This research was undertaken as part of my placement-based dissertation with Scotland’s International Development Alliance (SIDA) whilst studying for my MSc in International Development at the University of Edinburgh. The research questions were designed by SIDA to provide insight into their members commitments, efforts, and experience of localisation.
The wider research question was “how has the NGO sector in Scotland implemented global commitments to localisation?” with three additional sub-questions asking whether there are good examples that can be duplicated, what are the hurdles facing organisations when implementing localisation and whether organisations have moved beyond lip service.
I collected data through a survey and interviews. 12 organisations shared their responses via the survey and 7 organisations were interviewed. All organisations shared inspiring visions of localisation and how their organisations are moving towards locally led development. The interviews also exposed a real commitment to the wider agenda of decolonising international development as a field. However, one immovable hurdle to localising was identified by most organisations that is simply out of their hands: the international funding system. Most agreed that localisation cannot be fully implemented without serious reform to the way funding is administered and received. While it was outside the scope of my research to ascertain why and how the funding system could be reformed, this research does show there is an urgent need to further investigate the concerns raised by numerous organisations.
What is localisation?
Localisation does not have a clear definition, or any constitutive policy measures associated with it. Looking at major organisations definitions of localisation reflects this issue. For example, ActionAid (Yermo, 2017, p.2) defines localisation as “shifting financial and other resources, as well as power and agency, to local and national responders.” One organisation interviewed for this research described localisation as:
“A means of shifting more resources, power and decision making to those that interventions seek to serve. Ensuring communities and civil society can respond to needs identified within their community, efficiently and effectively. Localisation can happen across and through every department within INGOs however, [it] needs to embody complete buy-in based on systemic and structural changes that are required to embed it.” – Survey respondent, 2024
The differing opinions and ambiguity on how to implement localisation, result in major donors such as the UK Government, implementing limited and parochial versions of the agenda, describing their practices as working with localised partners within a country, who are receiving funding through an international agency but are working “in a very complementary fashion… informing what a larger agency can do on the ground” (Parliament. House of Commons, 2022, p.41). This research has found that to implement localisation which will result in locally led development (Baguois et al., 2021), it must be a process of recognising, respecting and strengthening the leadership by local authorities and bridging the capacity of local civil society in development projects (Baguois, 2019; Baguois et al., 2021), in order to “better address the needs of affected populations” (Fabre, 2017, p.1), with its aims antithetical to the traditionally top-down, Northern driven, centralised, bureaucratic development sector (Bakarat and Milton, 2020).
Who is local in localisation?
In theory, localisation should be an inherently decolonial project because shifting power from the Global North to the Global South should result in a positive change. However, without interrogating the construction of ‘what is local?’ and questioning the assumed binary between local and international, it risks reproducing colonial thought patterns (Roepstorff, 2019, p.285). Parallels can be drawn between the use of ‘local’ with Said’s (1978) concept of the “West” and the “the Other”. This action of ‘othering’ through the categorisation of who or what is local has led some to conclude that localisation is Eurocentric because the term ‘local’ reduces people who are ‘locally’ employed by international development organisations and ‘local’ beneficiaries into a homogeneous, othered subject with “no independent histories, capabilities or practices” (Khan, 2022). In fact, who is perceived as ‘local’ to international actors may not be considered local by the communities, and this homogenisation ignores existing group boundaries (Melis, 2019). A way to overcome this is when using the term ‘local’ awareness must be paid to where this actor is located on the spectrum of power relations (George, 2020). As suggested by MacGinty (2015, p.841) local “does not lie, principally, in geography. Instead, it lies in systems of thinking that many of us in the global North have developed over many centuries” that can be instrumentalised and intervened in by international actors. To counteract this deeply colonial understanding of where ‘local’ is, MacGinty (ibid.) suggested that local should be a “de-territorialised, networked and constituted by people and activity rather than place”. This is the understanding of local that my research was grounded in.
Scotland as a world-leader on localisation
In the specific setting of Scotland the Scottish Government has made commitments to “tackling systemic racism and inequality and shifting the power to partner countries”, by introducing eight new principles in their international development methods: “partner-country-led development; equality; amplify global south voice; inclusion and diversity; collaboration and partnership; innovative, adapting and sustainable; embrace technology; and accountable, transparent and safe” (This was explored in SIDA’s report From Talk to Transformation.
The Scottish Government is committed to a feminist approach to international relations, which ensures that their international policy is advancing equality for everyone, especially the most marginalised (Duncanson, Guy and Bastick, 2023). In theory, this places NGOs operating in Scotland in the context of a more radical agenda for implementing localisation, placing it in divergence with the UK Government who have made significant cuts to the overseas development assistance budget in the last decade (https://intdevalliance.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/SIDA-report-From-talk-to-transformation-1.pdf_). Although the Scottish Government have not released a formal strategy on localisation, there is scope to incorporate localisation in their capacity strengthening initiatives stream of development funding. However, in a recent attempt to localise their funding approach, bids were opened to partner countries. While a promising step towards localisation, bidding documents were not amended, and barriers remained in place for partner countries to directly bid for the funding.
