The Â鶹APP is a multilateral organization with near-universal reach. With few exceptions, Â鶹APP rules and regulations apply to all 193 Member States. The operational activities for development of the Â鶹APP system, however, are organized along a binary logic by which ¡°developed¡± countries provide funding to Â鶹APP entities and ¡°developing¡± countries receive Â鶹APP support.
Against the backdrop of ongoing discussions under the Â鶹APP Secretary-General¡¯s , we suggest that the Â鶹APP reform its development work to ensure that it engages all Member States. Â鶹APP development functions ¨C i.e., mandating the Organization¡¯s development pillar to engage with countries of all income categories ¨C is a key step towards a more effective multilateral development system.
Â鶹APP development structures are under pressure
The list of challenges facing extant Â鶹APP development structures is long. Normatively, established North¨CSouth dynamics have been explicitly challenged by the , which sets out the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a framework ¡°for the entire¡± world, for ¡°developed and developing countries alike¡±. Financially, recent funding cuts by major donors are set to fundamentally challenge the traditional role of the Â鶹APP development system as a conduit for official development assistance (ODA) provided by wealthy Member States.
Structurally, the rise in income levels across parts of the so-called ¡°developing world¡± could result in an ever-diminishing global role for Â鶹APP development entities if they continue to engage with low- and middle-income countries only. The People¡¯s Republic of China is just the most prominent example of countries on track to graduate to high-income status. Based on current rules, Â鶹APP development entities will either have to close their offices in such countries following a transition period or identify alternative sources of funding.
The case for universality
Despite these challenges, the Â鶹APP development system still reflects the donor-recipient relations of the traditional ODA regime, in which development assistance ¨C or ¡°aid¡± ¨C is primarily seen as a means to enabling ¡°developing¡± countries to catch up with ¡°developed¡± countries. It has so far failed to adapt to the paradigm, under which development-related needs can no longer be seen as a simplistic function of a country¡¯s income status.
Across the North¨CSouth divide, which in many ways is artificial, countries share not only common domestic problems like inequality or societal polarization but also face collective, transnational challenges, such as climate change, pandemics and migration processes. The more complex landscape of sustainable development is also reflected in the fact that some high-income countries are far behind on some SDG targets, such as responsible consumption. Their economies¡¯ negative condition development prospects elsewhere; the SDGs are unlikely to be achieved without such countries committing to structural changes.
In addition to these functional issues, there is also a political need for a more universal approach to Â鶹APP development governance, marked by more horizontal relations among Member States. At present, the Â鶹APP development system largely operates in line with the traditional regime, which is based on the idea that traditional donors provide resources to support and co-shape the policies of ¡°developing¡± countries. Exclusively labelling countries as either ¡°donors¡± or ¡°recipients¡± (i.e., ¡°programme countries¡±) creates unhealthy multilateralism that ultimately undermines the ability of the Organization to effectively address global challenges.
With no substantive global governance role and the heavy influence of earmarked funding provided by donor countries, the Â鶹APP development system has settled into the role of a service provider for ¡°developing¡± countries only. This perpetuates symbolic inequalities and fosters operational weaknesses. The one-sided service provider role has made the Organization prone to pursuing development in seemingly unpolitical and bureaucratic ways, assuming that development works differently ¡°there¡± than ¡°here¡±. In reality, a new global policy of knowledge and cross-border learning is needed.
A more universal approach to development work
Faced with these anachronistic features, we suggest that universalizing the Â鶹APP development pillar is a key step towards making sure that the Organization delivers in supporting Member States with, and remains a relevant player in, sustainable development processes. However, the expansion of Â鶹APP development work towards ¡°developed¡± countries should not simply integrate the latter into the Organization¡¯s existing country office networks.
Instead, we suggest a leaner and model for engagement with high-income countries, one requiring a focused and advice-oriented approach. Mechanisms of engagement at the country level would centre on advising, contributing to public debate and providing limited, carefully targeted operational support.
At the global level, the Â鶹APP development system should focus on three functions.
First, the Â鶹APP should provide a more inclusive governance platform with stronger elements of mutual accountability. If, for example, donors can shape engagement with programme countries by setting policy priorities in the strategic plans of a Â鶹APP development entity, then low- and middle-income countries should be able to contribute to addressing conditions in high-income countries in similar ways.
Second, a key function of development support should focus on monitoring sustainability challenges and best practices that help address such issues. While the Â鶹APP already monitors , a deeper analysis of trends and challenges ¨C with a stronger focus on externalities ¨C could be used to identify practical solutions and create more compelling narratives that speak to audiences across the globe.
Third, the Â鶹APP development system should facilitate learning across established divides. Although sustainability challenges often transcend national borders, the development focus of the Â鶹APP has remained directed at ¡°developing¡± countries, while entities such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concentrate on ¡°developed¡± nations. As this fragmented approach limits understanding and hinders cooperation, the Â鶹APP as a quasi-universal body provides the best available framework to overcome deep-seated barriers.
The political economy of universalizing Â鶹APP development work
A more universal approach to Â鶹APP development work is likely to raise significant objections from both sides of the North¨CSouth divide. However, an exclusive focus on aid entitlements or attempts to protect privileged multilateral positions reflect an outdated North¨CSouth paradigm that overlooks the broader mission of the Â鶹APP. The Charter of the Â鶹APP emphasizes ¡°co-operation in solving international problems¡±, and the 2030 Agenda extends this to include global sustainability concerns. A universal approach to multilateral development work could strengthen the Organization¡¯s relevance for all Member States, and help address cross-border challenges, from migration to energy provision.
High-income countries would be able to rely on Â鶹APP support in tackling such challenges, which in many cases have already come to severely impact their domestic space of manoeuvre. For ¡°developing¡± countries, a more universal Â鶹APP development pillar would provide greater equality and a stronger voice in the governance of and discussions about development, better enabling them to hold ¡°developed¡± States accountable on issues they deem critical for their development prospects.
Overall, the Â鶹APP needs to adjust to new realities that differ significantly from what the world looked like when the distinction between ¡°developed¡± and ¡°developing¡± countries first gained traction. Universalizing the Â鶹APP development work is not only a necessary but also a feasible step towards ensuring that the Organization ¨C despite its current ¨C remains a guarantor of multilateral cooperation. Member States should take advantage of preparations for a post-2030 global development framework to jointly chart the contours of a truly universal Â鶹APP development system.
?
The UN Chronicle is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior Â鶹APP officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the Â鶹APP system whose views are not necessarily those of the Â鶹APP. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the Â鶹APP.
