Abstract MotivationLocalization is increasingly invoked in debates about how to reform international aid: to improve aid effectiveness and address ethical concerns by turning hierarchical aid relations on their head. This has proved to be easier said than done. The COVID‐19 pandemic produced logistical impediments to aid practitioners, which translated into a renewed, if temporary, interest in localization.PurposeThe initial scope of the research engaged with the notion of partnership during COVID‐19, but almost all informants drew attention to the concept of localization. The article maps and analyses the challenges and advantages of localization, as seen from the practitioners' perspective.Approach and methodsThe article draws on 24 interviews conducted in Oslo with representatives of various Norwegian development and humanitarian non‐governmental organizations and government agencies, in addition to policy and grey literature review.FindingsThe article shows that the re‐emergence of the localization debate during COVID‐19 occurred not because of any ambition to reform aid, but as a pragmatic and temporary response to the logistical impediments caused by the pandemic. Reflections from the interviewees on the pros and cons offer more substantial insights into why localization fails to change practice, while at the same time localization enables a form of indirect governance related to accountability regimes. This is analysed as developmentality, reflecting the logic that localization takes place when recipients do as donors want, but they do so voluntarily, which suggests that localization counterintuitively may reinforce existing power structures.Policy implicationsLocalization is poorly conceptualized. While a definition could be helpful in practice, one that is too rigid could undermine the diversity of actors and knowledge that localization aims to advance. At the operational level, localization requires greater flexibility and slack throughout the aid chain, especially in the audit and accountability regimes of donor and funding authorities, which permeate and uphold lopsided aid relations.

Abstract Motivation“Localization”—direct donor support for national organizations in aid recipient countries—has become a top priority for international development. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) pledged to raise the proportion of direct funding to national organizations to 25% and for 50% of funding to involve “locally led” input. Independently, USAID commits to proactive disclosure of project information. This study analyses sectoral priorities, access to project data, and localization trends to inform policy discussion about how USAID can reach its twin localization goals, with a focus on Colombia, the largest US aid recipient in Latin America.PurposeAn open government perspective can shed light on whether and how development agencies are making progress towards localization. Moreover, user‐centred information disclosure by donors is necessary to inform locally led development. The goals of this study are to document USAID's sectoral funding priorities, gaps in data disclosure, implementation actions, and direct local funding percentages to make patterns more visible to stakeholders. We ask: What are the strengths and limitations of public disclosure of data concerning US aid in Colombia?Approach and methodsThis analysis uses open‐source data review methods to bring together different sources of publicly available data. These methods include triangulating government data disbursed across multiple sites, recoding government data to make trends visible, and identifying barriers to data access.FindingsPublic data indicate that US funding for peace‐related projects increased in the years following Colombia's 2016 Peace Accord, though the security share of total US aid remains high. Funding trends demonstrate that USAID is far behind its localization goals in Colombia, though absolute funding totals to local organizations are increasing. Finally, publicly available project data are not user‐centred, require technical acumen to access, and are fragmented across multiple sites.Policy implicationsUser‐centred disclosures are key to locally led development to ensure informed participation and accountability to stakeholders.

Abstract MotivationDonors allocate huge sums for assistance intended for poverty reduction to countries that arguably do not need it. For example, the United States spends more in Jordan—with no extreme poverty—than it does in the six countries with the highest poverty rates in the world combined, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia. Prior studies have suggested that if global aid were allocated according to need, it could roughly double its impact on poverty reduction.PurposeCountry need can be broken down into the magnitude of the development challenge and the domestic resources available. This study examines these two components of development need to determine which countries have the greatest need for foreign assistance.Approach and methodsI produce a set of data‐driven observations documenting the magnitude of the challenge and the resources available. I first explore which countries have the highest rates of absolute and multidimensional poverty. I then examine which countries have the ability to redistribute by comparing their poverty gaps with the potential domestic resources available. This produces the marginal tax rate (MTR) required for a country to finance its own poverty eradication.FindingsThere is a clear trend in the magnitude of the challenge: low‐income countries (LICs) have the highest poverty rates by far; lower middle‐income countries (LMICs) are more mixed; and upper middle‐income countries (UMICs) have comparatively little extreme poverty, except in a small handful of countries. The implied MTRs required to close a country's extreme poverty gap are excessively high for LICs and most LMICs but easily manageable for most UMICs. This strongly suggests that both the magnitude of the challenge is much greater and the resources available much lower in LICs and LMICs.Policy implicationsThe policy implication is that LICs and LMICs should be strongly favoured in terms of aid allocation. The two different components of country need point in the same direction and both suggest a strong focus on allocating assistance towards the poorest countries.

