Tracking signs and signals is one of the hallmarks of foresight professionals. They are always on the prowl for novel products and technologies that promise to change the world. Sustainable aviation fuel made from biomass or non-biological sources like CO2 is one innovation on their radar. The increasingly popular generative AI technology is another, especially since its proponents claim it will revolutionize early disease detection, unleash new forms of creative arts, transform engineering, and reshape architecture.

Yet these signs and signals also can uncover an innovative organizational approach, or even pump new energy into an older one such as development diplomacy. New Security Beat readers will not be surprised that foresight provides a value add to all sorts of organizations: a small civil society organization in Paraguay, or vastly larger bodies such as the United Nations or the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) with a workforce of over ten thousand employees—two-thirds of whom are stationed overseas.

But what exactly is development diplomacy? Over the past two decades, diplomats and development professionals had a “first cousins” type of relationship: polite to one another at the family reunion, but parting ways quickly as soon as dessert was served. Not anymore. The kinship between diplomacy and development was strengthened measurably when both branches of foreign policy were jointly elevated into the 2010 National Security Strategy, along with defense (the so-called 3D’s)— and further bolstered in 2015, when USAID and the Department of State jointly issued the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

There is an argument to be made that both disciplines are essential to tackle mounting and interlinked global challenges that are more complex, fast-moving, interconnected, and daunting than ever before. One need not look past the headlines to see evidence of this: the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine, the geopolitical competition presented by the People’s Republic of China, as well as mounting threats posed by the climate change, global health, and food security challenges outlined in the 2022 US National Security Strategy.

Thus, breaking down the silos between diplomacy and development is a natural outgrowth of the need to deal with cascading global challenges.

Assessing the Differences

Of courses, silos are created in the first place for a reason. And it is important to know how each discipline functions in its own right. 

Traditional diplomacy’s main function is to convey high-level policy messages between countries. The ultimate goal is to positively engage and influence foreign governments and ensure peaceful relations. Country engagement by State Department diplomats includes negotiating trade deals, discussing geopolitical problems, sharing American values, and other activities. The Secretary of State is the USG’s “chief diplomat” and has overall responsibility for the coordination of US diplomacy and foreign assistance. In-country ambassadors lead this process to maintain peaceful relationships between countries at the local level.

On the other hand, international development focuses more on reducing poverty abroad and advancing fair, inclusive, and accountable governance. Yet US strategic interests have always played a role in doling out development assistance, and that is no less true today. Development covers a broad range of activities from addressing today’s global health crises to promoting the use of digital tools. There also is a growing understanding that foreign assistance alone won’t ever be enough to deal with poverty. While funding aid programs remains the principal means for USAID to deliver international development, funding is just “one tool” of diplomacy. As the central mechanism for development, the USAID Administrator is in effect the US “chief development officer,” with in-country Mission Directors guiding local efforts.  

Other major differences between diplomacy and development include their intended target audience and their time horizon. In traditional diplomacy, the target is often the host country’s current political leadership and private sector leaders who can influence its more immediate budgetary, security, financial, foreign policy, and trade direction. Development usually adopts a longer horizon, driven in part by the nature of its programs and a recognition that changing society is a long-haul endeavor. (For instance, education initiatives take time to mature.)

Of course, the goals of diplomacy and development often overlap.  For a long time, achieving them has required strong concerted action by diplomats and development experts, particularly in the areas of supporting democracy, promoting accountability, human rights, and inclusive economic growth.

What Makes Development Diplomacy Different?

Not strictly diplomacy nor explicitly development, Development Diplomacy combines both disciplines. It is a method that is slowly gaining prominence as a whole-of-government engagement strategy.

For instance, development diplomacy often reworks conventional aid assistance to better align with in-country diplomatic goals. And while diplomacy in the past focused mainly on state actors, this approach now has begun to embrace non-state actors along with civil society organizations. Thus, the NGOs which have always been active in the development assistance arena by providing needed services are increasingly becoming key players in diplomatic matters as well. The Swiss-Maltese NGO Diplo calls development diplomacy “the highest priority of international relations,” and emphasizes that it is achieved through the actions of multilateral organizations on a global and regional level.

