The private for-profit sector emerged as a new actor in international development cooperation beginning in the early 2000s (BOP Theory, etc.). Its managerial capacity, financial resources, and profit-oriented vision were regarded as crucial for developing more economically sustainable cooperation solutions, distinct from philanthropic assistance models. In your view, has the involvement of the private for-profit sector fulfilled these expectations? Has it genuinely modernized the processes and operations typical of international development?
The entry of the private for-profit sector into development cooperation in the early 2000s, influenced by ideas such as those presented in “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” by C. K. Prahalad, clearly brought fresh energy to the field. Private actors introduced managerial efficiency, innovation capacity, and new financial instruments that traditional aid structures sometimes lacked. In sectors such as renewable energy, digital services, and inclusive finance, they have helped scale solutions faster than purely philanthropic or public initiatives.
However, the results have been mixed and important challenges remain. Some advocates believed that market-based solutions would naturally align with development objectives and solve problems that the nonprofit sector could not address. That assumption proved overly optimistic. Profit incentives do not always coincide with social outcomes, and in certain contexts they can even deepen inequalities or environmental pressures.
At the same time, there are many encouraging examples. Some companies have successfully introduced products and services designed to tackle social or environmental problems while remaining commercially viable. In these cases, the most important measure of success is that people directly affected by these initiatives often value the solutions and benefit from them.
In short, the private sector has arrived in the development arena to stay, but not to replace traditional development actors. While some skepticism remains, there is growing recognition that businesses can be valuable partners, provided they operate within clear public policy frameworks, strong accountability mechanisms, and robust human rights standards. The philosophy behind the EU’s Global Gateway strategy reflects this approach. Increasingly, we see cooperation between public institutions, civil society, and private actors, and many of these collaborations are genuinely inspiring.
- Would you mention one successful story of a private sector entity working in synergy with international development actors and beneficiaries, not “just” as a donor?
Sure, I can mention the case of a pilot we ran in 2012 in Mexico in the agrifood sector. The region was that close to Acapulco, where locals where mostly providing food to local hotels and touristic activities but with low productivity rates and consequently few negotiating power. Particularly, the production of prawns was affected by poor oxygenation in the water, due to the unaffordability of air pumps. The company we involved designed a special bicycle boat that – used in the water ponds – was generating manual and ecologically the needed oxygen and increasing the quality and the quantity of prawns to be sold to local shops, restaurants and hotels, increasing significantly thee productivity and income to the local farmers
- Have you ever perceived, in Catalunya, some distrust/suspicion from CSO with regards to the private sector entering the international development field?
Yes, of course. Many ideological reasons have armed the not-for-profit sector’s argumentations against companies dealing with aid and cooperation. Yet, the activities of institutions have demonstrated how important is to engage firms and work with them on supply chain’s impacts, promoting best practices: in Barcelona the launch of the Catalan Center for Business and Human Rights is an example of a coexistence that is needed to advance the narrative.
You have worked for many years in development cooperation policy for the Government of Catalonia. How has the crisis of multilateralism affected your development programs? How do you foresee the future of Catalan development cooperation evolving in the coming years?
Throughout my career I have been closely connected to the development cooperation policy of the Government of Catalonia, both in Barcelona and during my time in the USA, although never in a direct executive role. My work has often focused on initiatives at the intersection of development policy and the private sector, and more recently on business and human rights. I am very proud of the work achieved in these areas.
I have also participated in the Catalan Development Cooperation Council, where I had the opportunity to contribute to discussions on new plans, programs, and initiatives. Looking back, I believe significant progress has been made since the Catalan Development Cooperation Law was adopted in 2001.
Today, Catalan cooperation is arguably one of the most (if not the most) developed sub-national cooperation systems in the world. It continues to evolve in innovative ways, promoting more respectful and horizontal partnerships with the Global South. Another important priority is improving policy coherence across different areas of government.
In this context, collaboration with departments such as the Ministry of Enterprise and Labor is particularly important. It helps ensure that trade, climate policy, migration, and business activity are aligned with development and human rights objectives. It also strengthens efforts to promote responsible business conduct and human rights due diligence at the international level.
Impact finance has been a powerful driver of social innovation and results-based support for young entrepreneurs and communities. At the same time, it has evolved in close alignment with prevailing trends. Where do we stand today? In your opinion, has the hype that characterized it in previous years subsided, or does it remain a particularly promising field?
Impact finance has followed a familiar trajectory: enthusiasm, expansion, and now consolidation. A decade ago, it was often presented as a transformative tool capable of mobilizing vast amounts of private capital for development. In practice, the scale has remained more limited than initially expected, and measuring genuine impact continues to be challenging.
Still, the concept has not disappeared, it has matured. Many actors now have a more realistic understanding of its potential and its limits. Impact finance can be particularly valuable in areas such as early-stage social enterprises, climate innovation, financial inclusion, and blended finance mechanisms that combine public and private resources.
