News & insights

The absorption of bilateral development agencies—defunded and weakened by staff cuts—into foreign ministries marks a profound shift in the purpose of international development, shifting it away from the post-war consensus rooted in human rights, solidarity, and multilateralism. Amid global compassion fatigue, official development assistance (ODA) is increasingly vulnerable to appropriation by geopolitical interests.

Elon Musk captured this shift in zeitgeist most succinctly when stating that empathy was the fundamental weakness of Western civilisation. However, his counterproposal of compassion towards ‘civilisation as a whole’ conceals the erosion of humanitarian values that accompanies it, just as the last eyewitnesses of 20^th-century fascism are falling silent. Even in consolidated democracies, a language has emerged that dehumanises entire communities, circumvents due process, and erodes the foundations of the rule of law. This authoritarian shift reinforces democratic backsliding, as evidenced by state violence against migrants and political indifference to the weaponisation of starvation. Whether the global trend towards moral desensitisation can still be reversed may well be decided in the coming months.

The gradual dismantling of moral foundations has direct implications for the future of international development cooperation. For decades, bilateral agencies and international financial institutions have operated under a development mission that, in some form, echoed the World Bank’s goal of ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity on a liveable planet. These principles underpinned the 2015 consensus on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, representing the apex of post-war solidarity.

Institutional Retreat in the Name of Strategic Realism

Within just ten years, these ideals are being dismissed as naïve, inefficient, or outdated. The absorption of some of the most effective bilateral development organisations into foreign policy apparatuses, often justified by claims that ‘fund[ing] failed governments in faraway lands’ is misguided (US Secretary of State Marco Rubio), signals a strategic retreat that could have devastating consequences for the world’s poorest. The widespread questioning of the ‘effectiveness’ of international aid, measured by short-term technocratic benchmarks, is often used to justify its gradual dismantlement. Shifting from a human-centred approach to one driven by security and national interests exacerbates fragility, conflict, and violence, especially in regions already experiencing economic, political, or climatic stress. This form of institutional retreat creates vicious cycles by increasing instability, weakening statehood, and triggering rising migration pressures. In the Global North, this would result in more stringent anti-immigration policies, fuelling empathy fatigue, and shifting political majorities.

The erosion of moral commitments is particularly evident in the institutional restructuring undertaken by key donors. In 2020, the United Kingdom, for instance, merged the Department for International Development (DfID) into its Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office, a move that was much more than just a reorganisation of bureaucracy. It marked a decisive break with the philosophy of need-based ODA. Britain’s former leadership in setting international standards—on good governance or the investment climate—has been replaced by a Global Britain agenda that aligns aid more closely with geopolitical and economic interests.

The second Trump administration is now following this precedent, preparing a fundamental reassessment of US engagement in the multilateral system. The goal is to identify all institutions, agreements and conventions that allegedly run counter to US interests. Past decisions, such as withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, major cuts to UN funding, and the effective dissolving of the US development agency USAID, suggest that the multilateral architecture, once built along US lines, is set to be dismantled further. The perception among US policymakers that international institutions no longer align with national priorities is gaining bipartisan currency.

However, these steps are merely the visible tip of a rapidly melting iceberg. ODA is increasingly being subordinated to domestic political goals, such as migration control, to the detriment of global public goods. In an environment of sluggish growth and high public debt, this politicisation undermines the foundations of long-term resilience. It hinders progress in key areas such as health, education, climate adaptation, and poverty reduction. The World Bank has already warned that the current context may now herald a ‘lost decade’ for development.

Multilateralism at a Crossroad

The crisis of legitimacy facing international development institutions has two dimensions: accusations of hypocrisy from Western donors, especially voiced by the Global South, and a lack of viable alternatives from emerging non-Western actors. The former are accused of hypocrisy, particularly by the Global South, while the latter struggle to propose viable alternatives. Institutions that were once dedicated to shared prosperity now risk becoming instruments of geopolitical rivalry. Within this uncertain context, two relatively new players, the European Union and the BRICS countries, could fill the vacuum left by the US withdrawal. However, neither has yet developed a coherent counter-model.

The EU could seize this opportunity by articulating a coherent shared narrative and fostering broad ownership of institutional reform. Its soft-power potential and continued high level of public support for development policy provide a solid foundation. With more than 40 per cent of global development funding in 2024, the EU remains the largest donor. However, expected budget cuts of around one-fifth of global development spending in fiscal years 2024 and 2025, rising defence and climate adaptation costs, and the rise of right-wing populist forces have hindered progress. Initiatives such as Global Gateway, which prioritise green infrastructure, education and governance, represent important first steps towards a more coherent strategy.

Meanwhile, the BRICS countries, led by China, are pursuing a development agenda that emphasises sovereignty and non-interference. Their regional development banks and an IMF-style Contingent Reserve Arrangement highlight their geopolitical ambitions. While they are playing an increasingly important role in the debate on global governance reform, their impact remains largely symbolic, reflecting a focus on strategic positioning rather than transformative development. There is a risk that both Western and non-Western models will fall into the same instrumentalist logic, differing only in branding.

Towards a Post-Compassion Model of Development?

In an increasingly polarised world, the question is no longer whether official development assistance should serve national interests. That genie is out of the bottle. The real question is whether there is still scope to achieve the SDGs, which require genuine poverty reduction, inclusive growth, and climate resilience. A reorientation of development policy towards joint investment in global public goods (rather than as a tool of political conditionality) could offer a way out of the current impasse. Defending global commons such as health, climate, and peace is not only compatible with enlightened self-interest, but—in many respects—also a prerequisite for it. This would, however, necessitate shared responsibility for social stability, education, and cross-border climate policy. It would require mutual trust and a genuine willingness to share power, qualities that have become increasingly scarce.

In short, the development community has to reclaim its moral voice. Humanity, dignity, and rights must not be reduced to mere metrics. The challenge is not only fiscal—it is civilisational. When development policy is reduced solely to a strategic instrument of geopolitical power, it forfeits its legitimacy. The future of development and multilateralism hinges on societies’ willingness to resist the normalisation of violence and human rights violations.

In an era when solidarity is viewed as a sign of weakness and compassion as a burden, it is a radical—and profoundly political—act to assert that development must remain an expression of justice, dignity, and sustainability. The ideals of the post-war era must not be allowed to be discarded; they have to be renewed and defended against the erosion of trust, the instrumentalisation of need, and the zero-sum logic of geopolitics. The alternative is not realism, but moral abdication masquerading as pragmatism.

Jan-Peter Olters