Following the third wave of democratization, democracy and its proponents have recently experienced a shift towards autocratization. To date, however, little is known about the impact of this trend on democracy promotion. This article introduces a special issue that examines the complex relationship between autocratization and external democracy promotion. It provides a conceptual framework for understanding how the global trend of autocratization affects democracy promotion efforts. We identify two ways in which this is the case: first, autocratization requires democracy promoters to adapt to increasingly resistant environments in target countries where they seek to promote democracy or prevent autocratization; second, autocratization reduces the global leverage of democracy promoters due to the rise of autocratic competitors. We highlight the evolving strategies and responses of democracy promoters in the face of rising autocratic influence. We then provide an overview of the articles in this special issue, which examine the motives and strategies of traditional democracy promoters and their autocratic competitors and analyse how democracy promoters navigate the challenges of autocratization in target countries of democracy promotion and the strategic competition with autocratic regimes, using case studies from Southeastern Europe, the post-Soviet space, Africa and Latin America.
Der Begriff „Globaler Süden“ erfreut sich seit Jahren wachsender Beliebtheit. Oft wird er als knappe Referenz für Teile der Welt verwendet, die lange als „Entwicklungsländer“ oder „Dritte Welt“ bezeichnet wurden. Für viele bringt er die gemeinsame historische Erfahrung von Kolonialisierung und Marginalisierung in Afrika, Asien und Lateinamerika auf den Punkt und verweist auf den Anspruch, globale Prozesse proaktiv mitzugestalten.
Der Begriff „Globaler Süden“ erfreut sich seit Jahren wachsender Beliebtheit. Oft wird er als knappe Referenz für Teile der Welt verwendet, die lange als „Entwicklungsländer“ oder „Dritte Welt“ bezeichnet wurden. Für viele bringt er die gemeinsame historische Erfahrung von Kolonialisierung und Marginalisierung in Afrika, Asien und Lateinamerika auf den Punkt und verweist auf den Anspruch, globale Prozesse proaktiv mitzugestalten.
The United Nations is a multilateral organization with near-universal reach. With few exceptions, United Nations rules and regulations apply to all 193 Member States. The operational activities for development of the United Nations system, however, are organized along a binary logic by which “developed” countries provide funding to United Nations entities and “developing” countries receive United Nations support. Against the backdrop of ongoing discussions under the United Nations Secretary-General’s UN80 initiative, we suggest that the United Nations reform its development work to ensure that it engages all Member States. Universalizing United Nations development functions – i.e., mandating the Organization’s development pillar to engage with countries of all income categories – is a key step towards a more effective multilateral development system.
The United Nations is a multilateral organization with near-universal reach. With few exceptions, United Nations rules and regulations apply to all 193 Member States. The operational activities for development of the United Nations system, however, are organized along a binary logic by which “developed” countries provide funding to United Nations entities and “developing” countries receive United Nations support. Against the backdrop of ongoing discussions under the United Nations Secretary-General’s UN80 initiative, we suggest that the United Nations reform its development work to ensure that it engages all Member States. Universalizing United Nations development functions – i.e., mandating the Organization’s development pillar to engage with countries of all income categories – is a key step towards a more effective multilateral development system.
This discussion paper advances a new vision for the United Nations (UN)’s development function at a moment when the organisation is facing profound pressures and persistent scepticism about its relevance. Although a consensus exists that reform is overdue, past initiatives have been too incremental, focusing on coordination and efficiency without addressing deeper institutional and political pathologies. The result is a UN development system that has grown financially large but is losing political significance. It is increasingly shaped by donor earmarking, entrenched patronage and a project delivery model that bears little resemblance to how national development actually occurs.
Our vision marks a significant departure from the UN’s historical role as an aid channel predicated on the North-South divide. Instead, the UN’s future relevance lies in leveraging its universal legitimacy, normative authority and convening power.
We argue for a UN development system that:
1. Acts as a trusted knowledge facilitator: providing high-level and technical advice, supporting peer exchange and helping governments navigate complex policy trade-offs in ways that are independent, politically informed and normatively grounded.
2. Engages in public advocacy that matters: elevating norms, correcting misinformation and shaping national debates in line with globally agreed standards, with sensitivity to national contexts.