Today the central issue is credibility. If impact finance is to remain relevant, it must demonstrate measurable social and environmental results and avoid what is often called “impact washing.” When it works well, it can complement traditional development finance, rather than replacing it.
- Talking about communication, the recent EU Directive against greenwashing and the many “naming & blaming” episodes have paradoxically de-incetivized firms from openly promoting their environmental projects (greenhushing). Would you be happier to have more regulations on how communicating Social projects too, or better avoiding the risk of “Social-hushing” and leaving firms free to declare their impacts? As they prefer
I think we need to advance slowly, without suddenly submerging firms with overwhelming regulations. The risk is to perceive such instruments as mere impositions and obligations is too high…a balance is needed so to encourage firms advance towards the right direction at an ambitious but assumable path, not only punish them.
In many beneficiary countries, the disappearance of USAID has led to liquidity crises and a consequent downsizing of development projects on the ground. As of today, how is it possible to recover from the withdrawal of such a significant actor?
When a major donor withdraws, the immediate result is a liquidity shock for many organizations and projects on the ground. Recovery typically requires a combination of strategies. In some past cases, other major donors stepped in and helped cushion the impact.
The sudden disappearance of USAID, however, has had a particularly dramatic effect. Some analyses have even attempted to estimate the direct consequences in terms of human lives. Terrible.
No actor today has the capacity to replace the scale of funding that USAID once provided. Even more concerning is that some governments have followed this trend by reducing their own development budgets. At the same time, many NATO countries are reallocating public resources toward defense spending, which inevitably affects development cooperation.
In the short and medium term, the consequences are therefore unavoidable. Fewer resources will be available, and competition among organizations will increase. Many institutions will try to diversify their funding sources, turning to other bilateral donors, multilateral funds, philanthropic foundations, and regional development banks.
Traditional USAID partners will also need to adapt their strategies. Strengthening local ownership will be crucial. Programs that are deeply embedded in local institutions and communities tend to be more resilient during donor transitions.
Coordination among remaining actors will also be essential. In many cases, the challenge is not simply replacing funding, but preserving the institutional networks and knowledge ecosystems that major agencies helped build.
At the same time, we have seen some small but symbolic signs of resilience. One example is the relaunch of the USAID section called Development Innovation Ventures, as the independent nonprofit “DIV Fund” supported by private donors. It is a reminder that innovation and commitment can still find new paths forward. There is always space for hope!
- Do you have evidence of China conquering the International Development space left by the USA?
No, not really. I do not have first-hand information on that.
The phenomenon of South–South Cooperation has been widely discussed, including at the academic level. From your perspective, has it succeeded in offering an alternative integration to the traditional North–South development models? Does it still represent a viable option to address the shortcomings and limitations of conventional approaches?
South–South Cooperation has made a meaningful contribution by challenging the traditional hierarchy embedded in North–South development models. It emphasizes mutual learning, shared experience, and technical exchanges between countries that face similar development challenges.
In areas such as public health, agriculture, and urban development, knowledge exchanges between countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have produced valuable results. These collaborations are often more horizontal and better adapted to local realities.
However, South–South Cooperation should not necessarily be viewed as a complete alternative to traditional cooperation. In practice, the most promising approaches today are multipolar partnerships that combine the experience of Southern countries with different forms of support from actors in the Global North.
From my own experience, almost every development project I have been involved in has been a learning opportunity. Partners from the Global South often bring creativity, resilience, and innovative thinking that challenge conventional approaches. The narrative that the North simply helps the South is far too simplistic and actually an obstacle to find the best outcome.
The future of development cooperation lies in genuine partnerships where every participant contributes a distinctive perspective and a specific value.
Could you recommend a book and/or a film that would help us better understand the field in which you work? Perhaps a book that has inspired you or one that you have found particularly compelling in relation to your professional experience?
The book “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” by C. K. Prahalad as I mentioned earlier was truly mind-blowing for me. It opened an important debate about the role of business in development and inspired a great deal of subsequent research.
Beyond academic books, however, my real passion is graphic journalism. What many people still call “comics” can actually offer a powerful way to explore complex social and political realities.
Authors such as Joe Sacco have brilliantly documented situations like Gaza, while Guy Delisle, drawing on his experience accompanying a development worker, portrays the everyday contradictions of international cooperation with sharp irony in books like “Myanmar”.
But I take the advantage to highlight the Basque author Javier de Isusi and his tetralogy “Los viajes de Juan sin Tierra”. Through stories set in Chiapas, Nicaragua, the Ecuadorian and Peruvian Amazon, and Brazil, he explores the structural roots of inequality in Latin America and the struggles of communities confronting problems they did nothing to create. It is a powerful and deeply human work.
In cinema, films with strong social themes have also shaped my perspective. Two that come to mind are “Carla’s Song” by Ken Loach and “Even the Rain” by Icíar Bollaín. Both films help illuminate the historical roots of conflicts in countries such as Nicaragua or Bolivia and show how economic interests, historical power dynamics, and social justice intersect in development contexts.