This new op-ed by researchers from Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and SCORE highlights how increasing bureaucratic demands are stifling diversity and innovation.
Photo: Wesley Tingey/Unsplash
Originally published in GlobalBar Magazine on January 16, 2025, a recent debate article by researchers from Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and SCORE highlights how increasing bureaucratic demands are stifling diversity and innovation. The article was written by Susanna Alexius (SCORE), Janet Vähämäki, Annika Hilgert, Alice Tunfjord, and Theodor Wagner Robinson (all from SEI). It was initially published in Swedish, and this is a short summary in English.
Based on findings from their new report, “Standard Rather than Diversity? Predictability and (Mis)understanding in Swedish Aid Relations,” the authors argue that formalities—such as contracts, budgets, and processes—dominate the relationship between donors and recipients. These bureaucratic requirements are seen as time-consuming, hindering the ability to adapt to the unique characteristics of different organizations, and taking valuable time away from learning and reflecting on project outcomes and results.
While the Swedish government and Agenda 2030 emphasize the importance of multi-actor partnerships in tackling global challenges, the reality shows a lack of trust in organizational diversity. Instead of tailoring aid processes to different types of organizations, standardized models dominate, making it difficult for recipients to adapt programs to their specific needs.
A key finding in the research is what the authors call the “trust paradox”—where New Public Management like controls systems (often seen as something hindering trust) in fact are seen to increase trust between donors and recipients. Tools like Logical Framework and Theory of Change are often seen as mandatory in aid assessments, and while leading to greater uniformity in how aid is managed, limiting flexibility and innovation that they also create predictability and a sense of reliability.
The research shows that while donors wish they had more time to understand local contexts, recipients feel constrained by rigid requirements. In civil society organizations, recent policy reforms have further increased bureaucratic burdens.
The authors warn that the trend toward uniformity, or isomorphism, could have serious consequences and urge donors to better understand the unique conditions of different aid actors and foster more flexible, collaborative funding mechanisms.