The current funding crisis is exposing a deeper flaw in development: progress for girls and women still depends too heavily on external actors, not on governments accountable to their people.
There have been real gains in gender equality over the past generation. More girls are in school than ever before, and more countries have laws protecting women’s rights. The idea that girls and women should have control over their own bodies and futures is now widely accepted as fundamental to equality, even if that promise remains far from reality in many places. But those gains remain fragile because too much progress still depends on external actors rather than accountable public institutions. When aid is cut or priorities shift, rights and services can disappear overnight.
That fragility is already visible. In Afghanistan, more than 2.2 million girls have been banned from secondary school and university, erasing decades of progress in education. In Sudan, war has displaced over 11 million people and disrupted an already strained health system, particularly sexual and reproductive health services. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, escalating violence has left 7 million people displaced, while reports of sexual violence against girls and women continue to rise. In each case, gains built over decades have unraveled in a matter of months.
Part of the reason progress remains fragile lies in how the international development system itself was built. Much of it took shape in the decades after formal colonial rule ended. Many of the same countries that had once been colonial powers became the largest donors, shaping the priorities and rules of development assistance.
At that time, there was a widespread belief among donors and international institutions that newly independent governments lacked the resources and capacity to manage their own development. Underneath this sat an even deeper colonial assumption: that these governments would not want to make development available to all their people, even if they could.
International actors stepped in to set priorities, provide technical support, and in many cases directly deliver services such as health care, education, and social protection.
What may once have been intended as temporary has, in many places, simply become the system.
In many countries today, governments still rely heavily on external funding and outside expertise that sets priorities and agendas, while parallel programmes operate alongside public systems. Services that should be provided by governments are often delivered through projects funded and managed by external actors, weakening governments’ role as providers for their own people.
Over time, power and funding have stayed largely in the hands of the Global Minority - a relatively small group of wealthy governments and institutions that hold disproportionate influence - rather than shifting to local and national actors. This concentration of power shapes priorities, weakens public systems, and often makes institutions more accountable to funders than to the people they are meant to serve. It also makes the system deeply fragile, as we have seen when major aid programmes disappear or shift priorities overnight.
In practice, this often means external actors delivering services directly. When external actors deliver services directly, governments can become less accountable to their citizens and increasingly dependent on outside support. Those actors are not accountable to the people they are serving, and they can change priorities, withdraw funding, or end programmes with little recourse for those who have come to rely on them.
Many people now say the international development system is in crisis. But the harder question is "Why?" The answer cannot simply be the rise of a few anti-rights actors. They could not have undone so much progress so quickly if the system itself did not contain a fatal flaw. The people whose lives are most affected by decisions in the development system - overwhelmingly in the Global Majority - have almost no way to hold those making those decisions accountable. Funding priorities are set largely by governments and institutions in what some have begun calling the Global Minority. Yet the voters who elect those governments do not experience the consequences when aid budgets are cut, programmes are dismantled, or commitments disappear. Millions of lives can be affected overnight, but the political cost for those making the decisions is negligible. The people who bear the consequences cannot influence those decisions, while those who can influence them rarely feel the impact. That is not simply a policy problem. It is an accountability failure, and a failure that is part of the design of the system.
The challenge before us is not simply to improve this system. It is to rebuild it so that states deliver for their people, and international actors reinforce public accountability rather than substitute for it.
If we are serious about shifting power to girls, women, and gender-diverse people, especially those from the Global Majority, we must also look honestly at our own role. International NGOs, philanthropists, and donors all operate within a system shaped by colonial legacies and funding incentives. In the years after formal colonial rule ended, much of the sector operated on the assumption that governments in the Global Majority were incapable of providing basic services to their own people. Those assumptions were rooted in colonial and racist thinking about their capacity. The fact that they still shape parts of our sector today is unconscionable. Rebalancing responsibility will require real institutional change: shifts in how funding flows, how partnerships are structured, and how success is defined.
For many international organizations, this will mean accepting a smaller operational role. I know that is not a comfortable idea for a sector built on delivering programmes. But the measure of success is not how many programmes we run. It is whether governments deliver for their own people.
