-
- Development cooperation is acquiring a dangerous new mathematics
In 2025, official development assistance from European Union donor countries fell by nearly 10 percent in real terms, according to the OECD. A few months later, an AFD-IFOP survey found that three-quarters of people across G7 countries still supported assistance to developing countries. Yet almost half also agreed that international cooperation could be a waste of public money. More revealingly, 81 percent said that knowing how the money is used would strengthen their support, while 79 percent wanted to see concrete results on the ground.
These findings are not contradictory. They reveal a new form of conditional solidarity.
One dollar in ten gone. Four citizens in five asking for proof.
- A budget cut subtracts. Skepticism compounds.
Skepticism changes how every remaining dollar is perceived. It weakens the political constituency for cooperation and makes the next reduction easier to justify. Cuts then erode the scale, continuity, and capacity needed to deliver visible outcomes. Programs fragment, horizons shorten, and results become harder to achieve and explain.
Those delivery gaps appear to confirm the original doubt, accelerating the next round of cuts.
- Scarcity may initiate the cycle. Skepticism is what multiplies it.
We must continue to defend the volume of development finance — money remains indispensable. But addressing money without addressing confidence treats the symptom while leaving the multiplier untouched.
The stronger case for development cooperation will not be built through better slogans. It will be built through clearer outcomes and greater transparency: where resources went, what changed in people’s lives, what did not work, and what will be done differently.
This is the context in which we are undertaking the Mid-Term Review of the World Bank Group Scorecard — not a technical exercise, but as part of a confidence contract with governments, partners, and the citizens whose support makes cooperation possible.
That contract starts with focus. The answer is not more indicators — in an anxious environment, complexity can look like evasion. Too many measures obscure the few outcomes that matter most. Fewer, clearer indicators create a stronger line of sight from financing to changes in people’s lives. Fewer indicators do not mean less accountability. They mean sharper accountability.
It also requires measurement during delivery, not only at the end. Conditions shift, shocks hit, and obstacles emerge. Evidence must show where progress is accelerating, where it is falling short, and where resources or partnerships need to change while there is still time to act. Outcomes are not only proof of what changed. They are direction for what to change next.
And transparency must be candid. Confidence is not built by presenting only success. It grows when institutions speak plainly about the good and the bad, communicate before people have to ask, and make results easy to understand and compare. Citizens are not asking for perfection. They are asking for purpose, honest evidence, and visible course correction.
Across Africa, the test is concrete. In Malawi, the outcome of expanding electricity is not connections alone, but businesses that stay open, clinics that provide better services, and students who study at night. In Senegal, The Gambia, and Guinea, the outcome of agricultural support is higher farmer incomes and more jobs. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the outcome of rehabilitating roads is better access to markets, schools, health services, and economic opportunity.
Different sectors, same discipline: begin with the change in people’s lives, make progress visible, and adjust when delivery falls short. Outcomes should not sit at the end as a reporting requirement. They should become a reflex at the start of every important decision.
We cannot promise that every program will succeed. We can promise clarity about what it is trying to change, evidence about whether that change is happening, and correction when it is not. That is more credible than optimism without proof or reporting without consequence.
A crisis of resources cannot become a crisis of ambition. But ambition will survive scarcity only if it is accompanied by visible results and the honesty to learn from them. Outcomes and transparency do more than improve management. They protect the legitimacy on which future cooperation depends.
Money will remain indispensable. But outcomes must become the common currency of development cooperation: proof of what changed, direction for what we change next, and the foundation of the confidence required to keep acting together.