The State Department is increasingly pointing to the power of US foreign assistance, and not just diplomacy, to advance global security—and acknowledging the need for closer coordination of diplomats and development professionals. There are tangible signs of change at USAID in the past year as well, under USAID Administrator Samantha Power. In 2023, the Agency released its high level Policy Framework to serve as a roadmap to guide its $30 billion-dollar foreign assistance program. The framework has three overarching goals: confront today’s greatest challenges, increase aid effectiveness, and  embrace new partnerships to collectively go “beyond the scope of our programming.”

One of the ways put forward in the framework to advance new partnerships and relationships is for USAID staff to escalate and deepen their relationships with local leaders, multilateral organizations, international financial institutions, business and university leaders, as well as with private foundations in more than 100 field missions across the globe. Staff in the field, and not just Washington, are also encouraged to work more closely with counterpart staff at the Departments of State and Defense, along with counterparts in other US government departments like the US Treasury and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). The aim is to advance development objectives while simultaneously supporting overarching foreign policy and national security goals.  

Development diplomacy is especially useful, when the space for engagement with the recipient government is constrained, or the size of USAID’s resource envelope is small relative to the country’s need. This is when facilitating connections with multilateral organizations, the private sector, and other donors helps to fill a needed recipient country gap. In such cases, innovative approaches that break down former practice silos (USAID, State, Defense, Treasury and DFC) are key to achieving overall in-country and regional US success.

Of course, USAID missions have practiced forms of development diplomacy in terms of engagement with ministers, civil society, other donors, and the private sector to advance program implementation in its field missions across the globe. However, the agency’s new focus on development diplomacy raises the bar for staff to catalyze new partnerships, mobilize additional resources, and double down to engage new partners, especially local ones.

Development diplomacy is gaining ground for another—and often overlooked—reason. Many middle-income and lower-middle-income countries (MIC, LMIC), such as India are becoming less dependent on development assistance, and now have sector carve-outs where donor assistance is not always needed, desired, encouraged, or even welcome. These countries often do not want or need money, but rather seek out connections with banks, businesses, professional organizations, and universities.

Furthermore, because MICs have recent experience of growing out of poverty, they are often great partners for trilateral cooperation in which their recently developed sectors can provide relevant advice and capacity building to lower-income countries. Development diplomacy, therefore, may represent a new phase in bilateral cooperation that is more sensitive to a host country’s rising economic status and pressing geopolitical realities. This is especially true given that more than half of the world’s countries (n=110 in 2021-22) fall into the MIC category—and thus collectively represent more than 75% of the world’s population and produce one-third of total global GDP. 

A Blend of Both Approaches

Development diplomacy combines the best skills of diplomacy and development assistance. Yet while it has been in practice for some time, it has never been consistently deployed. The State Department is encouraging closer coordination with USAID. What is a new for development is that USAID is making an unparalleled effort under Administrator Power to encourage all its staff members (and especially those in the field) the opportunity to become the next generation of development diplomats.

One avenue by which this is happening is a skillful use of the Agency’s well recognized convening power, its global reach to more than 100 countries, and its membership in a vast array of multilateral and bilateral organizations. Development diplomats at USAID (i.e., everyone) are expected to step up their efforts to influence favorable development policies, as well as to better coordinate actions with like-minded organizations and key state and non-state actors. They are also redoubling their efforts to leverage additional investments from private, philanthropic, and other non-traditional sources through innovative shared programming.

In short, the future actions of this new cadre of development diplomats will allow USAID to deliver more than just its own aid packages. As Administrator Power herself observes, USAID needs to be: “Hustling as development diplomats…” Her sentiments echo those of President John F. Kennedy, who established USAID in November 1961, and once said about foreign aid: “We cannot leave it up to the experts and the diplomats.”