With development cooperation in crisis, some see an opportunity for its ‘radical simplification’. We’re talking simpler projects, a highly selective portfolio of cost-effective interventions, and a whittled focus on only the most vulnerable countries.
‘Radical simplification’ appears a long-awaited chance to re-assess what most consider a broken system— to double down on what makes development assistance most effective.
Yet, ‘radical simplification’ has its critics. Simplification might be enticing, but is it really suited to the complex and non-linear reality of development— of challenges caught in wicked systems, of slow progress and a global spread of unique and pressing development needs.
We asked the experts: “Development cooperation needs to be reinvented. Is radical simplification the answer?”
2025 is perhaps the year of greatest challenge for development cooperation in its 75-year history. But are we up to that challenge or shirking from it? The Australian development community has, thus far, been spared the urgency for change that those in the US, UK and Europe cannot hide from given shrinking aid budgets. As a result, it feels like we’re kicking the need for reinvention down the road and missing an overdue opportunity.
Radical simplification is one of multiple reinventions being proposed. It will appeal to political leaders for the certainty of its tangible outcomes and impact. But it risks casting aside all the things we’ve learned support processes of development: gender equity, disability and social inclusion, governance and political economy, and more nuanced approaches to evaluating impact. It is likely that radical simplification has a role to play in some of what future development cooperation looks like – but not all of it.
The future of development cooperation needs to take many different forms—some radically simplifying, others centred on global solidarity and advocacy; some targeted coalitions working on issue-focused change; some ‘ecosystem catalysts’. In all of this, it’s fundamental that ‘development cooperation’ not simply offset the ills of poor trade, diplomacy and defence, but offer a radical shift towards a more just and equitable world. That means working differently: letting go of models that perpetuate an outdated North-South divide towards circular cooperation focused on mutual learning about global challenges. That would genuinely reinvent, not just rebrand.
Lisa is a Principal Research Fellow and Director of the Centre for Human Security and Social Change at La Trobe University. She has over 20 years’ experience working across several domains of development from program design and implementation, to research and technical assistance. Her expertise shines, in particular, at the intersection of security and development. At The Lab, we love that Lisa brings equal measures of generosity and openness to everything she does, while still achieving such clear, cut-through analysis.
The reinvention of development cooperation alone is not the answer to the changing world. Nor is it the best response to the frustratingly slow progress of poverty reduction and persistent global inequalities. The simplification of aid management, or better yet, a more honest, rigorous and accountable system of development may well be.
Development aid has, for the most part, been on the rise since 1960. Still, poverty and inequalities persist in abundance. The critical issue is not merely the amount allocated to development aid, but how it is managed.
Increasingly, ODA funds must link a project or program to ‘climate change’ or ‘climate adaptation’, or ‘disability equity’, ‘gender equality’ or ‘locally led’ development. These issues are worthy of attention. Yet, these buzzwords distract from an unspoken reality: donors and their programs all too often reinforce the issues they are trying to address.
Development practitioners and decision makers often represent countries that are among the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. And while donors preach equality and inclusion, there are serious disparities between the experiences of local and expatriate development workers. While expatriates get access to the most luxurious houses in the country and have their children educated at the best schools in the country, their local colleagues struggle with incomes too low to cover meals for extended family, housing and children’s education. Perhaps this explains why poverty and inequality persist.
The simplification of aid management is necessary, but it should be simplified within the parameters of cost-effectiveness. There are two key areas to focus on: (1) Re-assess the portion of aid spent on compliance measures, and ensure these measures are designed and applied fairly to all actors in the system; and (2) Close the gap of inequality in the management of aid, where local organisations that reach beneficiaries directly receive very little funding compared to international organisations.
Carmeneza is a dedicated public policy and development practitioner with over 20 years of experience, including previous work with The Asia Foundation, the Office of the Prime Minister (Timor-Leste), DFAT, and AusAID. Carmeneza has a special focus on bridging the gaps between government, civil society, the donor community and service recipients. At the Lab, we love Carmeneza’s dedication to amplifying marginalised voices and her work using public policy to shape a just and equal society.
Radical simplification should mean replacing opaque aid systems with ones that are fast, proven, and easy to understand -- especially for the people they’re meant to serve.
At GiveDirectly, we’ve seen the power of simplification through unconditional cash transfers. When you strip out layers of conditions, intermediaries, and assumptions about what people need, something remarkable happens: the money moves faster, farther, and more flexibly. Families solve their own problems, communities build their own futures, and donors can see where every dollar goes. In our recent Malawi program, we delivered lump sum cash to every adult in a sub-district. Extreme poverty fell sharply, the local economy grew, and inflation didn’t rise. About 80 percent of the budget went straight to recipients. That’s not just impact; it’s clarity.
Simplification doesn’t mean thinking small. In fact, it’s the only way to go big. When the model is simple and scrutable, it can be scaled. It can be funded. It can be explained in a sentence on a debate stage. That’s what we need if we want public support for aid to grow.
Radical simplification doesn't have to mean retreat. It can be the starting point for something more ambitious: aid that is transparent, trusted, and transformative. That’s a moonshot worth aiming for.
Nick is the CEO and President of GiveDirectly, which uses technology to send cash directly to people living in poverty. He pairs this with rigorous academic research to study its impact. Nick is a true and tested advisor for scaling the technology and teams necessary to create ambitious solutions to global issues. At the Lab, we love the passion and razor-sharp intellect Nick brings to everything he does.
