Financing development at a crossroads: What's at stake and what reforms are needed?

Finance may not be a sufficient ingredient for development, but it is a necessary one. The need for finance to address crises and the consequences of these for development is mounting. The COVID-19 pandemic slowed or even reversed development trajectories in many low- and middle-income countries. Global and national development goals are now further away, and to make progress require more finance than was initially estimated. The impact of cross-border challenges, notably climate change, has become more tangible and widespread. We not only have more crises, but also longer-lasting ones, blurring even further the line between humanitarian and development assistance. Urgent action is needed to turn the tide. But finance is either insufficient or doesn't reach the countries most in need. Traditional foreign aid might have gone up in absolute terms, but the main drivers of this increase have been growing assistance to Ukraine and more spending to support refugees in donor countries (counted as foreign aid despite being spent domestically). In early 2025, many development partners—including Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK—announced significant cuts to their development budgets. As we write, the largest development partner by volume of assistance and reach, the United States—has slashed its foreign aid programmes at a single stroke. At the same time, the donor architecture has become more and more complex, with a proliferation of bilateral and multilateral donors and facilities. A highly fragmented system of donor providers translates into greater pressure on the public systems of the Global South, higher transaction costs, and fewer economies of scale. Changes to the operations and business models of multilateral development banks (MDBs) have dominated the debate about the reform of the international financial architecture. Despite MDBs being among the few financiers providing relatively cheap loans, their financial contributions remain a drop in the ocean. Private investors find it too risky to invest in frontier markets. The highly touted shift from “billions to trillions,” which anticipated that government funding and efforts would attract significant private investments for sustainable development, has failed to materialize. A debt crisis is looming. It might not be as widespread as in the 1990s and early 2000s, but it can have profound consequences in countries where servicing debt obligations consumes a larger slice of the budget than health and education spending. Ten years ago, borrowing from capital markets became attractive for many frontier markets when conditions were favourable. Rolling over or refinancing those obligations is now, however, proving expensive or impossible, as market interest rates have increased. Tense geopolitical relations between global powers are also restricting progress in reforming the governance of the international financial architecture, making multilateral forums less and less effective. Many donor countries make commitments without following through on them, exacerbating a crisis of trust with the Global South. The voices of leaders of the Global South are often little heard, let alone acted on, in the major international financial institutions. Against this backdrop, it has been nearly 10 years since the third UN Financing for Development Conference in Addis Ababa. It preceded the agreement of a new set of Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, with the latter being now midway through its initial horizon. World leaders, UN members, UN agencies, civil society organizations, and academics will gather in Spain in late June 2025 to push proposals to reform the international global financial architecture. Most do not hold the purse strings to make these reforms happen, and many ideas run up against stark political realities that slow or block reform. Despite these realities, the fourth UN Financing for Development Conference is bringing together the best thinkers and their ideas for change. The conference can put pressure on decision-makers to reform the international financial architecture. As leaders gather in Spain in late June what are the challenges for financing development that the Conference must bring to the fore? What should development partners and other financiers realistically do differently to address challenges, or at least mitigate their consequences? How should the international financial architecture be changed to scale up resources to countries and causes most in need? In sum, how can international finance be made more effective? In this year's Development Policy Review written symposium, we asked prominent scholars from the Global South to share their answers to these questions, covering a number of dimensions of the negotiations for the Fourth Financing for Development Conference and the reform of the international financial architecture. In alphabetical order, the contributors are: Joseph Matola, Programme Head: Economic Resilience and Inclusion Programme, and Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Chief Executive, South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA); Hanan Morsy, Deputy Executive Secretary (Programme) and Chief Economist, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA); José Antonio Ocampo, Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University; Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, President & CEO, African Centre for Economic Transformation (ACET); Liliana Rojas-Suarez, Director, Latin American Initiative and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development; and Daouda Sembene, CEO, AfriCatalyst. It should be stressed that the authors completed their first drafts well before the sudden changes to US development cooperation policies and the announcement of significant cuts to aid budgets in European countries. Yet the main recommendations emerging from the authors on the future of international financial architecture remain