The Future of International Development

As I sit and reflect on this year’s Commission for  Social Development (CSocD), as well as my previous experiences within the United Nations, I ponder upon a common concern and the positive possibilities it could inadvertently lead to. The reality of funding cuts to the UN has struck fear into the hearts of many who rely on these institutions. How many jobs will be lost? Will institutions still be able to collect data, implement programs, or care for their communities? What does this mean for the future of international development? I, myself, have not worked within the international arena for very long at all, and therefore, honestly, have a hard time comprehending the depth of these questions. However, after hearing this issue arise within a multitude of different discourses, it led me to think about my own perception of the magnitude of change this could bring to the system. What if the funding crisis that is hitting the UN, could actually act as a catalyst for institutions to not only better organize their efforts, but to direct them in a more precise way to help address crises more efficiently and effectively?

As I heard at CSocD, as well as other UN spaces, there are many UN agencies with overlapping and duplicated mandates, proposals, and policies. Excess practices and documents regarding similar ideas create confusion and disorganization that make it difficult to determine which institutions and policies specifically address certain issues. Additionally, when multiple agencies work toward the same goal without communicating with one another, it leads to wasted funding and resources that could be used more effectively. Second, I heard that efforts by these agencies are often scattered and can be limited in finding the best way to tackle the issue at hand. Because there are so many layers to a crisis, one institution alone cannot possibly have all the expertise necessary to address it efficiently and effectively. Encouraging cooperation among communities, civil society, NGOs, the private sector, and governments, and increasing the level of shared data, expertise, and strategies was the strongest and most frequent solution brought up to effectively handle the nuances involved in crises. However, throughout these dialogues, few moved past the idea that cooperation is needed, to discuss how it is possible in practice. 

I believe the overarching problem is that there is very little coordination among institutions. This has been known and agreed upon in a variety of different UN spaces, and was even highlighted as CSocD’s priority theme this year, because up until now, institutions have largely had the resources and funding necessary to continue their work in silos. Organizations have been given the freedom to fulfill their mandates and advance their agendas on their own, without a need for coordination or collaboration with other organizations that work to achieve a similar goal. This is one reason why there are so many overlapping and duplicating measures being implemented and why efforts are often scattered and disorganized. The current funding cuts, as challenging as they have been and will be for the future, could in fact be one pathway toward reducing these dynamics, leading towards a more efficient system within the UN.

I believe there are two possible routes ahead: 1) Institutions continue to work in the way that they have in the past. The funding cuts take a huge toll on the ability of these institutions to implement their objectives and to continue their research and programs. After some time, many of these institutions will run out of money while never being able to fulfill their mandates, and they will cease to exist. 2) Institutions will come to the realization that they cannot continue to function this way. Once enough institutions come to this conclusion, they will find the need for a deeper conversation on how to move forward. In this discussion, they will recognize that the only path to continue working is to combine efforts with each other, to create more effective patterns of coordination, and perhaps pool their resources. This will allow these organizations to fulfill their goals in a manner that is coordinated and will eliminate the possibility of duplicated procedures and mandates. Furthermore, in this discussion, organizations may realize that even if they pool their funding together, it may not be enough to provide all the services they once offered, and other sources of knowledge will need to be explored. Different institutions would need to provide expertise that fills in the gaps that other institutions cannot. Local communities and individuals would be viewed not as passive recipients of service, but as integral sources of insight into the needs of communities and into how institutions can provide aid effectively. Institutions will have to rely, not only on one another, but on local communities and individuals to fulfill different needs in a crisis and apply their resources in a more direct and precise manner.  

The funding cuts are understandably a scary idea for many who have been a part of the system for years. No one can predict what the future holds and how things will change within the UN system. There are very real concerns that jobs will be lost and organizations will have to find new ways to fulfill their mandates. At the same time, I believe that the shifting landscape could lead to new opportunities, including new types of jobs, as well as a more successful, coordinated, and precise system that can address the nuances of crises more efficiently and effectively than ever before. Incorporating an open-minded exploration into all the possibilities can bring us to a future system that is more successful and safer for everyone. 

Radhika Jain is an intern at the Bahá’í International Community United Nations Office in New York.