In 2026, the Brave New World is here for international development assistance, and it is a bleak one. In a world beset by crises, ODA (Official Development Assistance) contributions are in free fall in OECD countries, decreasing by 23.1 per cent in 2025, with the grant portion of ODA driving the decrease, down 29.1 per cent.
Of course, the US resource drawdown drove much of this, including its aid to Ukraine. It is also notable that this is not a historically low level, because with these decreases, we are now back around the level of aid flows in 2015.
Still, it is clear that the present moment is not about financial abundance in international development, and this is the case as well in historical recipient regions like in Africa. In line with other regions, ODA to Sub-Saharan Africa declined by 26.3 per cent, more than the overall decrease.
As in the global economy more broadly, the era of ‘cheap money’ in development assistance is over. Current ODA is not only decreasing, but an increasing share of the remaining funding is being directed towards at least partially reimbursable concessional loans rather than outright grants.
The reality is that the rethinking of international commitments has arrived not because emerging regions reached ideal development thresholds, but because opportunities in developed countries have hit a wall. The US is reassessing its commitments, the EU is grappling with an aggressive Russia, and everyone is watching anxiously to see what the situation around the Strait of Hormuz could mean for the global economy.
Concepts of international solidarity and international aid need to reflect this new reality of relative resource scarcity. Decision-makers need to prioritize issues and see how developed countries can still make an impact with more modest resources than before. Along the way, reassessments of development goals on different timetables are overdue as well.
There are various ways to approach these goals. One of the most important imperatives in a time of resource scarcity is for partners to coordinate and target their resources effectively. For Hungary, an important grouping of close partners could be the Visegrád Four, potentially extending cooperation to Austria and Romania as well.
‘One of the most important imperatives in a time of resource scarcity is for partners to coordinate and target their resources effectively’
There are a wide range of experiences among these countries. After entering the OECD Development Assistance Committee, Czechia, Poland, and Slovakia took the route of developing traditional ODA agencies, while Hungary went down the unorthodox route of developing Hungary Helps, an agency tackling the issue of Christian persecution with targeted development aid on Christian communities.
The other V4 countries focused heavily on East Africa and the Post-Soviet sphere, while Hungary Helps developed to be a crisis intervention aid agency with a global reach, as well as focusing more heavily on the Middle East and the western regions of the Sahel.
In this new situation, better cooperation and coordination are overdue. The ‘relaunch’ of the V4 after years of divergent foreign policy paths is at least being discussed, and it is high time this extended to international development as well. Among these, the special experience of Hungary Helps needs to be on the table too, given that it developed unique methods of interacting directly with local communities, and gathered much clout in the aid community since it exists.
Specific patterns of cooperation and information sharing would be, naturally, sorted out by the specific agencies. Among the opportunities, however, of cooperating with each other more strongly is choosing ‘pilot areas’ which could serve as testbeds of cooperation with each other, and models for greater regional cooperation.
The two larger regions, where these areas should be chosen, are the greater Sahel and the greater post-Soviet sphere. In the latter, the unique experiences of Poland with Ukraine, Slovakia and Romania with Moldova, and Hungary with the countries of the Organization of Turkic States can be harnessed for such ends.
For the Sahel, it is important to identify a focal point within the broader region. In this regard, an important partner could be Nigeria. Although Nigeria is not a priority target for international aid due to its relatively large economy, complex internal politics, and the presence of numerous aid agencies, the country still faces substantial development needs.
Nigeria could also serve as a force multiplier. It plays a central role both within the Economic Community of West African States and the wider Sahel region. If European countries approach development assistance as a tool for building soft power, focusing on projects in Nigeria could later facilitate broader cooperation with Abuja on aid and economic initiatives across the region, provided that mutual trust and goodwill are established through cooperation.
One area that could be targeted through such novel forms of Central European development assistance is Nigeria’s Middle Belt. The region consists of multiple hotspots of farmer–herder violence and offers considerable opportunities for international aid and development projects.
Taking Plateau State as an example, a substantial network of aid work and experience has already been established there due to its relatively mild climate and proximity to the capital. Nevertheless, the region continues to face displacement caused by violence, tensions surrounding illegal mining, and a severe need for infrastructure development in one of Nigeria’s most densely populated states.
‘The region continues to face displacement caused by violence, tensions surrounding illegal mining, and a severe need for infrastructure development’
To return to the issue of cooperation: Central European aid agencies already possess experience in the region. Hungary Helps, for example, works closely with local religious communities and enjoys broad name recognition there. This existing network and experience could provide a strong foundation for planning and launching future projects.
Of course, reality is always more complicated: projects are time-sensitive, while organizational and policy priorities must also be balanced. Still, the core idea is not tied to a specific place, region, or aid agency. It could apply to Plateau State, the Sahel more broadly, or even regions in Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan.
Central European aid agencies need to coordinate more closely in this new financial environment. They must develop novel approaches, such as identifying focus areas for ‘pilot projects’, while also considering the kind of regional soft power such initiatives could generate. They should build on the experience of actors already active in these regions. In doing so, they could significantly expand their footprint and, over time, help shape a distinct Central European model of cooperation with emerging economies and societies in need of development assistance.
This article is partly adapted from the Danube Institute paper Hungary Helps: Plateau State and an Opportunity for Other ODA Agencies by the author.
Related articles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
