Who Should Shape the Future of Development, and How?

This analysis is Part III of a three-part series covering the need and urgency to center rightsholders in the future of U.S. foreign assistance. In a moment of tremendous flux, these commentaries offer analysis and recommendations for a new model rooted in local consultation and input from those most impacted by foreign assistance. Read Part I here and Part II here.

Introduction

The last few years have seen unprecedented disruption in the world of international development. At the top of the list is the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and cancellation of development grants, but these actions are part of a broader pattern. The majority of countries with foreign assistance budgets across the globe have reduced official development assistance (ODA). While these decisions have been particularly impactful and have spawned conversations about the future of development and foreign assistance, the reality is that many of these conversations have been ongoing for decades.

Discussions of decisionmaking, incentives, stakeholders, inefficiencies, and constituencies—ultimately, conversations about power—have long been front of mind for practitioners of international development and those most impacted by its efforts. While the upheaval since January 2025 has damaged trust and relationships and caused preventable death and conflict, there now exists a possibility to reimagine international development and make changes that were difficult, perhaps even impossible, just a few years ago.

That these conversations are not new does not diminish their necessity, their timeliness, or their difficulty. A true shift of power in decisionmaking and priority setting requires the buy-in and action of stakeholders, the creativity and pragmatism of individuals, and the political will and courage of leaders. This analysis focuses on three stakeholder groups who will play an outsized role in the future of development: civil society, philanthropy, and the private sector. All three groups were part of a series of roundtables held under the Chatham House rule at CSIS from September 2025 through March 2026. The authors propose a list of recommendations for each group below. Each recommendation is necessary to challenge and shift the power dynamic between donors and impacted community, ultimately ensuring greater sustainability, efficiency, and impact of development efforts.

Two throughlines have emerged connecting the recommendations for each group:

1. Do not forget the lessons and structures that already exist. Previous work on international development has provided many lessons about what works and what does not, and these should not be forgotten. Additionally, both through previous work and through independent state building and development, many robust structures already exist. Building structures that run in parallel to functional ones is inefficient, unsustainable, and ensures that structural power imbalances endure.
2. Without coordination, efforts are destined to be piecemeal and lack efficiency. A recurring message from the roundtables held at CSIS was the sheer number of ongoing high-level “future of development” and “future of foreign assistance” conversations. One participant, whose organization had conducted a mapping exercise of civil society–led initiatives, counted 39 such efforts. Another participant from the philanthropy sector put the number at 70. The level of expertise and thought on what the future will look like is undoubtedly a boon and could lead to impressive innovation and a true reimagining. However, if such efforts are not coordinated, they are destined to be repetitive, inefficient, and occasionally at cross-purposes.
    

Philanthropy

Foundations and other philanthropic organizations play a key role in the future of development that has greater needs and less ODA. However, even a fully aligned and coordinated philanthropy sector cannot fill the gap left by governments. According to estimates from the Organisation of Economic Co-Ordination and Development, global ODA dropped by $56 billion over two years (2023–2025). By contrast, the entirety of private philanthropic giving in the international development sphere is approximately $17 billion annually. This creates a difficult strategic calculus, where the need is immediate and great, but the necessity of being strategic and pointed is unending.

Theme 1: Role Clarity

• Be clear about philanthropy’s role as an enabler and catalyst, giving civil society the space to lead the design of the reimagined development landscape.
• Leverage the ability to be nimble, fast, and take risks that governments and multilateral institutions cannot to enable strategic funding and decisionmaking.
• Build accountability measures to ensure the goals outlined are not only theoretical or aspirational.
• Support learning efforts to break siloes, facilitate learnings, and act as a helpful knowledge production tool.

Theme 2: Funding Structure

• Evolve funding systems from project-based grants to unrestricted multiyear funding in order to alleviate the administrative burden on local organizations.
• Further expand participatory grantmaking, placing impacted communities at the center of the process and rebalancing the decisionmaking equation.
• Invest in more pooled funds for more strategic, impactful, and effective investments.
• Expand funding to support Global South networks and coalitions to invest in institutional capacity.

