LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Esperanza Hughes-Salinas

March 26th, 2025

Do aid cuts offer a horizon(tal) opportunity in global health?

0 comments | 3 shares

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Esperanza Hughes-Salinas

March 26th, 2025

Do aid cuts offer a horizon(tal) opportunity in global health?

0 comments | 3 shares

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

The aid cuts by the US and UK have their huge negative consequences, but might they also offer an opportunity to change global health? MSc Health and International Development student Esperanza Hughes-Salinas discusses how a break from aid dependency and ringfencing might offer hope for changing the way global health operates: from a vertical to a horizontal approach.


Terror has swept through the international development community recently following US President Trump’s decision to withdraw funding from USAID and major UN agencies, and pull out of the World Health Organization. I need not explain that it is a terrible blow to millions of us around the world, exacerbated by the actions of copy-cat countries like the UK. But could the fall of USAID also be an opportunity?

An opportunity on the horizon

The global health field has long struggled to move away from verticalised, top-down programmes that prioritise particular diseases over others, and more importantly, over strengthening health systems within and across countries. Despite the agreement in 1978 to focus on primary health care (PHC), big donors haven’t exactly fallen over themselves to stump up the money for it in the last ~50 years. And USAID definitely wasn’t at the forefront of those championing the Alma Ata goal.

The ‘horizontal’ PHC approach offers better value for money, is more equitable and inclusive, and enables national governments to work with donors to ensure resilience in their health systems (while also maintaining their sovereignty). If another surprise shock like COVID-19 comes along, investing only in HIV/AIDS isn’t going to help as much as investing in a system that can deal with both. Bill Gates has said that he “still has more to give”, but should we really be congratulating him on pumping more money into the same old disease programmes of which his Foundation is so fond?

Moving from aid dependency to the horizontal approach

Perhaps a blessing is that dependency on US aid (and now UK aid) is now moving out of the picture. Before the first Trump administration, there were thoughts that his presidency could serve as “a catalyst for change, rather than […] preserving the uncomfortable status quo in global health”. While I don’t believe Trump himself is going to be the change, the reaction to him will be. Alternative methods of financing development will arise (see Duncan Green’s recent blog post) – but they must be implemented in a way that prioritises the horizontal approach. Solutions like religious giving will be useful, but may easily fall into the vertical trap. We in the development community have a duty to ensure this does not happen.

Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance, has said that the dent in health budgets produced by the slashing of USAID will make governments less likely to spend money on non-communicable diseases, like diabetes or stroke, which are on the rise. The global health community is more conscious than ever of the social determinants of health, and many INGOS have done much in the last few years to promote health system strengthening, but it hasn’t been enough. Now is the time, while we are promoting alternative financing mechanisms, to change the entire global health field and move away from vertical programmes for good.

What needs to happen?

We’ve already started moving away (albeit involuntarily) from depending on higher-income nations for development funding. The second step is to convince those donors still in the game, and any new donors, to give up the ringfencing of funds and to allow cross-sector working and learning so we can focus on the social determinants of health. You might say, “If it didn’t happen before, why would it work now?” And I’d reply, “We might as well try.”

All this to say, all is not lost. Yes, funding has gone down, and yes, competition for a job at the end of this degree has certainly increased, but the funding has gone down to 2017 levels (check out IHME’s visualisations here). As one of the LSE faculty put it a few weeks ago, “we’ve done it before, so we know we can do it again.” I only hope we can do it better this time. There’s a horizontal opportunity on the horizon.


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: https://medium.com/@johntomlinson.

About the author

Esperanza Hughes-Salinas

Esperanza Hughes-Salinas is a Health and International Development MSc student with a background in bioscience. She previously worked in innovation and policy at the Royal Society, in academic research, and in the pharmaceutical sector. She is interested in climate justice, the political economy of development, and the decolonisation of global health and development.

Posted In: Health and Development

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RSS Justice and Security Research Programme

RSS LSE’s engagement with South Asia

  • Ambedkar’s Constitutionalism after 75 Years
    Was Ambedkar merely a Constitutionalist, devoted to upholding constitutional rules and values? Or was her more than just that? In this post, Ambedkarite advocate Mangesh Dahiwale discusses the central tenets of Ambedkar’s constitutionalism, how he was more than just a constitutionalist, and why it is important to recall his core ideas as we mark 75 […]
  • Revitalising SAARC: Why Women’s Leadership is the Missing Piece in South Asia’s Regional Puzzle
    For the topic ‘SAARC should be Revived to make South Asia a Global Powerhouse’, Eva Nappert — winner of LSE South Asia Centre’s  Vera Anstey South Asia Essay Competition 2025 — argues that a possible way to overcome the current stalemate may be to appoint women in leadership roles given their track record in being […]