As global aid budgets shrink and new coalitions emerge, Rachel Glennerster joins Dan Banik to unpack what these shifts mean for the future of development. Together they explore how evidence, prioritization, and South–South Cooperation can drive genuine progress in an increasingly multipolar world.
In this episode of In Pursuit of Development, Dan Banik sits down with Rachel Glennerster, President of the Center for Global Development (CGD), to discuss how the global development landscape is being reshaped by shifting politics, tighter budgets, and new sources of innovation and influence. From Washington to New Delhi, the narrative of development is evolving—no longer centered solely on aid, but on how countries and coalitions define and deliver progress on their own terms.
Rachel shares insights from her time in government, academia, and policy research, reflecting on how development agencies can make tough choices, simplify their missions, and stay focused on impact when resources are scarce. She and Dan delve into the future of the World Bank, IMF, and USAID, the need for smarter prioritization among donors, and the vital importance of protecting evidence-based interventions that save lives and expand opportunity.
The conversation also moves beyond institutions to the tools and partnerships shaping tomorrow’s development practice—from artificial intelligence and climate innovation to South–South Cooperation, where countries like India, China and Kenya are sharing solutions across continents.Â
Rachel Glennerster on X and Linkedin
Dan Banik:
Rachel, it’s lovely to see you in person. You were on the show two years ago—over Zoom—so this is much more fun. Welcome to Oslo. We’ve even got the sun out for you. I want to start with how you see development right now. What’s going on inside the Beltway? How is development being discussed in DC?
Rachel Glennerster:
I’d actually start by asking how you see development. DC is only a small part of the picture, and we shouldn’t get too distracted by U.S. politics. I’ve just come back from India. Despite U.S. tariffs and uncertainty around USAID, India is driving its own development. Outside actors matter, but far less than it sometimes feels from within the Beltway. That said, it’s been a traumatic few months for people who care about development, aid, and evidence—there’s been a populist backlash against experts, and many colleagues have lost jobs. Another big part of “development inside the Beltway” is the IMF and the World Bank, and there I’m more optimistic than I expected to be a few months ago.
Dan Banik:
That’s good to hear. I was going to ask: how are the World Bank and IMF seeing all this? Are they more shielded from daily U.S. drama?
Rachel Glennerster:
They’re doing better with the Trump administration than many feared. There was an anxious period during the policy review, with proposals suggesting withdrawal from the IMF and World Bank. It was tense, but the budget the administration put forward included substantial funds for IDA—the World Bank’s concessional arm—and no withdrawal. I think they recognized the U.S. gets a good deal and influence through these institutions. Pulling out would have been self-defeating.
Dan Banik:
I was reading a blog by our friend Charles Kenny noting that no one really knows what’s going on—USAID is dismantled, funds are still flowing, but to where? Congress isn’t very active, so there’s uncertainty. What shocked me in March was the administration pulling out of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. It seems the UN is being targeted. Today—9 September—as the UN General Assembly begins, Adam Tooze argues in Foreign Policy that we’re seeing the end of the Western idea of development, with the administration casting the SDGs as aligned with Chinese ideology. He says we need something new. Yet in India, China, and South Africa, I don’t see disillusionment—more dissatisfaction with the current order and a desire for greater influence. I see optimism and opportunities. This feels like a start, not a collapse.
Rachel Glennerster:
Absolutely—not the end of development. Most development happens because of policies and people in low- and middle-income countries. Rich countries’ policies on aid, trade, and migration matter, and at the Center for Global Development we try to improve those. Trade and innovation drive growth, and that won’t end because the U.S. pulled out of the SDGs. Could things be done better? Absolutely.
Dan Banik:
Still, the U.S. is a big player and contributes a lot. If it steps back, someone has to fill the gap—Tooze mentions Norway, Qatar, or the EU. Who steps up?
Rachel Glennerster:
Some countries and sectors will be hit very hard. I was looking at data: some countries are losing 6–7% of GNI in aid annually—that’s huge.
Dan Banik:
One of my favorites, Malawi, is highly aid-dependent. There was doom and gloom earlier this year. I told colleagues: maybe it’s time to explore other avenues. I worry that if the U.S. abandons the SDGs, others may lose enthusiasm. But perhaps the Global South will step up—South–South cooperation is booming. The U.S. may come to miss the soft power that came with aid that genuinely saved lives.
