades.
4) IDOS is obviously trying to repurpose UNDS, giving it new relevance. Typically, the UN does this by itself every few years in response to complaints of inefficiency and irrelevance.
5) You promises to make the UN financially smaller but politically stronger, shifting focus from traditional aid to a convener, adviser and global advocate. It sounds bold, but it may turn the UNDS into even more of a talking shop
6) It is well known that the UN’s development system is bloated, donor-driven and stuck in practices that have little to do with how countries actually develop.
7) Neither is it news that too many agencies chase too many earmarked funds from Western donors, creating perverse incentives, competition and infighting.
8) Rather than trimming bureaucracy and defining a limited and clear purpose, you propose a shift from aid delivery to advocacy, advice and norm setting. That may sound sophisticated, but how will UN officials, outsiders, perhaps not always of the highest standing, tell sovereign governments what norms to adopt and how to legislate?
9) The call for universality is also interesting. You want UNDS to move beyond the outdated distinction between donor and recipient and engage all member states through global monitoring and peer accountability. That may sound like an equal partnership, but in practice, it may be seen as interfering with domestic affairs that might not be appreciated.
10) Do you really think developed economies want peer review through the same UNDS system that struggles to get its own management in order?
11) A politically stronger UN is unclear. Stronger as vis-à-vis whom? A leaner, more focused UNDS that coordinates aid might be welcome, but one that substitutes that role with the one proposed risks becoming more politicised and less effective.
12) Normative authority borders on ideology, and effective advocacy often divides.
13) As traditional aid declines, the old North-South narrative is becoming less relevant, as you say. Thus, UNDS, leaving space to private enterprise, local governance, and new competitive ideas, may be more appropriate, rather than trying to reinvent itself as a think tank that dispenses advice rather than money.
14) To be fair, you acknowledge vested interests and political inertia, but the very structure of multilateralism ensures inertia. You have too many agencies, too many fiefdoms and too little accountability.
15) The proposed reforms may make the UNDS feel more important, more politically significant, but not necessarily more useful. A smaller, humbler UNDS that does a few things well would command more respect than a set of normative frameworks. The world needs fewer vision statements and more results.
@Thomas. Now we know what you do NOT want the UN Development System to be or to do. Do you also have an idea what it should be, or should it cease to exist?
DeleteDid the UNDS do much good? Would Africa have been better off without the aid industry? Considering that no country has developed with the help of aid, and the countries where the UNDS were strongest, most active and spent most of its money have, rather than catching up, fallen further behind the rest of the world, the answers to these questions are, in my mind, obvious. The UNDS did not do much good. Whatever good it did, could have been done by the countries themselves. To suggest otherwise borders on racism. Also, the incompetence, corruption and inept management of UNDS suggest that it should be closed down in an orderly manner. The ones who will oppose this most strongly will, unsurprisingly, be the ones who are employed by UNDS and the elite in the countries they work in. These groups have benefited handsomely. The mother with four children in a slum in an African city would probably not notice any difference.
DeleteI have again been reprimanded, and correctly so. On unwinding the UNDS, I should have, of course, said that each agency within the UNDS should be assessed on its own merits. For example, it would be insane to dismantle the WHO's global disease control function.
Delete… melancholy has a hidden hope to it, with secrets and solutions ; [ ma tristesse doesn’t necessarily encapsulate these, c’est plus proche du néant ( Camus)… ] Sartre would have expected dialectical thinking to deliver resistance and revolution ; sadly, our contexts have changed : language has been emptied from within; the far west is near.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHere are some countries that have achieved remarkable development over the past 80 years. To the best of my knowledge, UNDS had nothing to do with these impressive achievements, which may possibly even hold for Botswana. However, UNDS was very involved in sub-Saharan African countries, most of which have fallen further behind the rest of the world since their independence, despite its advice and assistance. But such details appear not to be of much interest to the intellectual powerhouse IDOS is, with its focus on norm-setting and universalities. That is wrong. IDOS should go back to the drawing board and learn from the countries listed below. That may result in a very different set of recommendations. Perhaps it would be pertinent to start the exercise by spelling out what has been achieved with the help of UNDS since its inception.