3. Applies universality in practice: moving beyond the outdated distinction between donor and recipient to engage with all member states – including middle- and high-income countries – through global monitoring and peer accountability.
4. Serves as an actor of last resort in fragile settings: providing operational support only where national governments cannot or will not act, with strict sunset clauses and safeguards against unintentional harm.
This reconceptualisation is not primarily about money. It implies a financially smaller but politically stronger UN development system that is less dependent on donors and more relevant to today’s multipolar world. The real benchmark for success is not the volume of aid provided but the quality of advice, advocacy and resulting cooperation.
Reaching this vision will be difficult. The UN’s development apparatus is shaped by vested interests, path dependency and political inertia. Yet, opportunities for change exist. The collapse of traditional aid financing, the insistence of middle-income countries on equitable partnerships and fatigue with the current project-heavy model all point towards the need for a new approach. The Secretary-General’s UN80 Initiative offers a platform for bold ideas, but only if the debate moves beyond technical fixes and acknowledges the political trade-offs inherent in transformation.
Stephen Browne is a visiting lecturer at universities in the UK, Switzerland and India. He spent more than 30 years in the UN development system and has published many books and articles on the UN and foreign assistance.
Frederik Matthys is Senior Advisor at Tomorrow Is Possible with a focus on sustainable development, international cooperation and multilateral reform.
Detlef Palm worked for UNICEF for 30 years in country offices and at headquarters. He served as the focal point for programme policy, an auditor and a representative.
This discussion paper advances a new vision for the United Nations (UN)’s development function at a moment when the organisation is facing profound pressures and persistent scepticism about its relevance. Although a consensus exists that reform is overdue, past initiatives have been too incremental, focusing on coordination and efficiency without addressing deeper institutional and political pathologies. The result is a UN development system that has grown financially large but is losing political significance. It is increasingly shaped by donor earmarking, entrenched patronage and a project delivery model that bears little resemblance to how national development actually occurs.
Our vision marks a significant departure from the UN’s historical role as an aid channel predicated on the North-South divide. Instead, the UN’s future relevance lies in leveraging its universal legitimacy, normative authority and convening power.
We argue for a UN development system that:
1. Acts as a trusted knowledge facilitator: providing high-level and technical advice, supporting peer exchange and helping governments navigate complex policy trade-offs in ways that are independent, politically informed and normatively grounded.
2. Engages in public advocacy that matters: elevating norms, correcting misinformation and shaping national debates in line with globally agreed standards, with sensitivity to national contexts.
3. Applies universality in practice: moving beyond the outdated distinction between donor and recipient to engage with all member states – including middle- and high-income countries – through global monitoring and peer accountability.
4. Serves as an actor of last resort in fragile settings: providing operational support only where national governments cannot or will not act, with strict sunset clauses and safeguards against unintentional harm.
This reconceptualisation is not primarily about money. It implies a financially smaller but politically stronger UN development system that is less dependent on donors and more relevant to today’s multipolar world. The real benchmark for success is not the volume of aid provided but the quality of advice, advocacy and resulting cooperation.
Reaching this vision will be difficult. The UN’s development apparatus is shaped by vested interests, path dependency and political inertia. Yet, opportunities for change exist. The collapse of traditional aid financing, the insistence of middle-income countries on equitable partnerships and fatigue with the current project-heavy model all point towards the need for a new approach. The Secretary-General’s UN80 Initiative offers a platform for bold ideas, but only if the debate moves beyond technical fixes and acknowledges the political trade-offs inherent in transformation.
Stephen Browne is a visiting lecturer at universities in the UK, Switzerland and India. He spent more than 30 years in the UN development system and has published many books and articles on the UN and foreign assistance.
Frederik Matthys is Senior Advisor at Tomorrow Is Possible with a focus on sustainable development, international cooperation and multilateral reform.
Detlef Palm worked for UNICEF for 30 years in country offices and at headquarters. He served as the focal point for programme policy, an auditor and a representative.
