A refresh for foreign aid

Cuts in foreign aid by Europe and the U.S. are forcing recipient nations to question a dependency mentality and discover local solutions.

|
Reuters
A child diagnosed with HIV plays at an advocacy wall at the Nyumbani Children's Home in Nairobi, Kenya, Feb. 12, 2025.

Much of the international aid community is in a panic, forced to meet the world’s rising needs with much less. For one, President Donald Trump has essentially shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Meanwhile, Britain and France are cutting foreign aid by at least a third. In 2023, the European Union shifted €2 billion (over $2 billion) from development to defense and migration.

These cuts by wealthier countries, predict many aid experts, are having dramatic consequences for the world’s most vulnerable people. At the same time, others see the crisis as a moment for people in aid-recipient nations to reinvent how they can help each other.

“Despite [the USAID] order and its confusion, we are seeing excitement from ordinary citizens and frontline communities,” Elizaphan Ogechi, executive director of the Kenyan community foundation Nguzo Africa, wrote on his organization’s website.

Mr. Ogechi sees an opportunity to tap local philanthropy and other resources, relying on African values of collaboration and empathy. Governments that have depended on foreign assistance, he added, can step up and deliver quality services to their citizens.

Long before Mr. Trump took office, a reckoning over foreign aid was already underway. While international health programs have certainly been transformative, the value of other efforts has been less clear. To many, foreign aid empowers corrupt local elites, imposes unwelcome agendas, and maintains a cycle of dependence.

“This arrangement prevents an absolute catastrophe, but creates a permanent emergency; it keeps people alive, but props up the very regimes that exploit them,” wrote aid expert Joshua Craze in The New York Review of Books.

The changes in foreign aid are “something close to a mental liberation,” The Economist stated, citing past and present African leaders. Rwandan President Paul Kagame, for example, spoke of shaking off “the low expectations that have been attached to Africans.”

Yet a long-expected shift to more self-reliance by many countries has proved difficult. The 2001 Abuja Declaration committed 42 African nations to spending 15% of their budgets on health. Average health spending remains less than half that, The New York Times reported.

In recent years, the international aid community has tried to shift more responsibility for decision-making to local communities, with mixed results. Now that appears likely to happen by default. Some leaders seem ready. Nigeria will have to manufacture its own HIV drugs and test kits, its health minister told the Times. “It may not be as fancy, but at least it will serve.”

In Kenya, Mr. Ogechi is eager to support a necessary mental shift: “It is time to re-imagine the new international model that serves communities with dignity and respect.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A refresh for foreign aid
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2025/0317/A-refresh-for-foreign-aid
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe