From Charity to Industry A New Era

I. A Crisis Unlike Any Other
Every decade, the global aid industry confronts a storm. Bureaucratic reorganizations, budgetary recalibrations, and heated debates about purpose and efficacy have all, at different times, threatened to upend its architecture. Yet the machine has always managed to right itself—refashioned, perhaps, but intact. Not this time.

Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, the world’s largest and most powerful development agency—the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—has been all but dismantled. In an unprecedented executive order, the Trump administration terminated nearly 86 percent of USAID programs, shuttered its Washington, D.C. headquarters, and slashed funding for key global initiatives spanning health, climate, and education. With nearly 10,000 staff laid off, USAID—the institutional embodiment of American foreign aid—ceased to function as the world knew it.

This is no ordinary political recalibration. It is not a temporary budget cut or a bureaucratic reshuffling. It is, for all intents and purposes, the end of the foreign aid model that dominated the post–World War II global order. With USAID’s collapse, a domino effect has taken hold. Multilateral institutions are in disarray. Nonprofits and implementing partners are closing shop. Entire academic disciplines linked to development—global health, climate action, democracy promotion—are on the brink of extinction.

But while the dismantling of the aid industry may seem catastrophic, it also presents a generational opportunity. One to replace charity with strategy. One to shift from grants and goodwill to economic transformation. For too long, the development agenda has relied on transfers of wealth rather than the creation of it. Now is the moment to reimagine global development—not as a moral endeavor rooted in pity but as a strategic pursuit grounded in industrialization.

II. Foreign Aid as Industry
To truly understand the implications of this collapse, we must first understand what the foreign aid industry became: a business. The term "industry" is not hyperbolic. Official development assistance (ODA)—government-to-government or government-to-organization financial support—amounted to $230 billion in 2023. Though private foundations like the Gates Foundation play a role, they are dwarfed by state actors.

In practice, aid is rarely a direct cash transfer to governments or communities. Instead, a web of intermediaries—implementing partners—stand between donor and recipient. These include international NGOs, for-profit development contractors, and think tanks. Firms such as Chemonics, FHI 360, and DAI Global act as contractors, managing billion-dollar projects funded by donor governments. In 2023, Chemonics alone received over $1 billion from USAID.

Most of these organizations are based in donor countries. A 2020 analysis found that less than 9 percent of U.S. aid reached local organizations in recipient nations. This “boomerang aid” model, where funds are technically spent abroad but actually circulate back into donor economies via consultancy fees, procurement contracts, and expatriate salaries, has rightly drawn criticism.

Attempts to reform the system—such as the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness or USAID’s goal to increase local funding to 25 percent—did little to change the core dynamics. Aid continued to be designed and delivered from Washington, London, and Brussels, not Lagos, Dhaka, or La Paz.

Even its supporters began to view aid as inefficient and unaccountable. Its primary weakness wasn’t corruption or mismanagement, but a failure of imagination: a narrow focus on symptoms rather than systems, and an obsession with service delivery over structural change.

III. A Shift in the Global North
The proximate cause of the aid industry’s collapse is political. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, donor nations have grappled with low growth, populist uprisings, and public disillusionment. Voters in the United States, United Kingdom, and parts of Europe increasingly question why taxpayer dollars should fund clinics in Congo or schools in Nepal when domestic problems persist.

Foreign aid—long the province of bipartisan consensus—has become a political liability. Right-leaning parties see it as leftist overreach, funneling money to gender programs, climate resilience, or governance reform. Even left-of-center governments, once enthusiastic donors, now bend to the populist wind. In 2024, eight of the OECD’s top ten aid donors cut their budgets. Germany slashed $5.3 billion. The UK reduced foreign aid by 40 percent. The Netherlands pledged to downscale 37 percent over five years.

Видео From Charity to Industry A New Era канала international affairs US