Years ago, I was driving back to the office with a local colleague in Uganda. Referring to an event we just attended, she said, “You [Americans] are coming here and destroying our culture.” I asked her why she never challenged our programs during team meetings. She replied that she had to put food on the table.
This exchange highlights the cultural tensions inherent in global aid efforts and underscores a deeper issue: the power imbalance between international donors and local communities. It's a familiar narrative where accountability seems tethered more to distant benefactors than the people these initiatives aim to serve.
For decades, the structure of international aid has often relegated local organizations to the sidelines. This dynamic perpetuates a colonial legacy, where decisions are made, and resources are allocated with little to no consultation from those directly impacted by these programs.
A 2021 study starkly revealed this disconnect, with 85 percent of Global South-based civil society organizations deeming their relationships with international non-governmental organizations as "unbalanced" and "not mutually beneficial."
Recognizing the need for change, the development sector has been abuzz with talks of "decolonizing" aid, aiming to shift power back to local hands.
Agencies like USAID have embarked on initiatives such as the New Partnership Initiative (NPI), aspiring to localize leadership and ensure community members drive a significant portion of programming. Yet, despite these efforts, the question remains: Are we truly doing enough to empower local communities?
The introduction of a new metric by USAID to track local leadership marks a pivotal moment in this journey toward accountability. This metric, developed in collaboration with local organizations, seeks to gauge progress by evaluating the extent to which programs foster effective partnerships, leverage local capacities, and involve communities in their initiatives.
However, the enthusiasm for this new tool is tempered by concerns that it sets the bar too low, risking the perpetuation of superficial engagement rather than cultivating effective community leadership.
Take, for example, Pulte's SHARE activity, which — through its comprehensive approach to capacity exchange and local engagement — already surpasses the criteria set by this new metric.
While SHARE is ahead of many other programs, it still operates within a system where ultimate decision-making power rests with international entities, limiting the depth of community leadership it can realistically achieve.
The connection that is commonly made between capacity strengthening and impactful leadership leads to a broader question: What constitutes "sufficient" capacity for local organizations to lead? The current approach often measures capacity through a lens defined by external donors, risking the imposition of foreign standards and overlooking the inherent strengths within local communities.
The dialogue around capacity strengthening needs to shift towards a more equitable exchange, recognizing that knowledge and expertise flow in both directions.
As the development sector grapples with its colonial past and seeks a more just future, some advocate for dismantling the aid system altogether. While the criticisms are valid, the solution may be reimagining rather than ending it. What if we viewed development assistance not as aid but as reparations?
Moving forward, the development community must embrace a more inclusive definition of accountability, which places as much emphasis on oversight by local communities as it does on the expectations of distant donors. This entails ceding leadership to local organizations independent of perceived capacity, with community groups defining the parameters of successful localization.
As USAID and other agencies reflect on their practices, the momentum for change is palpable. With increased global awareness of social justice, equity, and decolonization, the time is ripe to challenge old paradigms and forge a development sector that truly serves local people.
The journey towards truly locally-led development is fraught with challenges. Still, it is a path worth pursuing, for it promises a future where international aid empowers rather than overshadows and where accountability is, finally, to the right people.