As the global geopolitical landscape shifts in 2026—marked by renewed American isolationism, fiscal retrenchment, and competing international priorities—the traditional architecture of development aid is facing unprecedented strain. These changes formed the backdrop of the Sciences Po conference “The End of Aid: Africa in the New Global Order”, which brought together policymakers, academics, and journalists to examine whether the contraction of Western aid constitutes a rupture, an adaptation, or a long-delayed reconfiguration of Africa’s relationship with external partners.
Rather than framing the moment as a sudden collapse, the discussions emphasized that current developments reflect a structural transformation of the international system. Aid reductions, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, were presented not as isolated political decisions but as part of a broader reassessment of state priorities, global influence, and development strategies. The central question was therefore not whether aid is ending, but what its decline reveals about power, agency, and responsibility in a changing global order.
Aid as a Double-Edged Instrument: Achievements and Structural Limits
To assess the future of development cooperation, the panel first revisited the historical role of aid. The post–World War II and Cold War periods were described as a “golden age” of development assistance, during which aid served both humanitarian and geopolitical objectives. Speakers underscored that aid has produced measurable and significant outcomes, particularly in public health and poverty reduction. The decline in extreme poverty—from approximately 38% to single-digit levels in several regions—was cited as evidence that aid, when sustained and targeted, has saved millions of lives.
At the same time, the panel interrogated the institutional effects of prolonged aid dependence. A recurring concern was the rise of what was termed the “NGO-ization” of development. David Pilling argued that when aid delivery systematically bypasses state institutions in favor of parallel systems, it can erode administrative capacity and weaken the legitimacy of governments. In such contexts, citizens increasingly associate service provision with external actors rather than public authorities, potentially undermining the social contract.
Importantly, speakers did not present this critique as a blanket rejection of aid. Instead, the discussion highlighted a structural tension: aid can be simultaneously life-saving and state-disempowering, depending on how it is designed and implemented. This ambivalence complicates simplistic narratives of aid as either benevolent or harmful.
Questioning African Exceptionalism
One of the most contested claims advanced during the conference was that the current moment marks the “end of African exceptionalism.” Nicholas Westcott argued that Africa should no longer be treated as a permanent recipient of extraordinary assistance, but rather as a region subject to the same developmental constraints and opportunities as Latin America or Asia—regions that industrialized and diversified with comparatively lower levels of foreign aid.
This argument was grounded in the observation that aid has consistently failed to resolve core governance challenges. Examples from Ethiopia, Uganda, and Tanzania were cited to illustrate that sustained aid flows have not necessarily translated into stronger institutions or accountable governance. From this perspective, shrinking Western aid may simply expose realities that aid previously masked rather than addressed.
However, this position was not presented as uncontested. Implicit in the discussion was a tension between normalization and neglect: while rejecting exceptionalism may restore agency, it also risks obscuring persistent structural disadvantages linked to colonial legacies, demographic pressures, and unequal access to capital. The panel thus left open the question of whether treating Africa “like any other region” is analytically sound or politically convenient.
From Charity to Investment: Reframing Africa’s Global Position
A central theme of the conference was the call to shift from a “charity-based” narrative to an “investment-oriented” framework. PSIA Dean Arancha González and economist Kako Nubukpo emphasized that narratives matter not only symbolically but materially, shaping investor behavior, policy choices, and institutional priorities.
Both speakers stressed that Europe and Africa are already deeply interdependent through trade, migration, and security dynamics. Yet this interdependence, they argued, has not translated into relationships of equal negotiation. Moving from paternalism to partnership would require explicit bargaining over technology transfer, capital flows, infrastructure financing, and long-term industrial strategy.
At the same time, the panel acknowledged that investment-led approaches raise their own questions. While investments in education and health were widely presented as foundational to long-term transformation, participants recognized that such investments require time horizons and political stability that are not always compatible with market incentives. The discussion thus highlighted a key dilemma: how to reconcile long-term developmental needs with short-term financial logics.
Geopolitical Realignments and Competing Development Models
The reconfiguration of aid is occurring alongside significant geopolitical shifts. Several speakers referred to a “new scramble for Africa,” characterized by intensified competition among global powers. Western development models—often tied to governance conditionalities—were contrasted with the approaches of emerging actors, particularly China.
China’s role was discussed in pragmatic terms. While its financing is largely loan-based and not without risks, participants acknowledged that Chinese engagement has delivered large-scale infrastructure that many African countries lacked. In this sense, Chinese finance was portrayed less as altruism and more as a transactional model aligned with state-led development.
The rise of BRICS countries was similarly framed as expanding African states’ strategic options. Non-alignment was described not as ideological neutrality but as a tool for diversification, allowing governments to reduce reliance on any single partner. The European Union, by contrast, was depicted as navigating an increasingly complex position: attempting to uphold normative commitments while competing with actors whose engagement is perceived as faster and less conditional.
Conclusion: Integration, Politics, and Unresolved Constraints
The decline of traditional aid frameworks ultimately foregrounds a structural challenge that cuts across the discussions: fragmentation. With 54 sovereign states and highly uneven economic capacities, Africa’s collective bargaining power remains limited. In this context, regional integration was presented not as an aspirational ideal but as a functional necessity.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) emerged as a central reference point, though speakers emphasized that its success depends less on technical design than on political coordination and domestic reform. Integration, the panel suggested, is as much about governance and elite incentives as it is about trade policy.
Rather than offering definitive conclusions, the conference highlighted the uncertainty of the current transition. The “end of aid” does not imply a clear replacement model, but rather a period of experimentation marked by competing interests, uneven capacities, and unresolved political trade-offs. As several speakers noted, economic transformation is inseparable from political choices, and the outcomes of this transition will depend less on external prescriptions than on how African states navigate an increasingly complex global environment.
Panelists: Arancha Gonzalez, Dean, Paris School of International Affairs; Kako Nubukpo, economist, former Minister of public policies, Togo, and Commissioner, West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA); David Pilling, Africa Editor, Financial Times; Nicholas Westcott, former director for Africa and Middle East of European External Action Service, director, Royal African Society, and UK High Commissioner to Ghana.
Chair: Ricardo Soares de Oliveira, CERI – Sciences Po/CNRS.