valid and even more important, as bilateral aid is likely to shrink. The challenges facing the international financial architecture (IFA), such as insufficient development financing, a limited voice for low and middle-Income countries (LMICs), and rising debt have been evident for some time. However, there has been some incremental progress in recent years, particularly in reforming international financial institutions with regard to increasing their lending capacity and the scope of their operations. The G20 has committed to making multilateral development banks (MDBs) “better, bigger, and more effective” to better meet countries' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and address global challenges. The dire predictions for the warming of the planet, as well as the increasingly likely failure that the SDGs will be achieved, have heightened the sense of urgency around these reforms. However, the rise of right-wing populism in several Western nations has created new obstacles to advancing the reform of the architecture, as new challenges in forums like the G20 (where major decisions on reforms have been undertaken) have emerged. In particular, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the flurry of executive orders that has followed, many of them aimed at the global governance system, have caused a lot of concern. As it stands, IFA reform may have to proceed without the United States' participation or commitment to addressing the inequities of the current system. As such, the other parties who remain engaged with the global system of institutions and rules will have to work based on this premise, despite the importance of the United States in this process. However, there is the risk that potential US non-participation could encourage other countries to align themselves with it for self-serving reasons. Regardless, President Trump's “Operation shock and awe” means that in the short term, crucial events/processes like the forthcoming 4th Financing for Development (FfD4) Conference in Seville and the South African G20 presidency, both of which aim for agreement on sustainable financing frameworks to address global developmental challenges, will need to proceed with limited US participation or even with obstruction from that quarter. The other stakeholders involved in these processes must therefore focus on the issues that can progress without US support. Given the state of play, each actor—governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, and the private sector—will have to step up to the plate to turn the game around. Advanced economies bear a particular responsibility because they have not delivered on their commitments. This gap has fuelled and accelerated frustration and dissatisfaction in the Global South. But at a moment of great peril for the multilateral system, it is imperative that the other advanced economies seize the opportunity to build a constructive coalition of countries willing to tackle some of the biggest global challenges. However, the main challenge stems from the domestic constituencies. Voters in many advanced economies have generally shifted away from supporting international cooperation, towards populist leaders championing a “my country first” approach. This trend makes it difficult for global governance leaders to pursue innovative and bold for international In the short term, many advanced economies limited to invest their political capital in issues their or to their In this new where the most country is institutions and the of is countries that and the of international cooperation need to put the for interest to their as the for such in the Global South have for a global financial architecture that countries better to This push has been on many addressing the impact of rising reforms in the governance of international financial institutions to Global South voices and and climate In the some progress has been achieved, such as the for and to climate However, significant The of the in 2025, several proposals that will particularly on and debt the of the for and a to some on lending and However, other from the new US on domestic the Trump has to against countries that US through and other States This will the progress that can be made on the to countries' resources for development that their share of The between right-wing populism and the Global for may make it difficult to the particularly for the However, the financing for development should remain the United States the on some reforms of the the international can a that of the of This would on those reforms that would either not require the support of the US or have not from of these reforms is the of to countries through In the the to the of to of capital by This would about of that remain from the of for to be to the MDBs for lending to countries of this and for most in could Western populist to other more development finance as national public budgets are it is crucial to the MDBs to their capital more the should be in the necessary scale and of as well as changes to MDBs to their lending to meet the financing of the supporting MDBs in the of the for is to to make MDBs bigger, and more should be of focus for countries in addressing debt challenges be the urgency of the for many countries. to with debt particularly through the have been for the most it is to to reform this the countries to in the and reforming its to further of debt are often to on, it is also difficult to against the need for these to the and progress could be In June 2025, leaders from with international and organizations, financial and civil society and the United Nations system, will gather in will be there to the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development which is to a opportunity to and on to reform financing at But the conference is set to a by profound challenges for low- and middle-income countries. countries are the of global and domestic caused by global and geopolitical with increasingly fragmented global financial market and and the of a debt crisis a significant over the Africa is with a debt crisis its of the Sustainable Development Goals the has a crisis is The debt was at in the set by the International for A in debt in in Africa with significant of obligations in and 2025, a potential crisis is on the with that borrowing costs, this could to and efforts by and development partners to tackle this debt crisis are of are now debt processes such as the have limited and slow progress among countries In to these challenges, the UN Economic Commission for Africa has for reforms in the debt system and the global financial architecture The causes of debt crises are domestic issues such as debt and public finance the global financial system has borrowing and providing development finance of global that Africa has the potential to finance its development there are and reforms at and national to this issues must be for international financial system that is more and to countries. the voice and participation of countries in the the World and the International new to with crises and where there is to towards a more governance at the of the international cooperation system. and a financial architecture, with of institutions in of the global financial system. The potential for progress in these reforms is it the challenges of rising geopolitical In the institutions the of the capital contributions or of the countries should into the of the economies The of that are to should as they and countries in a system more would as they the largest number of The for decisions that require of to be should also be as this is for the United is less is the need for system for the of the and the President of the World of state to the of of countries in their to international A challenge is the of and the of In the of the the reform in that European ones, about of the in of countries. The rise in that countries their In the of the International for and Development the reform the and executive for and the reform changed the capital As a of both the share of and countries in in the from to The of the of and countries was also but has to be In the International Development which the the of European ones, higher to the of to the as of the to capital the in of a new increase in it was that countries' share will be a of debate in The increase in the capital of the and changes in country share to the of of and economies is In both the of significant changes in the of capital is a political for the as it a for A further should be increasing the in both to bring them to the they when they were created at of the in the The third addressing the of a at the of the international cooperation system, has a of Economic or a Global based on the current Economic and The most was made by the Commission of on of the International and to as the by the UN in It the up of a Global Economic This would as a of the UN system. The latter international with the with the and the World and to which the should be It would have a based on and as in the institutions. It would as a at the of first leaders, as with the G20 which could in turn on the would among countries that the of to the it would the that a global government system it not to the most which their at the a new such as this is it would the by the the and the It should be that in the UN must a in the governance of the global the it and have their as for In international it the of UN on Financing for from in to Addis in 2015, with the fourth to in Spain in The UN has also been to on global development the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a new is could to as of the and of the UN UN and but not the UN system. should also encourage a of with but also between and global of a architecture of this is that it is and countries have a sense of to as they have a voice in global A of this is that the of institutions more to their architecture of this in the of multilateral development which must to A should be to the international system and international cooperation, where these are a of and cooperation should be a of international financial reform. the G20 was in there has been and interest in reforming the global financial architecture have been some and where progress has not this of global reform a particularly for the Finance for Development Conference (FfD4) in Seville in June the heightened focus on global financial architecture reform has been there is also a need to the African financial architecture as of the process. The African is with the African Development African multilateral African financial organizations, and national development and a financial little has been to in some for these institutions to these institutions can to addressing development will it to resources to support the in the development goals in the African a can for such as and also the of national institutions such as debt and The is but not to African more than banks Africa have has and has development banks are a of its of development finance and have to in the Development of Africa commitments of and the African Development financing of to this the African multilateral financial institutions and and and become even more in the in and and in Africa were at there are more than national development those on national development and in such as and in many have less than governance and the in the can be better and this could a towards to Sustainable Development financing gap of about & and with a of stakeholders over the of years have that there are between African financial institutions. As a for cooperation, and are banks often do not of potential financing for through national development In those same development banks are of financing and to and national development banks are not of programmes and financing from the has been some progress towards addressing this over the the agreement between institutions to the of African often to as the Africa is at the African in this financial institutions created as institutions by African The of the to financing for countries and its to in and it will innovative financing and support sustainable financing as