After the war in the 1950s, South Korea was one of the world's poorest countries, poorer than almost all African countries. Driven by export-led industrialisation and government-backed conglomerates, its economy grew at an average annual rate of 9% for three decades. It is now a global technology and manufacturing leader.
Taiwan successfully transitioned from an agrarian economy to a hub for light industry, science and technology. Its GDP per capita rose from being comparable to many African countries in 1950 to surpassing many European economies by 2022.
After gaining independence in 1965, Singapore rapidly developed into a global financial and technological centre. This transformation was powered by pro-business policies and heavy investment in education and infrastructure.
Since its independence in 1957, Malaysia has evolved from a commodity-based economy to one centred on manufacturing and services. This growth lifted the country from low- to upper-middle-income status.
The People's Republic of China saw one of the most rapid developments in history. Following market reforms under Deng Xiaoping starting in the late 1970s, China experienced average annual growth rates of 10% for decades, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
Despite immense devastation from the war, Japan emerged as a global economic power. An unprecedented expansion of industrial production, a focus on technology, and aggressive export policies drove its growth for decades, cementing its status as a highly diversified and advanced economy.
Since its independence in 1966, Botswana has sustained economic growth and improved governance. It transformed from one of the poorest nations to an upper-middle-income country.
Ireland, which was very poor as late as the 1950s, underwent a dramatic economic transformation from the 1980s. Strategic policies, including tax cuts and a focus on foreign direct investment, fueled rapid growth.
Sorry, I was wrong about Botswana. The UNDS played a role in helping Botswana develop since its independence in 1966. The UNDS has supported Botswana through technical expertise, policy advice, capacity building, and a focus on sustainable development, with key agencies like the UNDP, FAO, and UNEP providing assistance on a range of issues from poverty and health to environmental management and economic diversification.
ReplyDeleteIs this a case where UNDS can take credit for something that would have happened without it, or is it that UNDS' advice may be useful in well-governed countries, with corruption under control? UNICEF was often criticised for taking credit for the work of others.
DeleteThanks for sharing this Detlef - it's an important argument to put on the table. The case for the UNDS to dramatically shrink its project-based work and focus more on things like knowledge sharing, convening, and advocating (that is settling the dial more to enabler than doer) is not necessarily that new but it's not been very popular in discussion within the UN. It deserves more of an airing so this is very valuable. I wonder whether it would have better traction if it were framed more as Charter originalism - after all, what you're proposing the UN should look like is probably a lot closer to what the drafters of the Charter had in mind than what grew up over the last thirty to forty years.
ReplyDeleteGood to see this paper whose authors include two former colleagues Detlef Palm and Frederik Matthys. I like the framing of the UN as a neutral knowledge broker, and wonder what would it take for the UN to do it better. There are strong incentives for UN agencies and donors to focus on project implementation rather than knowledge brokering and fostering self-reliance.
ReplyDeleteSouth-south cooperation, where useful development knowledge can be generated anywhere and exchanged in mutual partnership reshaped for local context is very powerful - but we need to avoid the same risks of knowledge exchange being dominated by who has the financial resources and the political power rather than as shared interest in exchanging practical solutions.
This implies a differently functioning and different sized UN. For the UN to fulfil this role it would first need to get better at sharing and brokering of knowledge within and between UN agencies, where silos and proprietary knowledge abound. On the other hand the know-how that countries seek isn't merely academic or technical its often quite nitty-gritty practical. To understand it and broker it well the UN might sometimes need to get its hands dirty.
Why would there be a need for repurposing UNDS as a knowledge centre? Today, almost all of humanity’s accumulated knowledge is available at the click of a mouse.
ReplyDeleteIf only that were the case. While you can find a lot of things using Google or by searching AI, ensuring that this is reliable, relevant and actionable is something else entirely. In particular, Google and AI are heavily biased towards "western" knowledge and lacking in insights from developing countries and especially at -risk and marginalized communities. The UN (and others) can play an important role in supporting generation, sharing and use of knowledge from the global south, and in helping countries to contextualize knowledge from other countries and contexts.
DeleteCould you give examples where "sharing knowledge from the global south" has been done with UNDS involvement?