Theme 3: Localization

While this is not a new conversation in the philanthropic and broader development ecosystem, this moment has presented a renewed interest and opportunity to intentionally prioritize this issue.

• Address challenges around power dynamics, inclusion, and equity. Organizations’ own internal structures and operating models are key starting points to ensure these concepts are internalized.
• Act as an institutional bridge between Global North and Global South countries to form equitable partnerships
• Examine preconceived notions of “partners” to ensure civil society actors are viewed as experts, and not merely beneficiaries or implementers.
• Recognize the existing local initiatives and solutions at play and find ways to amplify and support these efforts.
• There is an immense trust gap in the current development landscape, and philanthropy should determine its role in rebuilding that trust with existing and future partners.
   

Civil Society

Perhaps no sector has borne the brunt of cuts and attacks more than civil society. According to the Global Aid Freeze Tracker, which has had four rounds of surveys since February 2025, more than 70 percent of civil society organizations responded that they had to lay off some staff, with nearly 40 percent responding that they had to lay off 31 percent or more. The surveys have also demonstrated decreasing confidence in survival, with an ever-greater number of organizations reporting they are at risk of closure. Despite this context, civil society seeks to continue its vital work providing healthcare and education and advocating for greater transparency and accountability, along with countless other functions across the globe.

Theme 1: Positioning

• Establish a foundational infrastructure that enables the key development prerequisites for a healthy, stable, and prosperous society. Philanthropy, private sector, and other actors must leverage and support civil society and overall local expertise to enable the most durable outcomes.
• Be realistic and honest about the current rapidly evolving political and financial environment to ensure proactive adaptation of approaches, strategies, and partnerships.
• Anchor efforts with three key steps: (1) define the root problem, (2) assess whether preexisting solutions are in place, and (3) identify what systemic barriers are preventing the solutions from working.
• Highlight successful partnerships through storytelling and quantitative data.
• Strengthen community engagement and accountability measures given the massive trust gap in the sector.

Theme 2: Resource Diversification

• Move beyond traditional aid and find innovating fundraising solutions to survive the current environment
• Frame the work as social profit that advances system-level solutions. In a moment where messaging is key, such a framing would help diversify resources and ensure a focus on long-term resilience
   

The Private Sector

 While companies have always contributed to development, intentional efforts to partner with local groups and nurture development outside of regular business operations have seldom been a significant focus area. The closure of USAID, reduced ODA, and diminished government capabilities in the international development sector from both the U.S. government and other traditional donors has led to substantial gaps between what the private sector needs continue its work and what is actually being done. Thankfully, multiple models exist for ramping up support for civil society through both the provision of resources and other means.

Theme 1: Understand the “What”

• Align goals in the development space with corporate goals. This can include geographic considerations as well as substantive ones.
• Develop an understanding of systems and trusted stakeholders that are working or have worked toward these goals.

Theme 2: Determine the “How”

• Work with embedded organizations to develop a model that allows for full independence, thus utilizing trust and relationships without causing them damage.
• Develop both internal and external messaging that reinforces and improves understanding of the value of the work with diverse partners and stakeholders.

Theme 3: Delineate Support Versus Public Relations

• Work with trusted interlocutors to necessarily limit control over funds as well as actions of organizations receiving support. Understand it is the role of civil society to push for improvements, and that can involve criticism of action and of companies providing funding.
• Understand the ecosystem well enough to be responsive to civil society and to be solution-oriented, while seeing the difference between broad, community-wide suggestions and less constructive or less widely held considerations.
   

Conclusion

The above recommendations are not meant to be comprehensive, nor are they meant to exist in a vacuum. While they are organized by stakeholder group, none stand alone, and each group has a role to play in ensuring that the other stakeholders are held accountable. Other groups, including multilateral organizations and governments, will undoubtedly also play significant roles in the future of development should also focus on improving efficiency, sustainability, and the benefit to impacted populations. Without all groups in alignment and ensuring that development is locally owned and informed, development’s impact will remain diminished.

Andrew Friedman is director and senior fellow in the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Hadeil Ali is chief of staff of the Global Development Department at CSIS.