PRB

This blog is the first in our series on centering youth in local development. Read the introduction to the series here, and stay tuned for more content.

In my 30 years working in the international development sector, I have seen a lot of trends and keywords—like decentralization and capacity building—rise and fall and rise again, shaping changing approaches development aid for decades. In vogue today are localization, power shifting, and decolonization. The way these terms are used—or misused—and their broad, imprecise definitions can distract from their meaning for the populations they are intended for.

What real change do these concepts bring to the people directly affected by them, where development aid should support countries’ economic growth and social progress?

The trends illustrate a continual commitment to shifting toward more inclusive, sustainable, and equitable interventions, with each era bringing its own set of buzz words that reflect contemporary aspirations and challenges in international aid.

But what meaning do these terms, often defined outside of the African continent, actually hold for the populations they are intended for?

Rather than exploring nuances or potential misuse of terms used to describe development aid concepts, my focus in this blog is on my own sphere of influence and work—support of evidence-based public policymaking. Localization and powershifting are central concepts to this work. They aim to enhance actions, decisions, and practices that guide development aid toward the public interest, which in fact means to improve policies for the common good.

Across Africa, localization and power shifting in the development aid sector are closely tied to citizen participation.

These concepts aim to both shift power dynamics between international and local actors and to reinforce citizens’ engagement in the development of their own countries. What do those of us in the aid sector mean when we use these terms?

Localization seeks to strengthen local autonomy and decision-making by transferring the management of development programs to local actors, including national NGOs, local governments, and communities, to ensure that decisions, priorities, and methods are better aligned with local realities, leading to more sustainable impact.

Power-shifting redistributes authority from international actors to local actors, reducing dependence on decisions made outside the country and contributing to a more inclusive and democratic approach to development governance.

When local actors identify priorities—as well as value and own the change process—they are much more likely to succeed in achieving and sustaining positive change over time, and resources are used more efficiently. Greater citizen participation allows people not only to set their own priorities and participate in project planning but also to play an active role in monitoring budgetary resource management.

By emphasizing local participation—referred to as citizen participation in policy change language—development aid initiatives recognize citizens as rights holders, bolstering their autonomy and resilience in the face of international aid. Power shifting also fosters transparency and accountability by encouraging local leaders to answer to the citizens they represent and, in doing so, supporting a more participatory and equitable governance model.

When citizens are acknowledged as the true agents of change, they become not just beneficiaries but essential drivers of their country’s development.

But the discourse around localization and power shifting rarely uses the term citizen, instead favoring local actors, community members, or communities. And that is problematic.

These terms encompass diverse groups and individuals without necessarily addressing their capacity to autonomously engage in decision-making processes. Thought leaders underscore how important it is to include the voices of “local actors” in decision-making, advocating for individuals’ recognition as key change agents. Social accountability’s transformative approach strengthens the role of citizens in governance and development to ensure resources are used effectively, equitably, and transparently, fostering trust and collaboration among all stakeholders. Yet even among the most inclusive development and humanitarian aid approaches that emphasize the role of “local actors,” the term citizen is hardly used.

Intentionally or not, the predominant use of the term community can minimize the role of citizens as political actors with specific rights and responsibilities. Community refers to a group of people sharing common characteristics and is often used to describe target groups for programs or interventions.

In contrast, the term citizen designates an individual recognized as a member of a state, with political rights and duties, including the right to participate actively in democratic and decision-making processes. So, if we truly want to contribute to a process of localization and power shifting that leads to sustainable policy changes supporting our partner countries’ development objectives, should we not address citizens directly?