How can democratic governance support remain relevant in a world marked by shrinking civic space, geopolitical competition, transactional politics, and rapid digital transformation?

This was at the heart of the keynote address delivered by Anne-Lise Klausen, Partner and Chair of the Board at Nordic Consulting Group, at the 37th Plenary Meeting of the DAC Network on Governance, held in Paris on 20 May 2026.

Speaking to members of the international governance and development community, Anne-Lise called for a renewed sense of realism, humility, and urgency in governance programming. She argued that democratic governance must not be treated as a standalone sector, but as a vital foundation for development cooperation and as a tangible counterweight to opaque deals, weakened accountability, and growing authoritarian tendencies.

Her keynote highlighted the need to rethink donor systems and incentives, strengthen locally led reform, work more politically and more practically, and make better use of long-term trusted partnerships. She also pointed to the opportunities and risks posed by AI and digital transformation, underlining the continued importance of technical expertise, civil society, human rights, and free media.

At a time when governance agendas are under pressure, Anne-Lise’s message was clear: governance support must become more grounded, more flexible, and more closely connected to the realities people face in their everyday lives.

The full keynote address can be read below.

Why Governance in Development Cooperation Still Matters

Keynote Address – Anne-Lise Klausen
37th Plenary Meeting of the DAC Network on Governance
Paris, 20th May 2026

Let me start with a repeat: Democratic governance is foundational for development cooperation and matters more than ever.

We must continue to think and work politically, but at a different pace and in a more tangible way. Governance engagements must continue to be long term but setting it on a more realistic footing is urgent. And honestly, governance programming and political dialogue have branched off in many directions, and unrealistic objectives and theories of change are often set.

I note that when GovNet held a reflection in London last December there were consistent calls for a real shift towards humility, locally led reform, and governance as enabling infrastructure rather than a standalone sector. These are needed and urgent shifts.

I have five messages this morning:

First: Our systems, incentives, and delivery models are part of the problem and a reason for governance agendas losing ground – we are rewarding control and spending, over long-term partner led institutional change.

The first message is therefore that while the international community (in this room) has good intentions, programmes are increasingly packaged so the funding organisation can reduce its administrative burden and fit its own programming cycle. This has increasingly resulted in mechanisms, where the intended dialogue and local leadership has been swamped in sizable hybrid organisations with complex delivery systems, which live their own lives. The intentions and the narratives sound right on paper in international ears, but there is an urgent need to rethink. The “large governance facilities” are neither humble nor locally owned, and they do not promote ownership and local leadership, and whose demand they serve is not always clear.  

Second: In the current geo-political landscape, governance as a “sector” does not work, it does not address the transactional threats and the undermining of accountability in real time. While governance programmes support countries to institute the rule of law; programmes often do not offer “countermeasures” to the many “transactional deals” which go under the radar often through corrupt practices.

South-South cooperation is growing fast (and peer to peer exchanges are valuable).  But there is also a dark governance side at play. The “South donors” (without naming any) work closely with their foreign direct investors. Such financing does at times bypass transparency, weaken public accountability, and excludes citizens from decisions over land and resources. These investments come with a debt burden that deepen fragility and create new dependencies.

In this fast-moving transactional game, the slow and patient work of supporting institution building gets pushed to the back of the room.

The second message is therefore that governance must reemerge as the counterweight. It must be tangible: protection of the environment, secure land rights, support access to institutions of redress; improve fair and equal access to quality services, – and help citizens to have the right to voice concerns.

Can this be done? Yes, you have at hand the long-term trusted partnerships, which are foundational for this step change.

Third, as countries drift into autocracy, a strategic move for the governance community is to go local. Going local has for some been considered a fall-back, but this is an important forward-looking strategy. The social contract is not “signed” in capitals. It is lived in municipalities, in districts, in councils. It is at the local level that governance support is tangible, and people focused.

I was recently in Laos, and what struck me most was not what citizens and district staff said, but what they did not say. The silence was alarming. Meanwhile, the deals moved quickly: land concessions, mining projects with built in exemptions for investors to protect the local environment. Decisions happened above the heads of the affected communities - and they were silent. It showed that governance failures are not abstract. They are lived very concretely by people who cannot hold power to account. Citizens are robbed in full daylight, and they have nowhere to turn.

The third message is therefore to support local communities to help them keep their assets, uphold their rights and foster democratic institutions. Local level engagement always gives opportunities for an “elevator approach” and for tangible policy dialogue at national level.

And by the way - it is also at local level that young leaders can be supported as change agents and become the national leaders of tomorrow. Reformers are not always found inside ministries or in urban NGOs. They are in cooperatives, business associations, youth forums, peacebuilding groups, local universities, local media, and community organisations.

The fourth message is that technical expertise and advice is at the core of our governance proposition, and AI and digital transformation add to the need to enhance the expertise we can provide. These tools are now being used to detect corruption, improve public service delivery, and strengthen fiscal transparency and ease work processes. But the same technologies are enabling surveillance and disinformation etc. They are creating totally new situations for all of us. Where you have built long term trusted relationships and where there are openings in governments: technical expertise and advice on regulation and promoting the constructive sides and opportunities should be on offer.

Further to this point is the importance of the division of labour and complementarity. The technical expertise of IFIs, in synergies with bilaterals (who have a political voice), and the expertise of think tanks and NGOs can be strong when blended in the right way, and this blend is needed to stay relevant in the future.

The final message is: To be flexible, humble and low key, and continue to capitalise on the long term and trusted partnerships in sensitive areas:  and always to protect civil society, promote human rights, and free media, even when they are silenced by autocratic rulers. There are workarounds and ways to support their existence, which you all know well from many years of experience.

There is call for realism and urgent shifts: focusing where we genuinely add value.

Thank you