In a world facing multiple crises – geopolitical, climatic and economic – is the reduction of development aid a strategic choice or a historical mistake?
Amounts revised downwards everywhere
OECD figures for 2023 reveal a disturbing paradox: while international aid has reached a record level of $223.3 billion, budget cuts are multiplying, jeopardising decades of progress in the fight against poverty, disease and inequality. Behind this facade of generosity, a marked decline in global solidarity is looming, threatening not only developing countries, but also global stability. In this context, a crucial question arises: by refocusing on short-term national interests, are donor countries not risking amplifying the fragilities of a world already plagued by instability?
The main donors of Official Development Assistance (ODA) are scaling back their commitments. France, which had set itself the target of dedicating 0.7 % of its gross national income to ODA, reduced its effort by 11 % in 2023. By 2025, this contraction will worsen with a 37 % decrease in allocated funds. Germany is following a similar trajectory: the budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) will be cut by 940 million euros, while humanitarian aid will suffer a drastic reduction of 53 %, representing a loss of 1.01 billion euros. Since 2023, the BMZ budget has already fallen from 12.16 to 11.52 billion euros.
This trend affects all contributing nations. The Netherlands is planning an 8 billion euro reduction in its aid budget by 2027. In the United States, the closure of USAID offices and Washington's withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) are weakening humanitarian initiatives, even if certain areas remain a priority.
Even the smallest contributors are adopting this stance. Finland is going to cut its ODA by a quarter between 2024 and 2027, whilst Switzerland is slashing its budget by 282 million dollars. Once models of solidarity, Nordic countries are also scaling back their ambitions: Sweden is giving up on dedicating 1 % of its gross national income to ODA, and Norway, despite record oil and gas revenues, is cutting its development aid by 460 million dollars.
This refocusing of priorities on national and strategic issues is not without risk. It compromises the progress made in the fields of health, education and the fight against poverty, while exacerbating inequalities. Worse still, the reduction in humanitarian aid risks having devastating consequences for the most vulnerable populations.
In a world already weakened by multiple crises – geopolitical, climatic and economic – this decline in official development assistance (ODA) raises a crucial question: by focusing on short-term interests, do donor countries not risk sacrificing decades of progress and amplifying instability on a global scale?
International solidarity in peril
The gradual withdrawal of official development assistance sends an alarming signal about the future of international development commitments. The historical goal of dedicating 0.7 % of gross national income to this aid now seems relegated to the background, eclipsed by national priorities perceived as more urgent. In a world where interdependencies are strengthening, the question is no longer limited to preserving ODA, but rather how it can be redesigned to reconcile national imperatives and global responsibilities.
The causes of the reduction in ODA: a disengagement with heavy consequences
The decline in official development assistance is explained by a convergence of economic and geopolitical factors. Driven by budget pressure, accentuated by inflation and growing indebtedness, governments are forced to redefine their priorities. At the same time, geopolitical tensions, particularly the war in Ukraine, have led to a redirection of resources towards emergency humanitarian aid and support for strategic allies.
This «friend-shoring» logic, where aid is directed primarily towards geopolitical partners, raises a fundamental question: are we witnessing the gradual disappearance of international solidarity in favour of a vision strictly guided by national interests?
Impact on developing countries: essential services under threat
The reduction of official development assistance (ODA) cannot be reduced to a simple budgetary readjustment: it threatens already precarious balances and hits essential sectors head-on:
- Cheers Falling funding is undermining vaccination programmes, the fight against infectious diseases and maternal care, endangering millions of lives.
- Education The reduction in resources reduces access to education, worsens the shortage of qualified teachers and limits access to teaching materials, compromising the future of entire generations
- Safe drinking water and sanitation Already vulnerable services risk deteriorating further, favouring the spread of waterborne diseases and threatening public health.
These difficulties heighten socio-economic pressures in developing countries, fuelling a vicious circle where poverty, a lack of prospects and instability drive more and more people to seek alternatives elsewhere.
In the absence of viable local solutions, migration often becomes a forced choice rather than an opportunity, thereby reinforcing the dynamics of displacement towards more stable regions, notably Europe.
The rise of China and Russia: an alternative to traditional ODA?
While official development assistance from Western countries is stalling, China and Russia are expanding their influence in developing countries, particularly in Africa. Their cooperation models, although appealing in certain respects, also give rise to reservations and questions.