How can localisation be implemented?
There were some excellent examples of localisation that were uncovered as part of this research. However, this research has proven, successful examples of localisation are very specifically tailored for the localities they are operating in. The most successful examples of localisation cannot be scaled or rolled out en masse, especially because locally led development does not only require consent, but reciprocal participation of local people, so cannot be imposed. However, there were some very useful examples that can be used in principle, and these will be summarised in terms of small and structural changes.
Small changes
Starting the localisation journey through language sets the precedent that local communities are viewed as equal. Replacing terms such as capacity strengthening and building with capacity bridging or reciprocal learning and terms such as ‘aid beneficiaries’ with programme participants, implies equality of knowledge and power. Analysing mission, motivations and language are an essential first step in the localisation process, as was identified by all organisations interviewed. Making these changes will also inspire an honest reflection of Western employees in these development organisations, such as “what is my place here?” or “what can I bring to the table that someone else cannot?”, because fundamentally expatriate workers will have limited comparative advantages over someone who is local and understands the context in which the development project is operating within. One organisation provided a compelling example of their programme design methods, particularly their empowerment of local people in the design process, showing examples of capacity bridging, co-production, and consultation with local actors, outlining a blueprint for other organisations. By directly reaching out to affected communities, to not only be part of the programme design process, but also direct and implement the project entirely only receiving funding from the INGO. This example provided an insight into truly locally led development, with scope to further localise when the issue of funding can be resolved. While the direct funding element is more of a structural change, the inclusion and consultation of local people in programme design is a realistic first step on the localisation journey.
Structural changes
Although harder to implement, structural and systemic changes to organisations are the only way to truly localise practice and move beyond lip service. Localising programme design can be the first small step towards including local people within development projects, and when the benefits are observed, the next step is switching expatriate workers with local people until they are promoted into leadership roles and recruiting local people onto the Board of Trustees. Recruiting local CEOs and local Trustees were steps being taken by some organisations interviewed, albeit not without challenge, but for them an essential step towards locally led development. Organisations interviewed for this research provided an insight into this process as not only possible, but beneficial for all involved. INGOs moving away from service delivery is another way to support localisation efforts and will lead to an evaluation of the need for country offices. Two organisations interviewed were directly funding local organisations, seeing themselves only as a source of funding. Other organisations had moved away from traditional aid practices, such as providing items, towards providing assessment tools that empower local people to make their own decisions. For example, two organisations had created assessment tools to evaluate healthcare/educational facilities and generate improvement roadmaps that can be implemented by local people and supported by local Government. Finally, and fundamentally, the decision to pursue localisation should not be taken from a place of financial efficiency but from a realisation that power must be redistributed to local communities. To avoid development projects having “specific material effects that are… at odds with the rhetoric” (Crewe and Harrison, 1998, p.189) decolonisation must be a central facet of localisation, otherwise there is a real risk that it will become instrumentalised to maintain the status quo or a parochial implementation of localisation that is only viewed in terms of financial benefits.
Key hurdles
Funding represented the largest hurdle for all localisation efforts. In fact, all organisations interviewed cited funding as an impasse on their localisation journey.
The key issues raised were as follows:
- Funders obliging frequent reports on progress and written record on financial reporting.
- Accessing funding was identified as all organisations as onerous.
- Time limited funding.
- Project proposals being inaccessible to non-English speakers.
- Rigid funding that is pre-agreed before the project begins, with little flexibility when something goes wrong and additional finances are required.
- Local organisations having no financial reserves. INGOs see themselves as the reserve.
- Difficulties with the international banking system not being able to verify local trustees.
- Challenges with funding being sent to conflict affected areas.
Despite organisations citing their enthusiasm for direct funding, they see themselves as an essential part of the loop, without that changing anytime soon due to the barriers funding poses. The current structure of the funding system privileges Western NGOs over local organisations keeps the ‘capacity’ and knowledge hierarchy in place and because funding is made inaccessible without an intermediary, this keeps the development organisations as an unavoidable middleman. Locally led development, therefore, cannot be implemented without reform to the funding system. Direct transfers are seen as the gold standard of locally led development, however, based on the feedback provided by all organisations interviewed, this is unattainable without significant changes to the way funders and donors operate within international development. Intermediary localisation efforts are commendable, nonetheless. It is clear real efforts have been made by all organisations interviewed to reflect on their practices and whether their work is harmful or helpful to the communities they are embedded in. However, funding remains the largest obstacle, and for the reasons outlined above, there requires urgent research on how to resolve this. There is a real risk that enthusiasm for the localisation project will stagnate if hurdles to funding more locally led development are not overcome.
You can access a full bibliography below.