Circular cooperation

An evolution (or revolution) in international development programmes

Jonathan Glennie, October 2022

Why aren’t there more Bangladeshi organisations helping Germany with its flood defences? Or Colombian organisations advising Norwegians on mental health? Or South Africans sharing insights in North America on women’s rights?

Anyone from the Global North who has travelled in the Global South knows how much they have learnt from different ways of approaching challenges, of working together, of being. They often have utterly life-changing experiences. And yet much of the “international cooperation” ecosystem is still stuck in its conservative out-of-date 19th century approach which theorises supposedly “developed” countries to be the repository of knowledge and know-how, to be shared with “developing” countries.  

Yes, of course there is more money in some countries than others, and that has implications for global financial responsibility including redistribution and reparation. But it is false to imply that countries in the Global North cannot benefit from cooperation with poorer countries and learn from solutions piloted elsewhere in the world, just as it is also false, not to say insulting, to imply that countries in the Global South cannot contribute their expertise to development in other parts of the world, including much wealthier countries. 

Given that many readers will agree with this introduction, it is striking that there is still no working model to put these insights into practice. That’s where “circular cooperation” comes in.  

Spatial analogies 

There is a long history of criticising international development projects for their “vertical” nature, whereby so-called “donors” offer support (usually very much on their own terms) to recipients. This has led to the search for tweaks that ensure actors in lower income settings have power and dignity, and a sustainable pathway that does not end when funding stops. The Paris Agenda for Aid Effectiveness and its subsequent iterations sought to empower recipients of ODA, just as recently revived efforts to localise aid are trying to do. 

South-South Cooperation (SSC) is presented as an alternative, emphasising “horizontal” cooperation between peers. This is sometimes a fair description of development relationships between middle-income countries, when they are of a similar size or income level (and this has particularly been the case in Latin America). But the claim that SSC is horizontal is often misleading. When a powerful country like China, with a GDP per capita of $9,000, engages with a low-income country like Ethiopia, with a GDP per capita of $600, both countries may fit into the sweeping term “Global South”, but collaboration is still likely to be pretty “vertical”. Nevertheless, the growth in SSC in recent decades has both widened the base of countries contributing to international cooperation (and therefore the resources available for development), and because even “vertical” SSC tends to emphasise recipient country control of project selection and management.  

In recent years the concept of “triangular” cooperation has come to the fore, intending to erode the binary donor/recipient relationship typical of traditional ODA and allow communities of different wealth levels to engage in development projects in a new way, building on complementary strengths. Typically, an organization based in a high-income country provides funding, a partner from a middle-income country provides expertise, and development impact is targeted at a country with a lower income. However, even this approach maintains a fundamental aspect of traditional “vertical” cooperation, namely that a poorer country is supported in its development by countries higher up the income scale.  

All three of these models can make a positive difference. But positioning the people of one community or country as “recipients” or “beneficiaries” creates barriers to their power, dignity and sustainable development. Moreover, fragility and vulnerability exist in countries of all wealth levels, and 21st century patterns of education, mobility and technology make it increasingly possible for countries and communities at all income levels to contribute and lead.  

The use of spatial analogies to describe these three existing modes of cooperation – vertical, horizontal and triangular – allows us to propose the next evolution (perhaps revolution) in international cooperation projects. At Global Nation, we call it “circular” cooperation. This approach breaks down the North-South, donor-recipient divides and treats all countries as both contributors and beneficiaries of development cooperation and support.  

 Four modes of international cooperation programming 

Vertical: Wealthier countries contribute (usually Global North; poorer countries benefits (usually Global South. 

Horizontal: Countries of a similar type cooperate, contributing and benefitting in different ways.  

Triangular: Different countries have different roles – e.g. facilitator, financer, connector – but there is still a contributor in the Global North and a beneficiary in the Global South. 

Circular: All types of country (North & South) contribute and benefit, according to different capacities and knowledge.  

A virtuous circle 

A circular cooperation approach affords respect, power and dignity to poorer countries and communities, because it recognises them as globally relevant co-contributors at the international level. In that sense, it is very much in line with the universalist narrative behind the Sustainable Development Goals and the growing network of organisations pushing for Global Public Investment (GPI) principles of all benefit, all contribute, all decide.  

Organisations, governments, communities and experts in the Global South tend to love this narrative, in part because their countries are elevated above the status of recipient and take the mantle of contributor. Too often the psychological aspects of the “development” relationship are overlooked by bean-counter approaches to impact. But with the self-esteem associated with power and dignity, communities are more motivated to contribute and lead, which is itself likely to mean stronger impact even in terms of “hard outcomes” (measured in e.g. lives saved or children educated) – a virtuous circle of leadership, dignity and impact.  

And wealthier countries will benefit as well from this new approach. In most development projects today, too much value is being left on the table by high-income stakeholders who are missing the opportunity to provide benefits to their own communities which also have real, intractable problems to solve. Circular cooperation (like GPI) provides a more compelling and morally valid self-interest rationale for contributions from high-income contributors; continued financing for development may increasingly rely on demonstrating that there are local benefits. 

There is nothing totally new under the sun, and there are examples of attempts to circularise cooperation over the years, some more successful than others. However, there has never been a concerted push, backed by theory and methodology and led by leading actors in the cooperation ecosystem. The time has come to build circular cooperation programmes to complement and eventually replace international development projects still labouring under a donor-recipient mindset.  

Thanks to Hassan Damluji, Adolf Kloke-Lesch and Patricia Alemañy for contributing ideas to this blog, and to colleagues from the Chilean government (among others) at a recent meeting hosted by CEPAL for their positive energy in support of it.