Rachel Glennerster:
There will be lives lost from a shutdown of USAID—an absolute tragedy. Some countries, like South Africa and perhaps Kenya, may be able to take on more HIV treatment work. But shutting programs overnight is not how things should happen, and many places don’t have the capacity. I don’t see the UAE or the Gates Foundation filling all the gaps. The most optimistic path is more through multilateral development banks—countries borrowing to fund parts of the health architecture the U.S. supported. There was reluctance to borrow for health, but that may be how some gaps are filled.
Dan Banik:
Perhaps this forces national leaders—who relied on aid for health and education—to prioritize these sectors with domestic resources rather than fund vanity projects. A reawakening, perhaps?
Rachel Glennerster:
Education was already largely domestically funded in many places; health may be badly hit, and refugees/IDPs even more so. If there’s an upside, I hope it forces donors to prioritize too. Some UN and multilateral agencies face big cuts; this could be a chance to consolidate and protect the most cost-effective work. I’ve just come from an OECD-DAC meeting urging “strategic cuts” rather than salami-slicing.
Dan Banik:
Agreed—it’s not just national leaders. Donors must justify spending to their taxpayers. Perhaps we’ve neglected the politics of development. Since 2015—Addis, Paris, the SDGs—there’s been a positive narrative that can make development seem apolitical, when it’s always about power and interests. We also need more emphasis on effectiveness and evidence. There was momentum on evidence before—Samantha Power, Dean Karlan, others. Do aid agencies now need a new conversation on effectiveness and priorities?
Rachel Glennerster:
Yes. We’ve lost public support compared to the 1990s/early 2000s. One reason: as experts, we sometimes pushed regular people away—saying it’s too complex, “trust us.” Simpler narratives and results helped politicians make the case—numbers like “children in school” or “lives saved.” Experts disliked those targets as simplistic, but incoming ministers wanted clear, simple metrics. We stopped giving them the simple story.
Dan Banik:
Did the Daily Mail effect contribute—sensational negative coverage pushing experts to over-nuance?
Rachel Glennerster:
The tabloid attacks mattered; there’s evidence populist messages reduce support for aid. But that’s not the main reason professionals avoided simple messages. Poverty is multidimensional and political—true—but we can’t afford to alienate people who care. We became unwelcoming to non-professionals. We should use evidence to craft simple, accurate stories. That also means simplifying what we do—specializing rather than running thousands of small projects with 12 components. It’s better for effectiveness and communication.
Dan Banik:
Development has become complex—everything connected to everything. Yet audiences value clear conversation. As academics, we can’t expect busy policymakers to read our papers beyond the abstract. Podcasts, brief ministerial briefings, and accessible summaries matter. Not everyone is comfortable with that.
Rachel Glennerster:
I believe in comparative advantage. Some of us act as interpreters—moving between academia and policy to synthesize evidence into practical recommendations a minister can use. That’s been my role across academia, government, and now CGD.
Dan Banik:
Which you’ve done very well—FCDO chief economist, academia, now CGD. In Norway we’ve just had elections; development barely featured. Many in the aid community are relieved the Progress Party likely won’t cut the 1% GNI target back to 0.7. Communicating with the public remains a challenge. NORAD funds NGOs for outreach, but NGOs often fear the “Daily Mail” effect and avoid discussing failures. We should communicate both successes and failures to be credible.
Rachel Glennerster:
It’s hard. The UK had the “Ethiopian Spice Girls” episode—portrayed as frivolous funding, when it was an effective media campaign on girls’ reproductive health. That chilled media-based interventions despite strong cost-effectiveness. Still, evidence suggests the more people know about aid—positive or negative—the more supportive they become. Reaching them is the challenge; those who watch main news programs tend to support aid, but many don’t, so social media strategy is essential and difficult.
Dan Banik:
Another critique from outside Europe and the U.S. is double standards: the North focuses on higher-order issues while many countries still prioritize poverty reduction, and the North lectures on climate after causing most pollution.
Rachel Glennerster:
We should not lecture low-income countries on fossil fuel use. Blanket rules like “no development aid for fossil fuels” are easy to announce yet largely irrelevant for global carbon. Middle-income countries—India, Pakistan, China—are crucial for emissions trajectories. Lecturing won’t work; innovation that addresses their own priorities (e.g., reducing deadly air pollution) can. We need a different narrative for climate in these countries.