Cuts and reductions in international humanitarian aid, driven by shifting political priorities in major donor countries and an increasing number of displacements, are leaving hundreds of thousands of communities in the Global South at risk. The Somali Regional State in Ethiopia exemplifies the severe impact of these funding cuts, as vulnerable communities are now confronted with shrinking external support for basic needs. In this context, diaspora groups and networks are a key source of support to their communities. Their contributions extend beyond individual remittances, encompassing collective emergency relief, and development support such as education, water and health for displaced and other crisis-affected people. This policy brief elaborates on the role of diaspora networks in leveraging home and host country community networks to fill the gaps in areas where aid and government services fall short. However, despite their impact, diaspora groups face barriers to maximising their potential. Among these are a lack of enabling policy and institutional frameworks, complex state–diaspora relations, and a lack of formal structures among the diaspora networks. All this can limit the scope, effectiveness and capacities of diaspora support to communities back home. As a result, the following policy recommendations for the Ethiopian federal government and the government of the Somali Regional State, along with their development partners, are put forward in this brief to enhance the potential of the Ethiopian-Somali diaspora:
• Create enabling policy and institutional frameworks at regional and local levels that recognise and support the collective engagement of the diaspora with crisis response and recovery of vulnerable communities. This includes one-stop liaison units at the regional and local levels to minimise the bureaucracy and streamline diaspora contributions, incentivising diaspora-funded initiatives and ensuring inclusive consultations with the diaspora to ensure the effectiveness of these institutional and policy frameworks.
• Establish an umbrella association that represents the interests of the diaspora in the Somali Region and provides a range of supportive services to the diaspora that will enhance their engagements in emergency response, recovery and development.
• Facilitate exchange, partnerships and collaborations between diaspora-led and diaspora-supported associations and networks, national and local authorities, and international actors to maximise the reach and effectiveness of diaspora-led initiatives.
• Expand the evidence base on the various forms of collective support of the diaspora networks and associations to better understand the scale, impact and best practices for informing planning and programming to enhance diaspora support.
Abdirahman A Muhumad is associated researcher with IDOS and PhD candidate at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Ruhr University Bochum (RUB). He is also a researcher at the Institute of Migration Studies at Jigjiga University, Ethiopia.
Cuts and reductions in international humanitarian aid, driven by shifting political priorities in major donor countries and an increasing number of displacements, are leaving hundreds of thousands of communities in the Global South at risk. The Somali Regional State in Ethiopia exemplifies the severe impact of these funding cuts, as vulnerable communities are now confronted with shrinking external support for basic needs. In this context, diaspora groups and networks are a key source of support to their communities. Their contributions extend beyond individual remittances, encompassing collective emergency relief, and development support such as education, water and health for displaced and other crisis-affected people. This policy brief elaborates on the role of diaspora networks in leveraging home and host country community networks to fill the gaps in areas where aid and government services fall short. However, despite their impact, diaspora groups face barriers to maximising their potential. Among these are a lack of enabling policy and institutional frameworks, complex state–diaspora relations, and a lack of formal structures among the diaspora networks. All this can limit the scope, effectiveness and capacities of diaspora support to communities back home. As a result, the following policy recommendations for the Ethiopian federal government and the government of the Somali Regional State, along with their development partners, are put forward in this brief to enhance the potential of the Ethiopian-Somali diaspora:
• Create enabling policy and institutional frameworks at regional and local levels that recognise and support the collective engagement of the diaspora with crisis response and recovery of vulnerable communities. This includes one-stop liaison units at the regional and local levels to minimise the bureaucracy and streamline diaspora contributions, incentivising diaspora-funded initiatives and ensuring inclusive consultations with the diaspora to ensure the effectiveness of these institutional and policy frameworks.
• Establish an umbrella association that represents the interests of the diaspora in the Somali Region and provides a range of supportive services to the diaspora that will enhance their engagements in emergency response, recovery and development.
• Facilitate exchange, partnerships and collaborations between diaspora-led and diaspora-supported associations and networks, national and local authorities, and international actors to maximise the reach and effectiveness of diaspora-led initiatives.
• Expand the evidence base on the various forms of collective support of the diaspora networks and associations to better understand the scale, impact and best practices for informing planning and programming to enhance diaspora support.
Abdirahman A Muhumad is associated researcher with IDOS and PhD candidate at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Ruhr University Bochum (RUB). He is also a researcher at the Institute of Migration Studies at Jigjiga University, Ethiopia.