FINANCING AFRICA ON AFRICA’S TERMS: Rethinking development sovereignty in a shifting global order

Read as PDF

Copyright © 2025

Inclusive Society Institute

PO Box 12609

Mill Street

Cape Town, 8010

South Africa

235-515 NPO

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission in

writing from the Inclusive Society Institute

DISCLAIMER

Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of

the Inclusive Society Institute or its Board or Council members.

This report has been drafted with the assistance of ChatGpt. Original transcripts of the presentations made during a meeting held on 31 July 2025 which have been summarised with the use of the AI tool and then edited and amended where necessary by the rapporteur for correctness and context.

August 2025

Rapporteur: Odile Bulten

Editor: Daryl Swanepoel

CONTENTS

1 SETTING THE SCENE: Rethinking development financing in Africa’s age of uncertainty

2 FINANCING AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT IN A COMPLEX GLOBAL ORDER: Insights from Amb Fébé Potgieter-Gqubule

2.1 Global dynamics and emerging complexities

2.2 Historical legacy and the African development agenda

2.3 The political economy of bilateral aid and its limitations

2.4 The African Union’s strategic financial reforms

2.5 Sector-specific challenges and the imperative for differentiated financing approaches

2.6 Conclusions and strategic recommendations

3 DELEGATE PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPMENT FINANCING: Ground-level realities and strategic reflections

3.1 Enduring Aid Dependency and Its Institutional Impacts

3.2 The gap between fiscal discourse and budgetary commitment

3.3 Domestic resource mobilisation: An ambition yet to be realised

3.4 Mindset shift: Beyond material constraints

3.5 National case studies: Illustrations from the ground

3.6 Conclusion: Redefining responsibility in African development finance

4 INSIGHTS FROM THE DISCUSSION

5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ROADMAP

ROADMAP

Cover photo (Africa): istock.com - Stock illustration ID:2090866893

Cover photo (Money): istock.com - Stock photo ID:484780166

1 SETTING THE SCENE

Rethinking development financing in Africa’s age of uncertainty

Africa’s development trajectory remains intricately tied to how the continent mobilises, manages and governs its financial resources. Despite decades of reformist declarations and regional development strategies, much of Africa’s growth potential continues to be constrained by structural dependencies on external funding, narrow domestic revenue bases and fragmented financial governance. The imperative to reimagine how Africa finances its development is no longer a matter of long-term planning, it is a strategic necessity in the face of global shifts and declining aid flows.

Recent reductions in Official Development Assistance (ODA), most notably from the United States, have exposed the vulnerabilities of a model built on external goodwill and short-term commitments. Many African states remain heavily reliant on aid to fund critical sectors such as health, education and infrastructure. With donor priorities shifting inward and multilateral budgets tightening, the continent faces a growing risk of underinvestment in public services, institutional capacity and long-term development goals.

Private capital, heralded as the next frontier of development finance, has not delivered on its promise. Mechanisms such as blended finance and impact investing, though widely promoted in global frameworks like the Compromiso de Sevilla, have yet to gain meaningful traction in Africa. In practice, these models often prioritise risk minimisation for investors over developmental outcomes. Moreover, the absence of enforceable accountability structures, time-bound targets and alignment with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) priorities renders such instruments inadequate substitutes for traditional financing, especially in countries with weak credit ratings or limited financial markets.

This financial fragility is compounded by enduring issues such as capital flight, illicit financial flows, inefficient tax systems and limited institutional capacity to collect and manage public revenue. The consequences are far-reaching: reduced fiscal space for social spending, stagnating infrastructure development and constrained investments in education, innovation and job creation. These factors collectively undermine the continent’s ability to chart an independent and sustainable development path.

Amid these pressures, the conversation is shifting. There is growing consensus that Africa must adopt a more self-reliant, diversified and resilient financing strategy. Central to this is the need to strengthen domestic resource mobilisation, from expanding tax bases to improving public financial management. Equally important is the pursuit of regional mechanisms for pooled financing, as seen in efforts by the African Union to operationalise frameworks like the Kigali Financing Decision. Such initiatives aim to fund continental priorities through internally generated revenues, signalling a shift away from donor dependency toward institutional sovereignty.

Furthermore, Africa’s position in global financial governance needs to be recalibrated. The continent’s ability to influence international norms on debt, aid and investment remains limited, even as these decisions have disproportionate effects on African economies. Coordinated negotiation strategies, stronger regional blocs and greater use of collective voice within institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO are critical steps toward reshaping the rules that govern financial flows into and out of the continent.

It is against this backdrop that the Africa Think Tank Dialogue (ATD) convened the July 2025 session on "Funding for Development." The aim was to interrogate the assumptions underpinning Africa’s current financing landscape, assess the viability of emerging models and explore actionable strategies for building a more autonomous and development-aligned financial ecosystem. The conversation recognises that Africa’s development challenge is not solely about mobilising more funds, but about gaining greater control over the sources, conditions, and uses of those funds.

