External publications

How to deprioritise? Selecting themes, countries and instruments for German development policy

Hughes, Sam / Heiner Janus / Ian Mitchell / Tim Röthel
External Publications (2025)

London / Bonn: Center for Global Development (CGD) / German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)

BMZ (Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development or Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung) is consulting on how to implement a material reduction in its Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget. In this paper, we review where remaining funds would have the greatest impact, and propose a series of reforms accordingly. We recommend:

Focussed thematic allocation: Germany’s development projects have been substantially diluted over the last decade. We find that BMZ projects have progressively targeted a broader range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The number of projects that target more than four goals, for example has risen almost nine-fold from 72 to over 600 in the last ten years. Evidence suggests that less complex measures would have been more efficient and effective.We suggest focussing on 4–5 SDGs that align with the Government’s priorities and BMZ’s expertise render overall ODA allocation more effective.

Strategic country allocations: BMZ currently funds projects in a 110 of the 141 ODA-eligible countries in total. It seems clear this will need to be reduced. Providing development finance makes the biggest difference to those in greatest need, so we undertake an analysis to ascertain the level of ODA that each of these recipients receives from other countries, expressed in terms of ODA per person in extreme poverty. We identify 31 BMZ partner countries that are under-prioritised—of which 13 are significantly under-prioritised. In contrast, we find 48 countries that are over-prioritised by other providers. We urge BMZ to fully protect budgets in the 31 under-prioritised countries, and concentrate reductions in the 48 over-prioritised. This enhances the impact of BMZ funding overall and enables German funding to represent a larger and more influential share of recipients’ economies.

Sharpening instruments: Over the last five years, funding for the “Multilateral and European development cooperation” federal budget instrument has been cut by 34 percent, while there has been 20 percent cuts in bilateral efforts. Germany is below average in the share of its international finance that is allocated multilaterally. We argue this split should be reversed. First, multilateral organisations are assessed as highly effective by independent assessments, and surveys of the German public also suggest they garner a high level of trust. But there is an additional compelling geopolitical case for allocating funding multilaterally. Following the abrupt withdrawal of the United States from a number of organisations, the international system is more vulnerable than ever. It is difficult envisage a future where Germany is secure and prosperous if the multilateral system fails to endure. We urge the German government to shield its multilateral contributions in from these cuts, refocus earmarked multilateral spend towards core funding, and increase its core multilateral share to at least 40 percent in the next two years. Regarding the remaining bilateral share, we propose that Germany reconsider its current approach to the volume and tendering of technical assistance.