That raises a practical question: what would a transition actually look like over the next decade - the one in which international actors step back from direct implementation and instead invest in strengthening public systems and enabling civil society to hold governments accountable? That transition has to start from the reality that many marginalized people still do not get the services they need from the state, or cannot access them. Stepping back cannot mean walking away. It would require a deliberate transition in which essential care continues, while governments build the capacity, and are pushed to provide the full spectrum of services to everyone and uphold their rights and dignity. It would mean INGOs stepping back from direct implementation as the default and taking on a more limited role centered on strengthening public systems and accountability, while philanthropy invests in durable public capacity rather than short-term initiatives.
For many of us in the international development sector, success may simply mean learning to get out of the way.
As the sector debates what a post-aid future should look like, that is the question it can no longer avoid.
Real progress for girls and women will come only when governments deliver for their people.
International actors stepped in to set priorities, provide technical support, and in many cases directly deliver services such as health care, education, and social protection.
What may once have been intended as temporary has, in many places, simply become the system.
In many countries today, governments still rely heavily on external funding and outside expertise that sets priorities and agendas, while parallel programmes operate alongside public systems. Services that should be provided by governments are often delivered through projects funded and managed by external actors, weakening governments’ role as providers for their own people.
Over time, power and funding have stayed largely in the hands of the Global Minority - a relatively small group of wealthy governments and institutions that hold disproportionate influence - rather than shifting to local and national actors. This concentration of power shapes priorities, weakens public systems, and often makes institutions more accountable to funders than to the people they are meant to serve. It also makes the system deeply fragile, as we have seen when major aid programmes disappear or shift priorities overnight.
In practice, this often means external actors delivering services directly. When external actors deliver services directly, governments can become less accountable to their citizens and increasingly dependent on outside support. Those actors are not accountable to the people they are serving, and they can change priorities, withdraw funding, or end programmes with little recourse for those who have come to rely on them.
Many people now say the international development system is in crisis. But the harder question is "Why?" The answer cannot simply be the rise of a few anti-rights actors. They could not have undone so much progress so quickly if the system itself did not contain a fatal flaw. The people whose lives are most affected by decisions in the development system - overwhelmingly in the Global Majority - have almost no way to hold those making those decisions accountable. Funding priorities are set largely by governments and institutions in what some have begun calling the Global Minority. Yet the voters who elect those governments do not experience the consequences when aid budgets are cut, programmes are dismantled, or commitments disappear. Millions of lives can be affected overnight, but the political cost for those making the decisions is negligible. The people who bear the consequences cannot influence those decisions, while those who can influence them rarely feel the impact. That is not simply a policy problem. It is an accountability failure, and a failure that is part of the design of the system.
The challenge before us is not simply to improve this system. It is to rebuild it so that states deliver for their people, and international actors reinforce public accountability rather than substitute for it.
If we are serious about shifting power to girls, women, and gender-diverse people, especially those from the Global Majority, we must also look honestly at our own role. International NGOs, philanthropists, and donors all operate within a system shaped by colonial legacies and funding incentives. In the years after formal colonial rule ended, much of the sector operated on the assumption that governments in the Global Majority were incapable of providing basic services to their own people. Those assumptions were rooted in colonial and racist thinking about their capacity. The fact that they still shape parts of our sector today is unconscionable. Rebalancing responsibility will require real institutional change: shifts in how funding flows, how partnerships are structured, and how success is defined.
For many international organizations, this will mean accepting a smaller operational role. I know that is not a comfortable idea for a sector built on delivering programmes. But the measure of success is not how many programmes we run. It is whether governments deliver for their own people.
That raises a practical question: what would a transition actually look like over the next decade - the one in which international actors step back from direct implementation and instead invest in strengthening public systems and enabling civil society to hold governments accountable? That transition has to start from the reality that many marginalized people still do not get the services they need from the state, or cannot access them. Stepping back cannot mean walking away. It would require a deliberate transition in which essential care continues, while governments build the capacity, and are pushed to provide the full spectrum of services to everyone and uphold their rights and dignity. It would mean INGOs stepping back from direct implementation as the default and taking on a more limited role centered on strengthening public systems and accountability, while philanthropy invests in durable public capacity rather than short-term initiatives.
For many of us in the international development sector, success may simply mean learning to get out of the way.
As the sector debates what a post-aid future should look like, that is the question it can no longer avoid.
Real progress for girls and women will come only when governments deliver for their people.
- Note: Throughout this article, references to girls and women also acknowledge gender-diverse people who experience many of the same inequalities.
Dr Maliha Khan
President & CEO, Women Deliver
published in:
