As part of the Dean’s Forum, the Keough School of Global Affairs hosted a conversation titled “The Future of International Aid: Reforming a System Under Strain” in the Hesburgh Center auditorium on Oct. 14. David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee and a former British Labour Party politician, delivered the lecture.
Miliband was the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom from 2007-2010 and the Member of Parliament for South Shields in North East England from 2001-2013. He argued that while aid “has been, and continues to be helpful to the poor,” it has not been the main driver of development and must now be redesigned for a world where poverty is increasingly concentrated in places affected by conflict and climate stress.
According to Miliband, the geography of extreme poverty has shifted dramatically in recent decades. “In 1990, less than one in 10 of the extreme poor lived in conflict-affected countries. Today, over 50% do, and the figure is expected to rise to two-thirds by 2030,” he said.
He shared that 40% of people in fragile or conflict-affected states live on less than three dollars a day, compared with roughly 6% in other developing economies. Climate vulnerability overlaps with fragility, he added, noting that “19 of the 25 countries at the bottom of the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative Index fall into this fragile, conflict-affected group.”
Despite this concentration of need, Miliband said global aid flows are not aligned with poverty patterns. Spending on cross-border “global public goods” such as climate mitigation, biodiversity and pandemic prevention has increased, often in middle-income countries. “Forty-five percent of
aid flows go to lower- and upper-middle-income countries, not the poorest,” he said.
Miliband also pointed to the classification of domestic refugee integration expenses as overseas aid, arguing that this practice diverts funds away from fragile states. “Now is the time for a rethink about the future of international aid, what it is for, how it is delivered and how it is paid for,” he said.
He outlined five priorities for reforming the aid system. First, he called for targeting grant money, which represents over 90% of the global aid budget, to the poorest people in the poorest places. He identified 13 countries where need is most acute, including Afghanistan, the Central
African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Yemen.
“29% of the world’s extreme poor live in this subset, but only 9% of official development assistance is allocated to these countries,” he said. “The difference is worth about 35 billion dollars.”
Second, Miliband recommended concentrating on programs that are evidence-based and cost-effective. He cited community-based vaccination drives in East Africa that have delivered 20 million vaccine shots for about two dollars per dose, and a simplified protocol for diagnosing and treating child malnutrition that reduced costs by about 30%. “Donor fragmentation into small projects dilutes impact,” he said. “We need to power money behind the most effective programs.”
He also emphasized the importance of innovation in developing, financing and delivering programs. As an example, Miliband referenced International Rescue Committee projects that use artificial intelligence to reduce disease diagnosis time in the Democratic Republic of Congo from two weeks to five minutes, as well as anticipatory cash transfers that reach families before floods occur. He also discussed new financial mechanisms such as development-bank guarantees, debt swaps and disaster risk insurance as ways to expand humanitarian funding.
In addition to innovation, Miliband believes aid agencies should be held accountable for outcomes rather than inputs. “Educational results, not numbers of teachers trained. Healthy births, not health consultations,” he said. Outcome-based funding, he argued, would reduce bureaucracy and improve efficiency.
Finally, Miliband called for a fairer global distribution of the aid burden. Countries that are members of the Group of Seven (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) account for about 45% of global GDP but provide roughly three-quarters of global aid. He urged emerging economies to contribute more and noted that the United States allocates about 0.15% of its gross national income to foreign assistance, a figure he said is low by international standards.
Near the end of his lecture, Miliband connected the moral and purposes of international aid. “If we can save people from destitution, we should,” he said. “Those delivering on the ground need to embody commitment to value for money and efficient delivery. Donors need to put clients front and center. The new resources of science and technology should be used to help the world’s poorest, not just the richest.”
He concluded by reminding the audience that effective aid remains essential for addressing global crises. “Today, 80% of acutely malnourished children in conflict zones are not treated. 60% of maternal deaths in childbirth are in fragile states. Over 52 million children in countries affected by conflict are not in school,” Miliband said.
“Effective international aid is the answer to these problems, not the problem itself. There are more resources in the world to do more good than at any time in human history. 1% of the federal budget is not excessive. It can be brought to good use. It is in America’s interest to do so. And from my point of view, the sooner that happens, the better,” he said.