a African voice for global financial architecture reforms. is that the will become more over with the potential of the African the African and the African which will be to a African financial architecture. the from the and the Development to can to a at to the of the African Finance has been innovative in its In it by a private of This of countries to international capital markets at a when borrowing are and to such as is limited in many emerging markets. this and by the action is needed for to development finance on the countries need to policies on public that will the of public finance and innovative in the also need policies on to address and climate to address and the most would be to domestic that would the need for African risk and financing for the institutions should also their policies to scale financing and of national development banks with to African must invest more of their in African financial institutions. This national development and from international or providing The will address a of challenges, from the global to development cooperation to A can in SDGs and particularly through and the will be a global UN on the African financial architecture also reforming the global financial architecture can have for development and the is as crucial for and development in emerging markets and economies the financing gap and to that investments of to of are needed to the the and for most of the both of which are to the Sustainable Development Goals of by and by Despite these most limited and capital on loans, particularly from international to finance However, international banks have their to finance Advanced economies have shifted towards financing to the a less in to their markets. capital markets is a financing to address the in the short to and cross-border lending are by a of policies and in both the and countries. these international for capital and as particularly that many countries have or are the to financial and a which is for However, as in and and the may also have consequences that could development, of which is changes the can lending for the how a can be to a or is being Given that are this might by A from the new the funding This banks to align such as and with this financial by on funding is more the of As a banks are to their to such or to domestic banks in many often to and further the of resources for capital for have the of lending for such the of models for that these of the the where risk This challenges for finance because not finance as a the risk for the risk are based on the borrowing which in often with the such are and the of However, from the Global that debt has rates and higher rates than a between risk and risk these banks to shift away from to less further exacerbating the financing gap in these challenges is for financing to the gap in it is from that impact such as the and the would be However, years of there is little for In this efforts to as a the most a new risk for finance in would without the as would attract foreign who the of How can the of as be to this should be to and financial is for and the of by the of new of such as the need for a and for to efforts should be to global on is crucial for risk such as the G20 Global have made significant particularly in these will be to in as are in this as action is institutions like the World to and for address and to would this on these can become a of sustainable in without financial What is needed is to In 2015, the global in Addis for the third Conference on Financing for by a that of could be to progress notably through of international public development assistance this and private the of the Addis the of finance as well as other and such as and risk In this development banks and development finance institutions were to a This is to be 10 years and a flurry of commitments In the volume of private finance by major multilateral development banks (MDBs) and for countries on A by the following that the financing gap to around this private finance must be at from to make even more this must be at a when development finance are increasingly pressure the rise of and geopolitical Against this will be a moment of for the development than the should and a system based on a of the and causes of the of the development finance architecture. In recent years, the in global development has and on the of MDBs in the potential of private In a the G20 reforms to MDBs to their and their the reform of in MDBs committed to around in lending over the of World But even such lending was to be and not a the Global South would need a significant increase in to private finance for the to Yet for to global capital markets are increasingly at a when most of these countries are growing debt crises and borrowing This is for the of capital must highly on the of global in the need to scale up the of and such as and the development will need to to and address and that are by many and country to be the of and risk to be among them, with the of major But even risk may they remain in their with frontier markets to the of significant and risk necessary need to be to more and in the work of global the conditions for with government in these countries. in frontier markets will also need to their in the potential of both domestic and foreign notably by a political commitment to reform the business and and frameworks for and many have in the for the business notably as of the World capacity remain a significant that need to be capacity development will be to increase the of and a of several In this should not be only limited to financing issues but also to how to scale up Yet low and trust was in the its to private capital This must be in Seville to the for a many Global South will this but with low around the of A Addis they will on the failure of the international to its commitment to from to these the many issues around private capital will to some a of The international the same and a more financing But how can trust in the development finance architecture and among its be the must in not to this as were or the current