Is an equitable, decolonised approach to global development possible?

Historically, UK international development has not prioritised the needs of countries in what is contestably referred to as the ‘Global South’.

In 1929, when the Colonial Development Act was passed, developing Britain’s economy, rather than focusing on ‘local’ contexts, defined the legislation. Post World War Two, UK official development assistance (ODA) prioritised Eurocentric industrialisation, eventually shifting to neoliberal policies in the 1980s.

The establishment of the Department for International Development in 1997 marked a move towards participatory and sustainable approaches. Yet, colonial legacies remain, and this is stopping low- and middle-income countries from owning and leading on the action needed to address systemic developmental issues.

Events such as the murder of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the Covid-19 pandemic sparked critical reflection on these inequalities and highlighted the importance of locally led development, premised on community ownership at various levels. But progress has been slow, and it has been impeded by entrenched colonial hierarchies of knowledge, power and being.

Expertise from high-income continues to be prioritised, funding flows are dominated by intermediaries in Europe and North America, and systemic barriers hinder local actors from taking the lead.

The concept of ‘localisation’ in development began in the 1950s and focuses on participatory approaches, community-driven initiatives and decentralisation. Despite global commitments, localisation efforts often perpetuate colonial hierarchies and are being spearheaded from high-income countries. Genuine localisation requires decolonising aid systems, challenging ‘western’ dominance, and fostering equitable partnerships.

Coloniality of knowledge

The UK development sector’s reliance on European and North American expertise reinforces colonial power dynamics, marginalising actors from low- and middle-income countries. Practitioners from donor countries are prioritised in programme leadership roles, with credentials from western institutions valued over local knowledge. This creates a knowledge hierarchy, which sidelines local voices and perpetuates colonial patterns of expertise.

Orientalist practices, described by Edward Said as far back as 1978, further portray local actors as incapable, framing them as passive beneficiaries rather than equal or lead contributors.

Meanwhile, ‘best practice’ narratives and Eurocentric standards pressure local organisations to conform to western norms. This stifles the approaches that are rooted in Indigenous knowledge and shaped by local contexts.

As the International Development Committee’s (IDC) Racism in the Aid Sector report found, ‘international’ staff, who are predominantly white, earn significantly more than experienced local professionals. This violates principles of equal pay and deepens racial hierarchies.

This systemic imbalance, rooted in colonial legacies, undermines efforts to decolonise ODA. Critics highlight the need for equitable pay scales, fair leadership opportunities and recognition of local knowledge to foster genuine, locally led development. Without dismantling these structural barriers, the sector risks perpetuating colonial oppression disguised as progress.

Coloniality of power

The Grand Bargain, established in 2016, pledged to direct 25% of global humanitarian funding to local actors by 2020. However, progress has been slow, with large INGOs based in Europe or North America acting as intermediaries and receiving most of the funding.

A 2023 OECD report found only 3% of humanitarian funding reached local actors. This reliance on western intermediaries continues to perpetuate power imbalances and colonial dynamics in global development.

High-income countries particularly through large multilateral organisations, control funding, which undermines local capacity and reinforces dependency. Local organisations often struggle with bureaucratic and linguistic barriers imposed by donor agencies, such as complex compliance requirements and the predominance of the English language in proposals. These obstacles limit local actors’ access to resources, further entrenching Eurocentric power structures.

The neocolonial nature of ODA is evident in the focus on serving donor countries’ interests, with ‘tied aid’ often benefiting North American or European corporations rather than addressing the needs of the communities being supported. Kwame Nkrumah’s characterisation of aid as ‘merely a revolving credit, paid by the neocolonial master, passing through the neocolonial state and returning to the neocolonial master in the form of increased profits’ is particularly resonant.
To challenge these inequities, localisation must be viewed as a decolonial process that addresses systemic power imbalances within humanitarian action and aid.

Coloniality of being

The IDC’s Racism in Aid Sector report highlights that decision making in development programmes is predominantly controlled by European or US-based organisations, with leadership roles mainly occupied by white, middle- to upper-class men. Despite commitments to localisation, the influence of these countries remains strong, with large INGOs continuing to manage funds and decisions. These INGOs’ governance structures often exclude local input, reinforcing colonial patterns of control and power.

Under representation of people of colour in development leadership roles

Data from the AVECO Pay and Equalities Survey in 2018 reveals significant racial disparities in the UK development sector, with people of colour vastly underrepresented in leadership roles. This underrepresentation shows how colonial legacies still undermine the ways of being for non-Europeans. The dominance of white leadership perpetuates paternalistic approaches, limiting genuine locally led development.

There are also problematic assumptions about the ‘capacity’ of local actors, who are often portrayed as inferior to their international counterparts. These assumptions, rooted in colonial power dynamics, hinder the development of locally led initiatives and reinforce the marginalisation of low- and middle-income countries. The sector’s top-down accountability structures further reflect and sustain these colonial power imbalances.

Breaking the international/local binary

To achieve genuine localisation, it is crucial to move beyond the binary distinction between ‘international’ and ‘local,’ which positions western expertise as superior.

Initiatives like NEAR, led by civil society organisations from countries that receive ODA, are pushing for a reconfiguration of aid. :But progress is slow due to the pervasiveness of coloniality in the development sector.

The solution lies in decentralising power – moving away from INGOs which often act as intermediaries – and funnelling funding and decision making through local actors. This approach would recognise the capacity and autonomy of local communities, breaking down the assumptions of ‘incapacity’ which  have long been imposed on them.

True locally led development requires a shift in governance structures and attitudes and for diverse knowledge systems to be embraced. By restructuring the power dynamics that currently uphold Eurocentric paradigms, we can pave the way for a more equitable, decolonised approach to global development.