The past few months have been quite exciting, as I have had the opportunity to engage in conversations with peers to advance the global development sector. A major privilege is always talking with proximate leaders working tirelessly to solve different issues in their communities. This time around, the topic of localisation showed up in the different spaces I was part of.

It’s not a surprise, as we are at a crucial moment: the USA, the largest donor of humanitarian aid, will hold her general election this week. 

But what is the connection between the United States elections and localisation? Let’s first dive a bit into the history of the concept of localisation, which has been building for decades. The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness was a milestone, as global leaders committed to improving the effectiveness of aid, in part by promoting local ownership of development processes.

During the 2010s, the concept of localisation gained speed. In 2011, the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, an agreement that formalised international support for locally-led development, recognised that development efforts should be "country-owned and country-led”, moving beyond traditional forms of development cooperation. In 2016, the World Humanitarian Summit introduced the "Grand Bargain," where international aid organisations pledged to direct 25% of funding to local and national development actors by 2020. 

Unfortunately, this target was not met. By 2020, only around 3-5% of global humanitarian funding was directly channelled to local and national organisations, far below the 25% target. 

The central role of the United States

The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, has inevitably played a key role in the localisation conversation. The agency has for the past 63 years been a key player in the development sector, in addressing poverty, economic growth, and social development across the world. From large-scale funding for economic and infrastructural development to addressing basic human needs and humanitarian assistance, the agency has brought forth strategies to address issues facing humanity in our time. 

In 2015 USAID introduced its first major localization strategy, called the local works program, focused on strengthening local organisations and shifting decision-making power to them. An interesting aspect of this program is that each USAID mission focuses on a specific theme, for instance, the Kenyan mission focuses on community conservancies, which is different from for example, the Angolan mission which focuses on local multi-stakeholder networks to address road safety and traffic injury/death prevention.

The program continues to provide funds and technical support to equip local actors to address their development challenges. But it has also received several critiques. Critics point to its bureaucratic nature, which has made it difficult for small locally-led organisations to access funding or navigate reporting and compliance processes. Another critique is around geographical limitations – these programs’ limited reach means they do not cover all regions where locally-led development is needed. 

In 2021, under President Joe Biden and USAID Administrator Samantha Powers, the agency rolled out its current localisation agenda, with a target to direct 25% of its funding to local organisations by 2025. The localisation agenda marked a restored and absolute commitment by USAID to support local leadership, with initiatives focusing on reducing intermediaries and empowering local organisations to directly lead projects.

The current localisation agenda has received many critiques. There is still a huge dependency on large intermediaries and INGOs, something expressed by several locally-led organisations I have interacted with and have previously tried to access funding.

There is also concern that Intermediaries and INGOs often maintain control over decision-making and program design. USAID still maintains heavy requirements for locally-led organisations to meet complex reporting, compliance and financial accountability standards. This leaves local organisations taking time off program delivery and focusing more on meeting these requirements.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the 2023 USAID Localisation Progress Report showed there has been slow progress in reaching the goal of directing 25% of its funding to local actors, with difficulties in ensuring direct funding rather than through intermediaries. In fact, the percentage of funding going directly to local partners in FY 2023 declined slightly from 2022, from 10.2 to 9.6. 

Election Season

Over the years, USAID has introduced various agendas and initiatives in response to different administrations' foreign policy priorities.

Each administration has shaped USAID's direction, often introducing new focuses or approaches. The Biden administration’s current push for localisation seems to be building on Trump’s administration’s Journey to Self Reliance, which aimed at encouraging greater independence among developing countries from foreign aid but was also criticized at the time as a way for the United States to back away from funding commitments over time. 

The future of the localisation agenda will greatly be determined by which party wins during the upcoming elections.

The Democrats, under Kamala Harris, have a great emphasis on multilateral cooperation, especially in addressing challenges such as climate change and cybersecurity. She believes that the global institutions and standards established by the U.S. after the war represent the nation’s most important success in foreign relations and has expressed concern over any calls to diminish America’s international responsibilities. There is a high likelihood that the localisation agenda will continue to receive attention if Kamala Harris becomes the next president of the United States.

On the other hand, the Republican party candidate Donald Trump, campaign promises heavily focus on national security, military funding, and mistrust towards international organizations suggesting a potential pivot away from the focus on local partnerships and capacity strengthening that depict the localisation agenda.

In conclusion, the future of the localisation agenda in U.S. foreign aid is closely tied to the outcome of the upcoming presidential election. If Kamala Harris and the Democrats retain power, the pledge to multilateral cooperation and local empowerment is likely to continue, strengthening efforts to ensure that development initiatives are led by local actors - more reforms need to be implemented to ensure that USAID walks the talk, by minimising requirements that hinder locally-led organisations from accessing funds, and recognising local expertise as vital to effective development. 

Contrarily, a return to the presidency for Donald Trump may shift focus away from localisation, emphasising national security and military funding over international partnerships. This strategy could impede progress made in reforming foreign aid, which aims at letting local organisations take centre stage in their development agenda, which might be overshadowed by a more isolationist approach.

Ultimately, the direction of U.S. foreign policy and its recent commitment to localisation will depend on which party emerges victorious, highlighting the integral nature of the upcoming elections for the future of global development efforts.