Should rich countries focus aid on fragile states? Drop development and just fund humanitarian work? Make aid a tool of soft power? The current debate on how to spend dwindling aid budgets is a depressing read, says Neil McCulloch. Let’s stop thinking about how to “buy results” and instead look at how best to support domestic initiatives for progressive change.

Will Paxton and Guy Lodge’s call last week to protect bilateral aid spending has sparked a lively debate, notably a counter argument we also published to prioritise multilateral spending from Kevin Watkins. Here they address Kevin’s (polite) criticisms, arguing for a better balance between multilateral and bilateral aid – and that listening to countries and communities leads to giving priority to jobs and growth, even if, as Kevin argues, aid has not been very effective in delivering them.  

As powerful nations turn inwards and multilateral institutions falter, alternative coalitions need to step into the breach to push for global progress. Such flexible and diverse groupings will be most effective if they are based around issues and deploy new tactics to seize every chance to shape international norms. Len Ishmael, Stephan Klingebiel and Andy Sumner explain the concept of ‘like-minded internationalism’.

Protecting bilateral spending from excessive cuts is going to be the first and most important step to ensuring the FCDO can still exert influence in an era of 0.3%, say Guy Lodge and Will Paxton. They discuss the new world of a lower UK aid budget and the pitfalls and opportunities it presents.

I hate gated journals, but Kate Macdonald (left) and May Miller-Dawkins (right) have kindly offered to summarize the main points from some recent contributions to the Global Policy Journal on the impact (if any) of accountability reforms in aid Many readers of this blog may have spent part of the 1990s and 2000s campaigning for increased transparency and accountability from the World