The dinosaurs of international aid must adapt or die – their expensive era is over | Halima Begum

A s the UK government-sponsored Global Partnerships conference convened in London this week, against a backdrop of high living costs, reduced aid budgets and oil tankers stranded in the strait of Hormuz, it is increasingly clear that the aid sector is nearing breaking point. The international charity network that props up the broken aid system is both under strain and part of the problem – unable to adapt to the times and increasingly unfit for purpose. For years, large international charities h

But they have not achieved it. Despite being some of the strongest voices calling for change, internally they remain structurally resistant to evolution. Not necessarily from bad intent, but because large institutions are designed to sustain themselves. Power, funding and decision-making remain concentrated in the hands of staff and boards far removed from the grassroots. This creates a fundamental contradiction. The very organisations advocating for change are often the least able to deliver, and logical questions arise that the sector is simply not prepared to answer. For instance, is it morally right that a large charity based in the UK spends £120m a year on fundraising primarily on the business of generating and supporting jobs in the UK, instead of giving to organisations working in Sudan, Bangladesh and Myanmar that are under national leadership to resolve their own development challenges? The public expect that their donations go directly to needs at the grassroots level or on the frontline. I spoke about this issue on a panel last year with other international NGO leaders at a humanitarian leadership conference in Doha. Despite visible commitments to equitable partnerships, I discussed the fact that international structures remain so bureaucratically layered – from head offices to regional hubs – that they often unintentionally drown out local voices. I am in favour of drastically reducing large infrastructure and allowing national civil society, particularly feminist and grassroots organisations, to shape the agenda. Large international charities and agencies should step back, redirect unrestricted funds, and let civil society lead.

Key points

• But they have not achieved it.
• Despite being some of the strongest voices calling for change, internally they remain structurally resistant to evolution.
• Not necessarily from bad intent, but because large institutions are designed to sustain themselves.
• Power, funding and decision-making remain concentrated in the hands of staff and boards far removed from the grassroots.
• This creates a fundamental contradiction.