UK Deputy PM Calls for Fairer Global Development Partnerships at Global Partnerships Conference 2026

In a speech published by the UK Government after the Global Partnerships Conference 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister argued that the 1997-style model of international development has run out of road. The criticism was sharp: for too long, richer countries and big institutions have behaved as though they set the agenda, while countries in the Global South - a broad term often used for lower and middle-income countries with less power in global institutions - are expected to fit around it. In a world shaped by war, debt, climate shocks and public health crises, that approach now looks dated as well as unfair. You do not need to work in foreign policy to see why this matters. The speech linked global instability to life in the UK, from the long after-effects of Covid-19 to floods and extreme weather that damage homes and towns, and from supply shocks to pressure on household budgets. The point was simple: what happens abroad does not stay abroad, so development policy is not a distant moral extra. It is part of how governments try to make daily life more secure.

From there, the speech moved to its big idea: 'shifting power'. In plain English, that means moving away from a donor-knows-best style of aid and towards arrangements where countries and communities decide more for themselves. The argument is not only about fairness, though fairness matters. It is also about results. When the people most affected help shape the answer, plans are more likely to make sense on the ground and more likely to last. **What this means:** fewer ready-made fixes flown in from outside, and more money, authority and trust placed with people who will live with the outcome. For younger readers, this is one of the biggest debates in development today. Who gets to decide where funding goes? Who writes the rules? Who is asked last, even when the issue affects them first? The speech says those habits need to change.

The first practical change set out in the speech was support for country-led development. That can sound technical, but the meaning is straightforward. If a government or community has its own plan for growth, health, education, energy or climate resilience, outside partners should line up behind that plan rather than impose a different one. The speech backed country platforms where countries choose them, so that finance and support match national priorities instead of donor fashions. The language used was co-create, co-design and co-decide, and that matters. It suggests a move from consultation as a courtesy to shared decision-making as standard practice. The UK also endorsed a wider call for more locally led development. **What this means:** success should be judged less by how neatly a donor project is packaged, and more by whether people in the country concerned can shape it, run it and keep it going.

The second change was broader: a whole-of-society approach. The speech argued that governments cannot do this work alone. Private investors, charities, campaign groups, local organisations and people who are often pushed to the edge of decision-making all need a place in the room. That is especially important in places where formal politics does not capture everybody's needs, or where the people most affected by policy are the least likely to be heard. The speech also repeated the Government's support for a feminist approach to foreign and development policy. In practice, that means women and girls are not treated as a side issue, and women's rights groups are seen as political actors in their own right, not just delivery partners. The Deputy Prime Minister praised the work of Yvette Cooper and Baroness Chapman in keeping this agenda prominent. For readers, the useful test is this: are women, girls and marginalised groups helping to make decisions, or are they only being spoken about after the decisions are made?

The third strand was about money, sovereignty and resilience. The speech said countries need more room to raise their own revenues, spend well, borrow responsibly and cope with shocks without being knocked off course. That is the less glamorous side of development policy, but it often decides whether a country can fund schools, health services, clean energy and disaster response without becoming trapped by debt or dependence. Here the speech was unusually blunt about illicit finance and corruption. It cited estimates that illegal financial flows amount to between 800 billion and 2 trillion US dollars a year, or roughly 2 to 5 per cent of global GDP. That is money not reaching public services, and the speech pointed to London as one of the places where stolen wealth can end up in property and prestige. At the same time, it argued that the City of London could do more positive work by helping channel private investment into development and green finance, if practical barriers are removed. **What this means:** closing the door to dirty money and opening the door to useful investment are part of the same political choice.

The speech then turned from national plans to the international system itself. If you have ever wondered why many countries distrust global financial institutions, this is a good place to start: power inside them is still uneven. The Deputy Prime Minister argued that countries in the Global South need real influence, not symbolic invitations, in the places where decisions on debt, lending and development rules are made. Some of the terms here sound technical, but the question beneath them is simple: who gets a say? The speech backed a new Borrowers' Platform to give debtor countries a stronger voice in debt talks, the current World Bank Shareholding Review, and changes to the UN Security Council so the African continent, India, Germany, Brazil and Japan would have permanent representation. It also said the OECD's Development Assistance Committee must keep pace with how development finance is changing. **What this means:** if the rules are mostly written by lenders and the richest states, trust will keep draining away.

Another message in the speech was that institutions need to work together far more reliably than they do now. Development banks, climate funds and international agencies often move at different speeds, use different tests and ask countries to deal with several systems at once. The speech said that should not be normal. Co-operation should be built in, not patched together when a crisis forces it. Climate sat all through this argument. The Deputy Prime Minister said there is no development without climate action and no climate action without development, because the same communities are dealing with both. When a storm wipes out roads, crops or homes, that is a climate story and a development story together. The speech backed faster and fairer climate and nature finance, especially for poorer and more vulnerable countries, and said money must reach local communities rather than stall in distant institutions. It also backed the long-running call from Least Developed Countries for more funding and decision-making power to go to locally led climate action.

Taken together, the speech was trying to do two things at once. It was making a moral case against old hierarchies in international development, and a practical case that old hierarchies simply do not work very well any more. In that sense, 'shifting power' is not a slogan about being nicer. It is a test of who decides, who benefits, who carries the risk and who gets listened to before money moves. For us as readers, the most useful way to judge speeches like this is to look past the conference language. Do local groups gain real control over funding? Do debtor countries get a stronger say in debt talks? Is climate finance quicker to reach frontline communities? Does London become less friendly to stolen wealth? If those answers start to change, then partnership will mean something more than a well-turned phrase. If they do not, the old model will still be with us, just dressed in newer words.