DeleteSure - there are a bunch of examples on the UNOSSC website: see here for a few example: https://unsouthsouth.org/our-work/knowledge-co-creation-and-management/ some agencies also have their own individual examples. There's certainly potential to do more and better but there are already quite a few examples.
DeleteBut surely there must have been established channels for this knowledge to be passed on for millennia. Why can't they be used?
DeleteThanks for this report: it has interesting and recognizable points and I certainly see the value of a stronger knowledge function - first internally between UN institutions and also for governments. In both the UN has limited expertise unfortunately (with some exceptions including on South-South exchanges) so a lot of work is needed. Regardless of good work done by UN agencies, a simple look at the UN organigram remains scary: 15 specialized agencies + 8 'related organizations', almost 10 (!) very substantial research and training institutes, about 8-10 massive funds and programmes, a longlist of ECOSOC related organizations, commissions and bodies and countless Fora and Committees. The report speaks about effectiveness and avoids efficiency and internal benchmarking for impact.
ReplyDeleteThanks Robin, we – the authors – noted at the beginning that we do not, at this point, discuss the inefficiency resulting from duplication or any other unresolved institutional challenges – these are already widely discussed within and outside the system. We proposed that, before condensing the bloated bureaucracy, we need to look at the overall purpose, in light of the experiences and the new requirements in a world that has dramatically changed over the last 80 years.
DeleteThe UDHR of 1948 may have been a landmark of global norms and standards. However, it does not mean that the UN has some kind of monopoly on norms. For norms to be respected and adopted, the norm setter must be respected.
ReplyDeleteThere are other organisations today that may be more respected than the UN, and therefore perhaps in a better position to set norms and standards. Take, for example, outstanding universities from around the world and NGOs such as ICRC, or, for that matter, ISO, an industrial standard setter.
Rather than trying to cling to the UN as the global norm setter, perhaps handing gracefully over the baton to those more respected and capable may be appropriate.
UN agencies do not set norms. Norms emerge from Conventions or other agreements among member states, and should reflect almost global consensus.
DeleteThe United Nations System: Frequently Asked Questions says: Entities within the UN system may set international standards on various matters.
DeleteThis is what ChatGPT says about the matter:
DeleteNorm-setting as a central UN role
The UN is not just a forum for diplomacy or aid delivery — it is also a global standard-setter. Through its charters, declarations, conventions, and specialised agencies, it defines what the international community considers acceptable behaviour by states, businesses, and individuals.
Your own document emphasises the UN's role in norm-setting and standard-setting. In fact, one of the criticisms you make is that the UN’s normative and standard-setting role has become marginalised as the development system focuses more on project implementation rather than leveraging the UN’s global normative authority.
DeleteDetlef. Yes, it helps to read a paper before defending it. Now you may add your thoughts to my comment: "Rather than trying to cling to the UN as the global norm setter, perhaps handing gracefully over the baton to those more respected and capable may be appropriate".
ReplyDeleteBlogs should be forums for the vigorous exchange of ideas, views and opinions, not only to showcase flawless writing or necessarily even very well-developed thinking. Things should evolve as the exchange expands. Perhaps something good and new could come out of it. That is the idea with the comments section, where you can even be anonymous. You can, of course, also use a blog to exchange beautiful pictures and cookie recipes.
ReplyDeleteAll considered, perhaps the former should be given more attention than the latter, even if it might be uncomfortable.
Considering that the UNDS is under criticism and facing severe budget cuts, it might be reasonable to give more focus to how that happened rather than lamenting the loss of norm and standard-setting authority.
An analysis of what went wrong in Africa would be a good start. While GDP per capita is a flawed indicator, it is the most commonly used. By that measure, most African countries have fallen further behind the rest of the world over the past several decades. That was not the plan. The UNDS was heavily involved in all the countries that not only failed to catch up but fell further behind. All UNDS staff must have been aware of this. Such a basic understanding was not above our $300,000 pay grade.
That fact, though, was sadly rarely broached, let alone analysed. We all focused on our very thin slice of the large overall development pie, and it was often possible to show some little improvements on a micro level here and there. The bigger picture was ignored. IDOS might want to focus on the above in its next paper.
ReplyDelete"The poorest countries and failed states have received most of the aid, and have not made good use of it". UNDS have no responsibility?