Dan Banik:
Back to the UK: with big cuts, I read they’ll prioritize humanitarian support—Ukraine, possibly Gaza and Sudan. What’s the debate?
Rachel Glennerster:
It’s another round of substantial cuts. They’re asking where the UK is most effective. I hope they simplify: fewer countries, clearer priorities. They’ll likely channel more through multilaterals for leverage—£1 into IDA can mobilize about £3 in highly concessional loans. Bilaterally, my understanding is they’ll focus on a few sectors—certainly humanitarian and health. Multilaterals facing U.S.-related cuts need the same discipline. At CGD we’re running “Tough Times, Tough Choices” to help donors protect the most valuable work—WHO, Gavi, Global Fund—when forced to cut.
Dan Banik:
There’s growing recognition that aid is a tiny piece of the development story; we’ve sometimes overstated it. Aid is vital for smaller, fragile states and for generating evidence. Some agencies excel at evaluation; DFID stands out. Is the UK still strong on evidence?
Rachel Glennerster:
DFID—and now FCDO—has been strong on two things: knowing the global evidence and allocating to cost-effective uses, and funding new evidence as a global public good. Most development spending comes from developing-country governments and households. Aid can fund the research that helps them spend better. For example, Australia funded work with Indonesia that improved social protection targeting—one intervention raised the share of subsidized rice reaching recipients by 26%. In education, DFID-funded RCTs on structured pedagogy in Kenya helped inform scale-up in Côte d’Ivoire via World Bank financing. And beyond RCTs: malaria vaccines, climate-resilient crops—R&D broadly defined.
Dan Banik:
Colleagues also argue for funding national statistics offices—unsexy but essential. On innovation: the new UNDP HDR focuses on AI. If AI can sift vast data, target need, and support RCTs, it seems powerful for human development.
Rachel Glennerster:
There’s real potential—and risks of countries being left behind—so we should define “AI for development” and invest in the most promising areas. Examples: better weather forecasting—previous research shows farmers adapt and raise yields when forecasts improve; AI is already boosting accuracy. In education, AI can deliver proven interventions more cheaply (adaptive practice, parent prompts). In health, AI for drug discovery/repurposing (think AlphaFold) could lower costs and expand treatments. These range from very frontline to deep R&D.
Dan Banik:
A common thread is access to information—assuming electricity access improves. I saw a report today that African imports of Chinese solar panels are rising. With power—say a mini-grid—farmers can receive localized weather info; schools can access open resources; libraries can reach journals.
Rachel Glennerster:
On energy: some AI-enabled benefits don’t require households to have electricity—the computation happens elsewhere. Weather alerts can be SMS-based; charging a phone doesn’t require a grid. The bigger energy priority, I think, is reliable power for firms—to cut generator costs, attract investment, expand jobs, and raise incomes so households can afford appliances. Evidence supports that: places in Brazil suited to hydro grew faster, underscoring reliable power’s role in development.
On information: impact comes from delivering the right bite-sized information to the right person—e.g., a specific text prompt a parent can discuss with a child, or a precise local forecast (“the monsoon reaches your district next week”), not generic MOOCs.
Dan Banik:
Kenya has long used SMS for clinic appointments—simple but effective.
Rachel Glennerster:
Exactly. SMS has been effective for appointments. AI adds value upstream—improving forecast resolution so that the message is more accurate for that farmer.
Dan Banik:
Looking ahead—2025 has been quite a year. As leaders gather in New York, I hope countries still invested in global development find new coalitions, including with new actors—Japan, the UAE—and bolster South–South cooperation.
Rachel Glennerster:
I see a world of shifting, issue-specific coalitions. The U.S. may re-engage, but the global landscape is changing. On South–South cooperation, I’m involved in an effort bringing India-developed teaching innovations to Africa. We helped seed Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) Africa, closely partnered with the Indian NGO that created the model. Now we, as northerners, are stepping back as the African organization adapts and improves the approach. It’s not the Indian NGO setting up shop in Africa; it’s an African organization drawing on Indian expertise, then feeding innovations back to India. Work in Zambia looks different from Côte d’Ivoire or Kenya, but the cross-learning is inspiring—and I hope it’s the future.
Dan Banik:
On that optimistic note, Rachel, thank you for coming to my home today and for a really engaging conversation.
Rachel Glennerster:
Great to be here—always a pleasure.
Â