People come to development cooperation from very different places. Those differences shape not just what they think aid is for, but how they think it should be resourced and delivered. The hawk sees development as strategic leverage. The diplomat sees it as a means of building influence. The effective altruist sees it as a moral obligation to all people, equally, and would like to see it informed by evidence.
The debate between them – at the bar, in opinion pages, and elsewhere – matters more right now than usual. As great power competition intensifies and defence budgets rise, donor capitals from Washington to London to Seoul have made cuts to development. The Australian government's 2026-27 budget has maintained aid in nominal terms, though experts highlight it still represents a decline in real terms and a low base in global comparison.
There may be further political debates on development lying ahead: compounding global crises affect Australia and the region, while, domestically, One Nation is rising in the polls, promising to cut Australia's aid budget by up to 60%.
In a world turning away from aid, it is all the more important to make the case carefully and from multiple perspectives. We asked three experts to share the arguments of a hawk, a diplomat, and an effective altruist.
An altruist, a diplomat and hawk walk into a bar. As the altruist sips herbal tea and the diplomat considers the Châteauneuf-du-Pape, the hawk orders a martini…shaken not stirred.
I admire what you both do, he starts, but we now live in a world of zero-sum strategic competition. Our adversaries are determined to exploit poorly governed states to advance their sphere of influence, weakening our national security and the structural conditions necessary for sustainable development. We could wake up one day to find that countries in Southeast Asia or the Pacific where we work based on altruism or diplomatic influence have suddenly become bases for the Peoples Liberation Army, or found themselves locked into dependency relationships that foreclose genuine development choices. We must therefore prioritise development strategies that reinforce resilience, governance, and legitimacy in vulnerable frontline states at risk from coercion, co-option, and conflict.
But the hawk also reassures his colleagues that this strategic framing need not dilute their commitment to sustainable, inclusive and accountable development policies. Delivering high quality infrastructure can offer alternatives to potential debt traps; empowering women, minority communities and civil society can reinforce accountability and prevent elite capture; programming around climate resilience or migration can enhance legitimacy for governments and prevent civil conflict that would invite foreign intervention. Finally, articulating the strategic case for aid can restore support for budgets at a time when the UK, the United States, Korea and other DAC countries are cutting development assistance to increase their investments in national defence. Development assistance has always been national security whether we acknowledged it or not. It may be time to embrace that reality. Chin chin….
Michael Green is CEO of the United States Studies Centre and a Professor at the University of Sydney, and concurrently holds the Kissinger Chair in Strategy at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. A former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asia on the National Security Council, he has also held positions at the Pentagon, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Georgetown University. At the Lab, we value Michael's rare vantage point — equally at home in the policy rooms of Washington and the strategic debates of the Indo-Pacific
A hawk, diplomat and altruist meet in a bar because they have much in common. They believe that a prosperous, stable and healthy world is preferable to the alternative. They recognise that achieving it is becoming harder amid rising conflict, intensifying competition and declining international cooperation.
Sure, their incentives may differ. The altruist begins with duties to people worldwide and asks where scarce resources can do the most good. The hawk prioritises the security of Australians and our interests. Development matters because instability, economic fragility and disease present risks to Australia. The diplomat believes that, for a middle power like Australia, progress requires cooperation between states pursuing shared and competing interests. Quality development cooperation builds trust, understanding and influence, creating opportunities to work together on mutual concerns.
Yet all three are making a case for how scarce public resources should be spent. The altruist may speak of moral obligations, the hawk of security and the diplomat of influence, but all know that development cooperation is most durable when it advances more than one of these objectives at once.
Competing for increasingly stretched budgets sees the hawk, diplomat and altruist emphasise the advantages of their respective approaches. But chances are that they appreciate each other's value. They have quite likely served in at least one of the others' shoes at some point in their careers.
Their real debate may not be with each other. It may be with a growing chorus questioning the value of international engagement altogether. Let’s hope our three protagonists take the debate to pubs far outside Canberra.
Philippa Venning has spent more than 25 years doing the hard work of international development across the Asia-Pacific. A former DFAT diplomat who served as Deputy Head of Mission in Timor-Leste, she has designed and led governance, service delivery, and gender programs across Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands, and Indonesia for both DFAT and the World Bank. She now leads program quality and strategy at Abt Global. At the Lab, we value Pip's rare ability to move between the strategic and the operational without losing sight of either.
Effective altruism is about trying to figure out how to do the most good. One of its defining principles is impartiality - that's where the clearest divergence from the hawk and diplomat lies. Both centre the interests of the funder in development, while effective altruism centres the beneficiary. As governments cut and reorient aid budgets in response to geopolitical pressure, this doesn't change the fundamental answer: a dollar of aid should be allocated to wherever it does the most good - not wherever it best serves our strategic interests.
In practice, that means following the evidence. Decades of rigorous development economics and randomised controlled trials have transformed what we know about what works. When $6000 can prevent a child's death from malaria, the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we think that child’s life is worth as much as any other. The effective altruist says yes, as all lives are equal, regardless of where they are lived.
If we applied our domestic aspiration - that public money should demonstrably improve outcomes - to our spending on people in lower income countries, the logic of evidence-based, impartial aid spending becomes hard to argue with. The effective altruist can find common ground with the hawk and the diplomat in that all three want aid to be effective and produce outcomes, the question is towards what end.
Strategic investment in diplomacy or hard power could theoretically pass the effective altruist test - but only if deployed in true service of humanity, not donor interests.
While the hawk and diplomat spend the night debating what development is for, the effective altruist starts from a different place: it's for all people, equally.
Grace Adams is CEO of Effective Altruism Australia, where she works to help Australians give more effectively and build careers oriented around impact. She brings a background in communications and nonprofit leadership from her time at Giving What We Can, and has taken the 10% Pledge to donate at least 10% of her lifetime income to effective charities. At the Lab, we admire Grace's commitment to putting her own skin in the game.
