Work With Us
Development programming is under increasing pressure to demonstrate utility not just in recipient countries, but in terms that resonate with donor-country political realities. The liberal logic that once underpinned global development strategies, focused on poverty reduction, inclusion, and governance reform, is no longer sufficient to justify large-scale investment in unstable regions. The assumptions that made it workable have eroded.
In this emerging era, where no single actor guarantees global security or rules-based coordination, development must become more sharply attuned to transnational threats, and more explicit about how it mitigates them. This does not require abandoning social outcomes, but reframing their purpose: as mechanisms for managing spillover risks to the donor state.
A new approach is needed, one that integrates threat assessments as the starting point for programme logic. These are not technical annexes, but core framing devices that help donors explain why this intervention, in this place, at this time serves their strategic interest.
To reorient effectively, donors should:
· Conduct high-level, forward-looking threat assessments to identify global risk vectors that matter most to their domestic constituencies.
· Design programmes that explicitly link interventions to the mitigation of those threats, not just local development needs.
· Develop politically defensible Theories of Change grounded in national interest, not abstract normative goals.
· Reorganise portfolios around strategic exposure, not legacy geographies or thematic silos.
· Invest in foresight and scenario analysis capacity, enabling flexible, adaptive responses to future volatility.
The departure of the United States from its informal role as global guarantor of order has created a strategic vacuum. What emerges is not a symmetrical multipolar world, but a
system marked by fragmented authority and functional non-polarity. No state or coalition can credibly enforce cross-border rules on conflict, climate, health, or finance at scale.
As a result, development actors are no longer implementing within a coordinated international architecture. They are operating amid a set of overlapping and often contradictory risk environments, where action is no longer justified on the basis of consensus, but increasingly on the basis of domestic political defensibility.
Under these conditions, the primary purpose of a development theory of change is to be defensible. The prioritisation is clear:
1. Political defensibility: the intervention must be intelligible to domestic political actors as serving the national interest.
2. Strategic realism: it must correspond to actual vectors of risk and influence.
3. Analytical coherence: it should make technical sense, but this alone will not sustain a mandate.
The political environment does not reward abstract coherence. Governments with strong parliamentary majorities, or polarised political economies, are often able to move without requiring technocratic legitimacy. What they need is narrative justification, and that is where threat-informed framing becomes essential.
This shift can be illustrated through the evolution of how threats are framed within programming logic. Previously, threats, if they appeared at all, were implicit background conditions: conflict, state weakness, inequality. The programming response was to treat these as objects of reform. The logic assumed that improving governance, reducing poverty, or strengthening civil society would generate endogenous resilience.
But that framework presumes a development ecosystem aligned around common goals. That no longer exists.
Now, threats must be treated as programmatic entry points. They are not passive conditions; they are dynamic risk factors that can affect donor states via channels such as:
· Mass displacement resulting from climate, conflict, or economic collapse, leading to unmanaged migration pressures;
· Digital criminal economies that undermine Western financial and regulatory systems via offshore jurisdictions and cyber-enabled networks;
· Food insecurity and supply chain disruption with global inflationary impacts;
· Strategic resource access (e.g. energy, critical minerals) vulnerable to illicit extraction and geopolitical contestation.
1. Climate-Linked Displacement and Mediterranean Migration
In North Africa, water insecurity, declining agricultural viability, and weak political institutions combine to drive internal displacement. When overlaid with limited economic pathways and entrenched smuggling economies, these drivers create significant outbound migration pressure, particularly toward southern Europe. Traditional development programming in the region has focused on job creation or civil society strengthening. A threat-informed logic, by contrast, would foreground the mitigation of mass displacement risk, identifying which combinations of resilience, infrastructure, and political bargaining are most likely to stabilise population movement in the near-to-medium term.
2. Cyber-Criminal Economies and Illicit Financial Spillover
In some post-conflict and partially governed spaces, the lack of oversight over digital infrastructure has enabled the growth of transnational cybercrime. This includes phishing operations, crypto-based money laundering, and financial fraud, often targeting Western institutions or consumers. These threats are not contained within borders. A traditional governance programme might focus on judicial reform or digital literacy. A threat-informed approach would start by assessing which criminal pathways most directly threaten donor-country interests, and then design regulatory, technological, and enforcement interventions accordingly, possibly in partnership with financial intelligence agencies.
| Element | Traditional ToC | Threat-Informed ToC |
|---|---|---|
|
Starting Assumption |
Development is an intrinsic good |
Development must mitigate external threat |
|
Causal Focus |
Local change leads to systemic progress |
Local intervention interrupts threat vector |
|
Donor Interest |
Implicit or normative |
Explicit and politically defensible |
|
Justification Logic |
Based on need or rights |
Based on exposure and risk mitigation |
|
Accountability Metric |
Progress toward social goal |
Reduction of threat magnitude or probability |
|
Use of Threat Assessment |
Rare or reactive |
Primary framing input |
This reorientation has strategic implications beyond individual programmes. Entire portfolios may require restructuring around threat archetypes rather than thematic or regional legacies. This could include:
· Shifting resources toward zones of strategic contagion rather than traditional “fragile state” models.
· Prioritising adaptive and anticipatory programming tied to early warning and scenario testing.
· Creating flexible pipelines that allow donor agencies to respond rapidly when threat thresholds are breached.
It also suggests a different form of internal collaboration, with risk analysts, foreign policy teams, intelligence agencies, and national security planners engaged earlier in the development design cycle.
Development is not abandoning its mission, but its foundations must change. The field can no longer rely on post-Cold War assumptions about global consensus or shared values. In their place, we need a logic of intervention that can withstand the pressures of a fragmented world.
Threat-informed programming offers a framework for survival: it allows development actors to reassert strategic relevance, respond to political scrutiny, and deliver outcomes that matter both locally and globally.
In Closing: Five Actions for Donors
To build politically durable development strategies in this new environment, donors must:
· Institutionalise threat assessments as a core programming tool, not a post-hoc risk register.
· Map exposure: understand how instability in partner states directly or indirectly affects the donor.
· Reframe accountability around risk reduction, not just service delivery.
· Align with national strategic planning, not just global development goals.
· Equip staff with futures and foresight skills to anticipate emerging vectors before they crystallise.
Work With Us
