In this article, Zahir Shah reflects on a decade of working in the development and aid sector since his graduation with an MSc in Development Studies. He scrutinises some flaws of the current international aid sector and the central challenges of aid dependency, including, first and foremost, its bureaucratic inefficiencies and neo-colonial tendencies. Consequently, he calls for a need for decolonising aid by prioritising local ownership, government alignment, and context-specific solutions for sustainable progress.
As I sat in a café at the London School of Economics this January, I reflected on my decade working in the development and aid sector since I graduated with a Master’s in Development Studies exactly 10 years ago. Sharing some of my observations over the past ten years, I hope I can spark a much-needed debate.
Development vs. Aid: A Crucial Distinction
One of the first lessons I learned is that the development sector is not synonymous with the aid sector. While the latter often conjures images of international NGOs (INGOs) and NGOs reliant on Western funding, the development sector encompasses much more. It also includes working directly in governments and intends to address systemic challenges at their root. Unfortunately, this distinction is often blurred, leading to misplaced priorities and wasted opportunities.
Aid: Effective in Emergencies, Ineffective in the Long Run
The aid sector’s strength lies in responding to immediate humanitarian crises. When food, shelter, clothing, and emergency health services are needed urgently, aid organisations play a vital role. But when it comes to addressing long-term development challenges, the track record of the aid sector is far less impressive.
Afghanistan provides a telling example. Over the past two decades, it was one of the largest recipients of international aid, with billions of dollars poured into the country to foster development and stability. Yet, the outcomes of this aid are evident to all of us. In 2011, Pakistan’s polio eradication programme suffered a significant setback when an aid organisation, used for espionage by an international intelligence agency through a fraudulent vaccination campaign, massively eroded public trust. This breach of trust has profoundly complicated efforts to combat polio, leaving Pakistan and Afghanistan as the only two countries still struggling to eradicate the disease.
Local Ownership vs. the aid sector’s neocolonial tendencies
Too often, aid organisations operate in silos, disconnected from local realities and government strategies. This leads to resources being squandered on projects that lack community buy-in or relevance and thus fail to deliver sustainable change. It is often due to donor countries prioritising their agenda over recipient communities’ needs.
While the most impactful initiatives I witnessed are those where governments take ownership and where international support aligns with national priorities, the dominant paternalistic approach to aid perpetuates a cycle of dependency and inefficiency. Countries accepting aid are frequently subjected to unfavourable conditions, stifling their long-term economic and social development. As the current Pakistani President, in his previous tenure at the EU-Pakistan summit 15 years ago, said, “We need trade, not aid.” The truth of these words resonates deeply today.
Building on this, another sobering realisation I had relates to how aid can perpetuate neocolonialism. Western values and solutions are often imposed on societies with vastly different histories and contexts. Most of the aid sector is funded by the donor country’s own organisations. Project management is often dominated by expats from the donor countries. A recurring justification I’ve heard from these expats is that “there is a lot of corruption, and you cannot trust the locals with the funds.” Clearly, if locals do not believe in the scrutiny of the problems they are told to address and there is no government or local ownership, resources are bound to go to waste in many ways, by extension undermining aid efficiency and sustainability. President Donald Trump’s remark that “the UN is like a country club where people come to have a good time” is uncomfortably close to the truth. Despite enormous resources, the impact of these organisations often pales in comparison to their potential. These inefficiencies are further exacerbated by international organisation’s burdensome bureaucracies.
To counter this, a critical focus should be on strengthening institutions and capacities in the developing world. These institutions must be conducive to their local context and evolve domestically rather than being imported as ready-made solutions. External models often fail to consider local realities, leading to systems that are unsustainable or incompatible with peoples‘ needs.
Alternative approaches from India and China
India and China provide striking examples of alternatives to aid dependency. By prioritising local industries and self-reliance, these nations have tackled their development challenges on their own terms. Late Pranab Mukherjee, India’s former Finance Minister, once famously stated, “We do not want the peanuts you give us in aid” highlighting India’s stance on rejecting inadequate aid that does not align with its priorities. This powerful sentiment underscores the potential for other developing countries to take ownership of their own trajectories instead of following an external, donor-driven blueprint.
A message to the upcoming development practitioners
Ten years ago, I walked out of LSE filled with hope and ambition. Today, I’m still hopeful—but also more reflective. Such reflection is prevalent among employees of INGOs and NGOs and dissatisfaction is widespread. Many feel trapped, but continue working with a flawed system, simply to keep their plates spinning. As illustrated, it is true that the development and aid sector has its flaws, but I still retain that it also has the potential to be a powerful force for good. To realise that potential, we must rethink how we approach development: not as an act of charity but as a partnership grounded in respect, equity, and shared goals.
To those considering a career in this sector: enter with your eyes wide open. Understand its flaws, but do not be deterred. Instead, aim to disrupt the status quo. Bring fresh ideas and a commitment to meaningful change. Advocate for systems that prioritise local ownership and align with the aspirations of the people they serve. The same goes for development practitioners and graduates: the focus should be on working with local governments. It is through governments, with alignment and local ownership, that the most profound and lasting positive influence can occur.
Lastly, academia, too, has a role to play. Institutions like LSE should encourage students, particularly those from developing countries, to take ownership of their futures. Institutions, especially in the developing world, that produce the future leaders of these regions, should also encourage students to take ownership of their own futures. The world’s future depends on it.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image credit: Action Against Hunger UK’s teams working on water, sanitation and hygiene programmes funded by UK aid for those displaced in Iraq. DFID via Flickr. CC BY 2.0.