Abstract MotivationForesight methods are increasingly recognized as essential for decision‐making in complex environments, particularly within development and research settings. As foresight methods continue to gain prominence for decision‐making, their application in these settings grows. Funders and policy‐makers can benefit from the experience of transformative foresight practitioners and researchers who are skilled in designing novel ways to envision alternative and diverse development futures.PurposeThe Seeds of Good Anthropocenes (SoGA) initiative has experimented with transformative foresight since its inception in 2016.We position SoGA within the framework of Minkkinen et al. (2019); we present its transformative capacity through participatory visioning; and we explore how foresight methods can shape strategic development options.Approach and methodsWe draw lessons from how SoGA, used extensively in various contexts around the world, has introduced experimental transformative foresight to deal with diversity and complexity. We describe the transformative foresight processes in detail.FindingsSoGA exemplifies how transformative foresight can support policy and change initiatives by providing participants, planners, and decision‐makers with opportunities to reinforce the collaborative and transformative objectives of their policy and convening practices. Such engagement not only deepens the strategic impact of policies, it also encourages a more inclusive and participatory approach to policy development, aligning with broader goals for sustainable and impactful change.

Abstract MotivationSchool feeding programmes employ more than 4 million people globally and have the potential to contribute to the realization of multiple Sustainable Development Goals, including decent work and reducing inequalities. However, the working conditions and experiences of workers in these programmes have received little attention from academics and policy‐makers alike. Consequently, it is currently unclear what the impacts of the employment generated are and whether this employment reduces or perpetuates inequalities.PurposeThis article examines the extent to which school feeding programmes can generate beneficial employment by examining the experiences of cooks in the world's largest school lunch programme, India's Midday Meal Scheme. The article focuses on five key areas: who is employed; their pay; their workload; their access to social protection; and the effects of privatization.Approach and methodsTo examine these five areas, data from three sources are combined: primary data collected in Rajasthan; state‐level secondary data; and the analysis of national‐level documents.FindingsThe findings show that national policy creates a system in which cooks in the Midday Meal Scheme are underpaid, undervalued, and overworked. These working conditions are underpinned by a series of assumptions and narratives which are all too common in perceptions of care work: that the work is unskilled, not time consuming, and motivated by altruism. The state's lack of regard for these workers is evident in the growing privatization of the scheme.Policy implicationsOverall, the findings show that policy on school feeding programmes, including those in India, needs to ensure that those working in the scheme are treated as employees and receive sufficient pay and benefits. Providing decent work in these programmes has the potential to not only reduce poverty and inequalities but also to improve the implementation of school feeding programmes.

Abstract MotivationDespite an increased focus on inclusive development, we know little about the extent to which development aid reaches politically excluded groups or how this varies across different donors.PurposeAddressing this knowledge gap, we develop and test a framework arguing that (1) areas where politically excluded groups live are less likely to receive development aid, and (2) there are differences between donor countries and organizations in how they instrumentally address inclusive development.Methods and approachUsing a geographically disaggregated panel dataset of aid projects covering sub‐Saharan African countries from 1996 to 2013, we combine sub‐national data on the location of aid by donor and type, and data on politically excluded ethnic groups.FindingsFor World Bank aid projects, we do not find evidence that areas with excluded groups are generally prioritized. However, when disaggregating by sector, we find that aid projects related to health and water access are significantly more likely to be allocated to areas with excluded groups. Furthermore, we see little indication that Chinese aid is targeted towards areas of political exclusion. Conversely, aid allocations made by donor countries whose development strategies emphasize inclusive and needs‐based approaches are more likely to be established in areas with politically excluded groups.Policy implicationsWe argue that these results indicate diverse underlying political motivations behind the provision of development aid by various donors. These motivations become evident when examining aid allocation by sector and type of donor.