This is not in their best interests. The idea of dependency suggests that the ones at the bottom of the chain are dependent on the big funders. But the reality is often the opposite. DFID, with its inflated budget, has more and more incentives to spend. And it has to do it through low risk means -meaning: organisations they know well. They are not willing to try new actors or to encourage their existing subcontractors to look for new funders or else they would be left with millions (billions?) unspent.

This is of course encouraged by UK based consultancies and think tanks (and others) in the “development sector” who act as the managers of these funds. They work in the same way. Based in the UK or in regional hubs they work with the same organisations time and time again. They prefer the devil known. And want to keep them close and discourage them of seeking alternative funds.

But in the “field” NGOs are also quite happy with the arrangement. Their Aid clients (donors and their intermediaries) are much more profitable than domestic foundations, corporations, charitable individuals or the state. They require a new language and a new kind of ‘value’ if they will be convinced to support them. They prefer, instead, to work with the funders they know well and who, for the most part, are begging them to take their money.

Donors need to start building ‘exit strategies’ into their programmes. Real ones, in which they lock themselves out of long term funding unless real efforts are made to leverage domestic funds.

Here are some ideas for research funders: http://onthinktanks.org/2015/02/23/domestic-think-tank-funding-what-can-foreign-donors-do/