Is Localisation Just Another Form of Tokenism?

By Cara-Marie Findlay, Principal

Is Localisation Just Another Form of Tokenism?

Localisation seems to be one of the latest buzzwords in the field of Development. And as is the case with many other terms—for example, “participatory”, and even “Development” itself—there is no standard definition.

In order to properly define the ideal of localisation, one should consider when and how localisation made it to the international Development agenda.

USAID Administrator, Samantha Power, was sworn into office as the 19th Administrator of USAID on May 3, 2021. On 4th of November 2021, Administrator Power gave a speech at George Town University, in which she said:

“…if we truly want to make aid inclusive, local voices need to be at the center of everything we do.”

However, Administrator Power’s comment is not the first time, a prominent figure in the field has spoken on this need.

At the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that Development, and humanitarian action on a whole should be:

“as local as possible, [and] as international as necessary.”

Ideally, the localisation of Development would look like a shift in funding, power, and responsibilities of Development efforts towards more “grassroots” and other community-based organisations (CBOs). Thus, community members would be the decision-makers of the programs and services that support the needs they have identified; and they would be consulted at every stage of the project, from design through implementation.

Unfortunately, simply talking about the need for localisation is not enough to make it a reality.

Numerous practitioners in the Global South have spoken about the need for more equitable treatment within the Development and aid industries for years (the decolonisation of Development), before localisation ever made it to international agendas.

But when does the “good idea” of localisation become just another form of tokenism (a symbolic gesture meant more to deflect criticism than to actually accomplish a goal)?

Maha Shuayb makes a good case that the localisation agenda could simply be “a convenient response to increasing calls for the [Development and] aid sector to decolonise.”

Unless we decolonise Development and deal with its extractive practices and its colonial heritage, the ideal of localisation will never be realised.