The Chinese approach: the infrastructure gamble
China has established itself as a major player in Africa's development, investing heavily in strategic infrastructure: roads, railways, ports and power stations. Flagship projects, such as the Mombasa-Nairobi railway in Kenya or the port of Djibouti, illustrate this strategy, which is based on low-interest loans and direct investment. These initiatives aim to reduce the continent's infrastructure deficit and stimulate its economic growth.
Unlike some Western donors, China is distinguished by an approach free from conditionalities linked to governance, human rights, or political reforms. For many African governments, this flexibility represents an advantage, offering them increased leeway in the conduct of their internal policies.
Russian influence: a strategy focused on the military and resources
Russia deploys an approach centred on military cooperation and bilateral partnerships in key areas such as energy and natural resources.
For instance, Moscow has concluded agreements with several African countries to provide military assistance and train local armed forces, much like its intervention in the Central African Republic. In this country, Russian military advisers have been deployed in exchange for access to mineral wealth.
Much like China, Russia avoids imposing conditionalities linked to governance or human rights, a stance that appeals to certain African governments keen to preserve their sovereignty and limit external interference.
The implications for Africa and international cooperation
The expansion of China and Russia in Africa calls into question the limits of the traditional official development assistance model, which is often criticised for its lack of flexibility and its inadequacy to local realities. This development highlights the need to rethink international cooperation by aligning it more closely with the priorities and specific needs of African countries. However, these new dynamics are not without challenges. It is essential to assess their long-term impacts, particularly on state autonomy, governance and the sustainable management of resources.
In this context, a balance between the various approaches to cooperation, which respects the independence and values of African nations, is an essential condition for fostering sustainable and equitable development.
Towards a new approach to international cooperation
More than a budgetary question, it is a crisis of confidence and vision that is shaking the international community today. Faced with the rise of economic, climate and geopolitical crises, the world is at a turning point: it is becoming urgent to rethink cooperation. The disengagement of certain actors must not signal the end of global solidarity, but rather encourage the building of a more resilient, sustainable model adapted to the realities of partner countries.
This involves refocusing efforts on the specific needs of countries in the Global South, while respecting their autonomy and long-term development priorities.
Potentially serious consequences
- Slowdown in Sustainable Development The decrease in ODA could seriously hinder the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while financing needs remain immense.
- Increase in the debt burden The trend towards favouring concessional loans rather than grants within the framework of ODA threatens to increase the indebtedness of recipient countries. In some cases, interest repayments already exceed the budgets allocated to vital sectors such as health and education.
Withdrawals with dramatic consequences: concrete examples
The suspension or reduction of USAID funding weakens vulnerable populations by compromising essential programmes in over 100 countries. Despite a modest budget (less than 1 % of the US federal budget), this agency plays a crucial role in health, the fight against famine, education and humanitarian aid.
In Ukraine, the reduction in aid is hindering support for refugees, exacerbating their precariousness. Uganda and also Malawi, the threat hanging over the programme PEPFAR could wipe out decades of progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS, whereas in South Africa, the withdrawal of 440 million US dollars annually would jeopardise support representing 17 % of the government budget dedicated to the fight against HIV and tuberculosis.
Ouch Nigeria, the suspension of polio and cholera vaccination campaigns is jeopardising health security. In DRC, the withdrawal of aid risks reigniting Ebola and cholera epidemics, whereas in Tanzania, to Bangladesh and also Sudan, it compromises access to drinking water, primary healthcare and school canteens.
Behind these figures, millions of lives are upended and health systems are collapsing. More than ever, international solidarity is being put to the test.
Conclusion: A strategic issue for the future of international cooperation
The reduction in Official Development Assistance reflects a reconfiguration of international priorities at a time when crises are intensifying and global balances are being redrawn. This evolution, although motivated by budgetary and strategic imperatives, raises an essential question: can global stability truly be preserved while relegating international solidarity to the background?
It is not a matter of pitting national interests against international commitment, but of recognising that, in an interdependent world, the development of some conditions the security and prosperity of others. Adapting cooperation to new realities does not mean abandoning it, but rethinking it pragmatically, by relying on balanced partnerships that respect local priorities and carry a long-term vision.
Within this dynamic, ODA must become a strategic lever for building more resilient and mutually beneficial international relations. By moving beyond short-term logic, it can embody a pragmatic response to the complex challenges of the 21st century, guaranteeing both global stability and equitable development.
French 
English 
Chinese 
Arabic