In today's interconnected world, the landscape of international development is undergoing a profound transformation. For decades, the dominant approach has often been top-down, with decisions and resources flowing from global institutions to local communities. However, a powerful movement is gaining momentum, one that champions the vital role of localisation and locally led development. These concepts are not merely buzzwords; they represent a fundamental rethinking of how we achieve sustainable and equitable progress.
A New Direction for a Better World
E3, an ambitious initiative at Trinity College Dublin, is at the forefront of this new way of thinking. Standing for Engineering, Environment, and Emerging Technologies, E3 is a multidisciplinary hub that brings together the Schools of Engineering, Natural Science, and Computer Science and Stats. At its core, E3 is dedicated to creating a more sustainable and equitable future through groundbreaking research, education, and collaboration. It's about equipping a new generation of scientists and tech leaders with the knowledge to tackle the biggest global challenges we face today, from climate action to biodiversity and renewable energy.
Our "Balanced Solutions for a Better World" webinar series is a direct reflection of this mission. Each month, we explore multidisciplinary solutions that bridge science, policy, and practice, all with the goal of building a more sustainable future. This series is for everyone, whether you're a student, a researcher, a policymaker, or simply someone who cares deeply about the environment. It's a chance to gain new insights, engage with leading experts, and be inspired to take meaningful action.
The Urgent Need for Change
It is in this context that we are honoured to welcome Dr. Susan Murphy, an Associate Professor in Sustainable Development Practice and a fellow of Trinity College Dublin. Dr. Murphy's work focuses on the critical intersections of international development, governance, ethics, and policy, areas that are not only intellectually rich but also urgently relevant. Her expertise extends to leading the European Research Council-funded project "GeoFormations," which explores the geographies of governance in international development. She is also the current chair of the Development Studies Association of Ireland and has held key leadership roles with organisations like Oxfam.
This is an extraordinarily difficult moment for international development. We are living through what experts call a "polycrisis," where multiple, interconnected shocks, geopolitical shifts, extreme inequality, and climate breakdown are creating an overwhelming sense of crisis. We've seen the devastating use of starvation as a weapon of war and the undermining of aid efforts in some of the most horrific events of our time. And beyond the headlines, there is immense suffering in places like Sudan and the DRC. In this challenging landscape, the legitimacy of the development sector is being questioned, and funding from traditional donors is in decline. It's a time of immense pain and frustration for those who have dedicated their lives to this work.
A Critical Look at the System
Yet, this crisis has also spurred a period of deep self-reflection within the sector. Organisations are asking critical questions about the need to decolonise development and address their own internal inability to change. While many civil society organisations are working to address this, it's also crucial to understand the role of institutional donors. These donors hold a great deal of power, shaping what can and cannot be done through their funding requirements and constraints.
Dr. Murphy's research project, GeoFormations, aims to unpack this complex web of relationships. Using a critical realist approach, her team is exploring how interventions are framed, designed, and implemented, and, crucially, by whom and for whom. The overarching question is whether transnational civil society can model just governance in development practice. It is not an attack on the sector, but a constructive contribution to building a more effective and equitable future.
As we turn our attention to the presentation, Dr. Murphy will share early insights from her team's research. They have been mapping the regulatory and policy landscape of the development cooperation space, with a particular focus on the renewed interest in localisation and locally led development. These aren't new ideas, they've been discussed for decades, but Dr. Murphy will examine why they are gaining such traction now. Her research seeks to understand the barriers and enablers to this shift, looking beyond the internal operations of NGOs to the demands and directions set by institutional donors. This crucial work is about understanding how to move past mere rhetoric and truly operationalise a more just and locally driven approach to development.
Localisation, as a concept, is deeply contested and viewed from two distinct perspectives: a pragmatic, technocratic approach focused on efficiency, and a more normative, ideological one that champions the autonomy and capacities of local actors. While the language of locally led development dates back to the late 1980s, its renewed prominence is driven by three key factors:
• Labour: Local actors are always the first to respond in a crisis. Recognising and empowering them acknowledges their frontline role and their superior understanding of local needs and contexts.
• Leverage: From the perspective of international donors, development aid is a form of soft power and statecraft. Supporting locally led initiatives can build constituencies, alliances, and networks, fostering influence in a more subtle way.
• Legitimacy: Locally led development can also reinforce the legitimacy of traditional development models, particularly by addressing the social fallout of global economic expansion and ensuring that aid activities complement rather than undermine market forces.
Mapping the Institutional Landscape
The GeoFormations project examined the policies of 32 institutional donors to understand how they enable locally led cooperation. The findings reveal a complex and often contradictory landscape. Only a handful of donors provide a clear definition of localisation, and even then, their approaches vary significantly. For example, some, like Belgium, focus on supporting international partnerships, while others, like the EU, prohibit direct funding to local organisations, preferring to work with European-based strategic partners.
A closer look at the data shows these tensions in stark relief. For instance, while 18 of the 32 donors prioritise a demand-oriented, localized approach, only seven explicitly require programs to align with the priorities of the recipient countries themselves. Furthermore, the importance of inclusivity and indigenous knowledge is recognised by only a small fraction of donors, highlighting a persistent disconnect between rhetoric and action.
The research identified two primary approaches to localisation:
• Direct Localisation: A minority approach, exemplified by some USAID policies (prior to 2025), that seeks to build direct relationships between donors and local actors.
• Indirect Localisation: The more common model, seen in the EU and many member states, which focuses on building the capacity of local organisations through partnerships with larger international NGOs.
The Data: A Slow Pace of Change
Despite the policy discussions, the financial data reveals a significant gap between commitment and reality. The Global Humanitarian Assistance Report from 2023 shows that direct funding to local and national organisations has actually fallen from 4.5% to just 1.2%, far short of the 25% target set by the "Grand Bargain" agreement. A similar trend is visible in the development sector, with only a few donors, like Switzerland, allocating more than 4.5% of their total funding directly to local actors.
This slow pace of change highlights key weaknesses in the current approach:
• The diversity of donor requirements increases administrative and reporting costs for local organisations.
• A low-risk appetite among donors leads to a transfer of risk to local partners without a corresponding transfer of power.
• The concept of "the local" is often homogenised and de-politicised, failing to appreciate the unique agencies and capacities of diverse communities.
• The shift to more transactional approaches, encouraged by some of the largest donors, threatens to sideline the values of human rights and social justice.
A Moment for Transformation
The evidence suggests that the current policy focus on localisation reflects a continuity with historical trends rather than a moment of genuine, transformative change. The "local" remains a generalised concept, and the redistribution of resources is still minimal, largely protecting the interests of dominant actors.
However, in this "post-consensus" moment, there is a crucial opportunity. While some participants in the development community perceive localisation as "something that is done to us", a top-down exercise, it also holds the potential to be a process of "assemblage." If approached as a contingent and indeterminate process, localisation could dismantle and reassemble development cooperation in a way that truly puts power in the hands of those on the ground. The current challenges may be the catalyst needed to rethink governance and development practice, paving the way for a more just and equitable future.