No nation develops sustainably by outsourcing its responsibility. Dependency is not a strategy. Charity is not a structural solution. External assistance cannot replace internal political effort. But recognising this responsibility does not mean ignoring the environment in which it unfolds. National trajectories do not evolve in isolation. They operate within a global architecture shaped by trade, financial, monetary and geopolitical rules — an architecture still marked by:
- asymmetries of power in trade,
- disproportionately high costs of capital for developing economies,
- structural dependencies,
- vulnerabilities to global shocks,
- persistent inequalities in the definition of international rules.
The transformation of the Global South depends first on its own choices. Yet it unfolds within a system heavily influenced by the political, economic and budgetary decisions of the most powerful societies. Responsibility, therefore, is shared. Over recent months, I have written extensively about reforms required in the South. It now seems equally important — with humility and in a spirit of dialogue — to examine another front:
How do we preserve the political foundation necessary to sustain a cooperative global order? What is at stake is no longer simply “aid.” It is our collective capacity to finance global public goods — climate stability, global health, financial resilience, energy transitions, technological security — that make transformation possible.
In 2024, net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from OECD DAC countries reached approximately USD 209.8 billion — a 9.3% real-term decline compared to 2023. The OECD anticipates a further decrease of 9% to 17% in 2025, with particularly strong impact on Sub-Saharan Africa and other Least Developed Countries.
This is not collapse. But neither is it a minor fluctuation. At the same time, migration debates are hardening, defence and internal security are gaining budgetary priority, and multilateral institutions face mounting financial strain. These trends do not signal the end of cooperation. They do, however, raise legitimate questions about the willingness of states to maintain sustained investment in global public goods precisely when climate, technological and health challenges are intensifying.
The issue is not whether multilateralism remains relevant — it clearly does. The issue is whether the political foundations required to finance and defend it remain sufficiently robust.
It would be simplistic to assume that Western voters merely lack information. Many liberal democracies in high-income regions have undergone deep transformations: deindustrialisation, pressure on purchasing power, media polarisation, identity anxieties. In such contexts, international priorities can seem to compete directly with domestic expectations.
Not all global reforms bring quick benefits for everyone. Some involve real compromises and political costs. To deny that would weaken the argument. Yet the alternative — prolonged fragmentation, systemic crises, chronic instability — carries substantial economic and security costs as well. The question, therefore, is not who is morally right. It is what political equilibrium gives us the best chance of building a more stable and workable future.
Trade and financial asymmetries are not sustained solely by public ignorance. They are embedded in economic interests, financial structures, and technocratic arrangements that benefit from the status quo. However, these structures operate within political frameworks legitimised by electoral majorities and broader cultural consent. They persist because they are politically tolerated.
If democratic societies withdraw from sustained investment in global public goods and structured cooperation, political incentives shift. Economic interests recalibrate. Institutional norms adjust. This is not naïve pedagogy. It is recognition that even complex structural systems ultimately rest on political consent. Long-term stability requires that we sustain at least a minimal cultural foundation supportive of interdependence.
A reconfiguring world:
- G7 share of global GDP: ~50% in 1990 → ~30% today
- Expanded BRICS (PPP terms): now comparable to or larger than the G7
- Rise of alternative financial institutions
- Massive infrastructure and energy transition investments beyond Western frameworks
The centre of gravity is shifting. Multilateralism will not disappear because cooperation frameworks vanish. It may weaken in its capacity to function as a universal framework.
If the political foundation within liberal democracies erodes, we will not see cooperation end — but the emergence of a world organised in blocs, where coordination becomes primarily strategic rather than universal. Trade will continue. Alliances will persist. Capital will circulate. But flows may increasingly follow competitive power logics rather than shared rule-based coordination. The risk is not institutional emptiness. The risk is normative fragmentation — a world where we cooperate tactically but no longer share common standards.
The emergencies are immediate: climate disruption, pandemics, geopolitical instability. In the short term, coalitions and targeted budgetary decisions can prevent abrupt weakening of key institutions. Yet without sustained political consent, even the most relevant multilateral frameworks gradually erode. Rebuilding a cultural foundation supportive of interdependence is a ten- to twenty-year endeavour. It does not replace urgent action; it ensures that urgent action can endure. If political foundations determine the durability of multilateral commitments, then the question becomes practical: how do we build and renew them?
Rules and budgets endure when they are anchored in widely shared narratives of interest and responsibility. Those narratives are not produced by governments alone. They are shaped by an ecosystem of non-state actors: NGOs, think tanks, universities, research centres, media platforms, business associations, faith-based organisations and civic networks. These actors frame debates, produce knowledge, test ideas, influence public discourse and train future leaders. They can surface trade-offs honestly without surrendering to fatalism. They can help us connect national resilience to global stability.
In democratic systems, this ecosystem is not peripheral. It is constitutive of political durability. Philanthropy plays a complementary role within this ecosystem. Unlike elected governments, philanthropic institutions are not bound by electoral cycles. They can invest in the slow work of strengthening civic infrastructure — funding research on systemic risk, supporting education, backing independent journalism, fostering cross-sector coalitions, and investing in social cohesion in economically fragile regions.
Philanthropy does not legislate. It does not levy taxes. It cannot guarantee sovereign commitments. But it can provide the long-term capital that enables civic ecosystems to sustain the intellectual and cultural groundwork upon which political decisions ultimately rest. Its role is catalytic — not as a substitute for public power, but as a stabiliser of the political foundations on which we collectively depend.
The tensions we are witnessing do not necessarily signal collapse. They may signal transition. Countries in the South must continue strengthening their institutions and economic foundations. Societies in the North must reinforce the political base that makes global engagement possible. The issue is no longer North–South generosity. It is the governance and financing of interdependence.
Multilateralism will not disappear because it lacks relevance: the challenges it addresses — climate, health, financial stability, technological risk — are structural and unavoidable. It will weaken if the political foundations required to sustain long-term investment in global public goods erode. Repairing the political foundation of interdependence is not nostalgia for a fading order. It is strategic realism.
In an interconnected world, stability is not an abstract ideal. It is a shared asset. Preserving the political conditions that sustain it is a collective responsibility. For all of us.