Global development crisis of agency drives call for grassroots funding

Gordon Whitman’s call to address a global development crisis of agency centres on how people affected by aid and public-policy decisions can gain collective influence over them. In a September 11 commentary for Project Syndicate, Whitman argues that the gap is not merely a shortage of consultation mechanisms, but a lack of durable organisations able to press communities’ interests with governments, donors and international institutions.

The piece is an argument for a different development-funding model, rather than an announcement of a new programme. Whitman proposes long-term backing for grassroots groups that can seek policy change at national and international level, while warning that a global fund designed for that purpose could reproduce the bureaucracy and top-down practices it aims to address.

What does a crisis of agency mean in global development?

Whitman uses the term to describe a situation in which people lack practical routes to influence decisions that affect their lives. His argument is that community participation in a single project or consultation is not enough if residents do not have independent, organised representation that can negotiate priorities over time.

He points to participatory budgeting, complaint channels at international financial institutions and efforts to direct more aid through local organisations as reforms already attempted. Yet Whitman contends that such measures can have limited effect without organised external pressure on large institutions.

Haiti example informs critique of aid decision-making

As an illustration, Whitman recounts a 2023 request by the People’s Ecumenical Organization for the Development of Haiti, Communities of Faith Organizing for Action in El Salvador and Faith in Action International. The groups asked the US Agency for International Development to halt non-emergency work for six weeks and have staff listen to communities about the assistance they wanted.

Whitman writes that the Haitian organisation had sought changes to USAID agricultural programming in its communities. He characterises the agency’s response as a presentation about its country work at the group’s office in Terrier-Rouge, rather than a transfer of authority to programme beneficiaries. The account is presented in the commentary as evidence for his wider critique, not as an independent finding on USAID’s development operations.

A faith-linked model for longer-term support

Whitman highlights the US Catholic Campaign for Human Development as a possible institutional reference point. According to his account, US Catholic bishops established the programme two years after Pope Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio. It raises money through an annual collection and allocates grants under the principle of subsidiarity, which places decisions as close as possible to those affected.

Whitman says eligible groups must pursue changes to policies and systems that sustain poverty. Their governing boards must also be at least half made up of people who are involuntarily low-income. He credits the programme with supporting a broader anti-poverty network and grassroots leadership over more than five decades.

His proposed equivalent, which he calls an International Campaign for Integral Human Development, would draw on that approach while involving other faith traditions and secular funders. The central safeguard, in his view, would be decentralised funding tied to clear rules and meaningful community governance, though he acknowledges that no such mechanism is currently in place.

This story draws on original reporting from Project Syndicate.