The State of Global Development: Key Takeaways from UNGA 2026

Development experts and practitioners would say that this year’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) surfaced a mix of existentialism and necessary optimism. Thousands traveling from across the world entered rooms carrying the weight of shrinking Official Development Assistance (ODA) budgets, a tension between dealing with current acute threats and long-term anticipatory planning, the need for better financing mechanisms and trust in the multilateral system, and what AI means for development. All of these themes triggered discussions on what is present and what is missing in the sector’s current language, tools, resources, and solutions.

Three high-level threads emerged repeatedly across the week’s events: (1) disagreement over what the future of development should look like, (2) the rising importance of Global South countries’ voice and agency, and (3) the detrimental effect of siloes.

1. Who and what needs to adapt to allow new development approaches and models to become the norm? This question, central to numerous dialogues, garnered energy and angst on the need to reimagine development cooperation in today’s ecosystem—for a variety of different actors, but especially donors. Part of that equation is a genuine shift in viewing beneficiaries (i.e., partner countries) as agents and drivers of their own development agenda, allowing for a more sustainable partnership-based model. In addition, there is a need for diversified sources of capital through a variety of sources—international and domestic, public and private—while not losing sight of the issue of debt relief. Philanthropy is key in this equation, and although it cannot fill the gap alone, it can support practical, innovative solutions. Overall, it is critical to ensure investment is being made in true systems solutions, whether in health, AI, or infrastructure.
   
   Two different layers of conversations were occurring simultaneously at UNGA: the conceptual and the tangible. On the tangible side, specific examples of successful approaches and models were elevated, including the Africa Diaspora Network (focused on the importance of leveraging remittances on the African continent), the Pawanka Fund (indigenous-led finance mechanisms in Nicaragua), ShikshaLokam (education equity in India through locally-led solutions), and Kuja (an African social enterprise led by Adeso). These examples showcase that innovative and practical solutions exist in the Global South but are not always elevated, supported, or funded.
   
   On the other hand, more conceptual conversations discussed whether “development” is even the right word to use, the sector’s purpose, and the need for an overall system shift. Concerns revolved around the structure of the development sector as a whole that is still upholding a power dynamic between Global North and Global South countries, the lack of political will to truly shift that system, and the need to acknowledge the trust that has been broken between donors and countries around the world.
   
   While both layers of discussions are necessary, they can also be in tension and create hurdles to move forward collectively. The right scope, purpose, and framing of these conversations must be identified in order to move toward action. Many participants, regardless of the type of conversation, agreed that there is an abundance of initiatives focused on the future of development flourishing at different levels, and there seems to be consensus that more is not necessarily needed. What is necessary is leveraging new tools (such as the comprehensive Funders’ Roundtable Initiative Mapping), to (1) ensure new initiatives are not created unless they are truly additive or complimentary and (2) to examine the commonalities, tensions, and gaps between these initiatives.
2. Locally led development and leadership are no longer an aside. As one member of a Caribbean country delegation put it: “Smaller countries are the ones driving the moral and ethical agendas globally.” This statement, along with others throughout the week, signaled a tone shift from small countries and middle powers: that they are and should be in the driver’s seat. This year’s convening focused less on why local leadership matters and instead showcased that many foreign governments and delegations increasingly do not want to be lectured about the state of affairs and what priorities should look like from Western entities. That desire isn’t new, and foreign governments have repeatedly asserted the desire to take charge of their own destiny, but this year’s posture felt more assertive.
   
   In the development sector, this is referred to as locally-led development. The premise is that long-lasting, sustainable development challenges require local solutions and leadership. But the discourse can often be disconnected from the financing needs. In recent years, only 11 percent of cross-border philanthropic funding went directly to local organizations. The gap goes beyond the financial—it reflects how funders must view, approach, and partner with local actors. A coalition of funders through the Funders Roundtable on the Future of Development has committed to backing Global South–led efforts. But an honest conversation on true systems change in the development sector is still needed to ensure trust between Western philanthropy and Global South institutions.
3. Siloes still dominate the development space. Topics including health sovereignty, climate finance, humanitarian aid, multilateral reform, and above all, AI were covered in breadth across the week. But these conversations continue to be siloed when they need to be tackled simultaneously. In a world of interconnected crises, disconnected conversations lead to missed cross-sectoral solutions. This is not a new challenge, but it felt more acute this year, when these agendas depend more than ever on one another. True collaboration is a discipline that must surface more seriously across the sector. The world and the development sector especially are in dire need of conversations, solutions, and actions that are truly intersectional.
    

While none of these observations should be surprising, these challenges are compounded in today’s multipolar ecosystem, and more important than ever in an increasingly vulnerable world as a result of conflict, climate change, and economic inequities. Next year’s UNGA should produce fewer new initiatives, more explicit cross-sector coordination, and more urgent action from philanthropy and donors broadly. Until then, institutions representing the full spectrum of sectors should identify ways to build on and enhance existing work. The development sector must start with what it has already accomplished collectively before moving into new commitments and initiatives.

Hadeil Ali is chief of staff of the Global Development Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.