The distribution of poor people in the world has changed. The increase in the national income in populous countries such as China, India and Brazil means that the majority of the world's poor people now live in middle-income countries.
International development policy is still coming to terms with what that means. Particularly with whether or not we still need to bother with providing aid to countries like India. The argument is that if these countries have a large enough economy to graduate from the low-income development category and sustain nuclear programmes, then they do not need development assistance from countries like the UK, which face their own deficit issues. It would appear aid is a growing irrelevance in these countries.
To paraphrase Ravi Kanbur of Cornell University, we must recognise that gross national income per capita, which is how we classify countries as developed or otherwise, is an indicator of how likely it is that a country's citizens will be poor. No more than this. It does not indicate the political will or the capability of the government to address poverty. It does not mean there are no sustained and substantial pockets of poverty, a situation barely imaginable for most developed countries.
Consequently, regardless of gross national income measures, our moral obligation to fight poverty may remain. It may be that donor governments can feel encouraged by the fact that there are probably now more national partners to help in the fight against poverty, thanks to the expanding economy.
Imagine there has been sufficient growth in these national economies – as uneven as it may be – for them no longer to need money from elsewhere to meet the needs of their citizens. Let us also assume that even if there is no political will to address the problem, there will be enough interest from the private and charitable sector to support such funding. This leads us to wonder about the added value of international development support. The challenge then is to move beyond thinking of development support as merely funding.
Many of us understand from history that reducing poverty takes more than money, and we have more than 50 years of international donor experience to prove this.
For instance, the Indian government may not be able to afford to feed all the malnourished children in the country and maintain its celebrated level of growth. But it recognises that it might be able to make a strategic investment that could build the assets of deprived households, or increase the capacity of public health infrastructure sustainably. In such a scenario, the critical question is "What is that strategic investment?", not "Where is the money coming from?"
This kind of expert facilitation is the real engine of development; the funding that occupies so much of our debate is only the fuel. For instance, last year Martin Greeley used the UN's thematic papers on the progress of the millennium development goals to identify six priorities to accelerate achievement of the targets. None of these priorities was about funding – they concerned country-led partnerships, accountability, gender sensitivity, inclusive delivery, and planning for resilience. Let us be clear: money matters, but what matters more is what you do with it. Development is a knowledge enterprise.
In these emergent middle-income countries, there are of course new philanthropists who want to contribute to progressive change. However, philanthropists need help to understand what has worked in the past, because building a successful industry is not the same as delivering development outcomes. They need to understand who they can partner with; they need to understand better the detail of how international development works. They need help to assess progress; for instance, educating a generation can take a generation, and progress indicators would be both helpful and responsible. In fact, they may need assistance in working out their position in national and international systems for accountability.
We should be clear, though, that this is not about business as usual for development practitioners. They will be pressed to extend the rhetoric and skills of partnership. They will also need to forge a new language, one that is more accessible to the interests and experience of a group beyond their traditional aid partners and funders.
The Rockefeller Foundation is funding an initiative with a number of partners to establish a framework for the future of philanthropy and development. The consultations at the heart of the initiative are designed to allow the philanthropic sector to cultivate a closer partnership with development organisations. This reflects a shift in development co-operation and hints at what could be a welcome response in development policy.
The rise of the new economies does not mean the end of development. In fact, it could be that this is what it was meant to be like all along.
• Nick Perkins is head of communication at the Institute of Development Studies