The following section offers an in-depth reflection on these issues through a comprehensive analysis of Africa’s development financing architecture. Drawing from institutional history, policy evolution and emerging continental frameworks, the discussion explores how Africa can transition from reactive dependency to proactive financial sovereignty.

2 FINANCING AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT IN A

COMPLEX GLOBAL ORDER

Insights from Amb Fébé Potgieter-Gqubule

Head of Policy at the African National Congress and former South African

diplomat and senior African Union official

Ambassador Fébé Potgieter’s contribution to the African Think Tank Dialogue (ATD) offers a rare and incisive panorama of Africa’s evolving financial landscape. Drawing from extensive diplomatic engagement, institutional analysis and policy reform within the African Union (AU), Potgieter contextualises Africa’s development challenges within a shifting global geopolitical framework. Her intervention not only traces the historical and structural challenges associated with development financing, but also calls for a revitalised commitment to internal continental reforms and differentiated strategies that reflect the nuanced demands of peace, infrastructure, climate and human development.

In this report, her address is analysed in depth across six thematic axes: the shifting global context; the historical evolution of the African development financing agenda; the political economy of bilateral aid and its limitations; AU institutional reforms; differentiated sectoral financing approaches; and the critical policy lessons that must guide Africa’s path forward.

2.1 Global dynamics and emerging complexities

Ambassador Potgieter opened her remarks by situating Africa’s development predicament within a broader landscape marked by diminishing international support and increasing complexity in geopolitical relations. She underscored that Africa finds itself navigating a global environment where traditional donor support, particularly from the United States, has significantly waned. This reduction is not isolated to bilateral arrangements, but extends to support for multilateral institutions such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organization (WHO) and other developmental arms of the international system.

This retrenchment of multilateral financing directly undermines the capacity of African states to respond to pressing health, climate and economic challenges. The inability to rely on predictable, rules-based multilateral support has led to a funding vacuum that compromises the effectiveness of research, health systems and long-term developmental programming. It also restricts the continent’s agency in shaping global norms around health security, climate adaptation and post-conflict recovery.

Potgieter further noted a worrying trend in bilateral trade relations, where aid and trade are increasingly conflated under coercive conditionalities. Rather than advancing mutually beneficial trade, some powerful nations have imposed unilateral tariffs, as high as 30% to 50%, under the guise of market negotiations. These tariffs, presented as non-negotiable, are often tied to political concessions or commercial advantages for the donor country’s corporations, significantly undermining the negotiating power and economic sovereignty of African states.

In the domain of peace and security, Potgieter identified a paralysis within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), particularly in terms of supporting peacekeeping operations in Africa. While historically the UNSC has authorised missions across the continent, the current dysfunction, marked by geopolitical deadlock and resource withdrawal, has left many African conflicts underfunded and unresolved. This is particularly problematic given that most UN peacekeeping missions in recent decades have taken place in Africa.

Adding to this challenging context is the issue of climate finance. Potgieter emphasised the compounded impact of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the broader failure of developed nations to honour climate finance commitments. This not only leaves African countries vulnerable to natural disasters and environmental degradation, but also deprives them of the funding necessary for climate adaptation, resilience building and post-disaster recovery.

Taken together, these trends present a highly constrained global environment, where the traditional instruments of development cooperation are no longer reliable and where African agency is increasingly restricted by external priorities and internal fragility.

2.2 Historical legacy and the African development agenda

To better understand contemporary dynamics, Potgieter encouraged a retrospective examination of the late 1980s and early 1990s, a period she characterised as critical in shaping the trajectory of Africa’s development financing discourse. During this era, African leaders, responding to decades of underdevelopment and marginalisation, began articulating a more assertive continental agenda centred on debt forgiveness, institutional reform and integration into global governance structures.

One of the central debates of the time was the growing recognition that African countries were servicing debt at unsustainable levels. The cost of interest payments on sovereign debt often exceeded the total volume of development assistance received. This financial paradox became the rallying point for global debt cancellation campaigns, most notably the Jubilee 2000 movement, which was spearheaded by civil society actors, faith-based organisations and progressive political leaders. Potgieter recalled how this advocacy led to meaningful, if partial, debt relief initiatives and drew global attention to the structural imbalances embedded in the international financial system.

Concurrently, African countries were crafting the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), which sought to reframe the continent’s development narrative from one of dependency to one of strategic partnership and homegrown solutions. The NEPAD agenda emphasised regional integration, institutional reform and engagement with global forums such as the G8, G20 and the World Trade Organization. This period marked Africa’s concerted effort to avoid marginalisation amid the rapid globalisation of trade and capital, particularly following what Potgieter termed the “dead development decades” of the 1970s and 1980s.

African countries also began engaging in bilateral partnerships designed to enhance trade and development cooperation. Initiatives such as the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), as well as similar engagements with the UK and EU, promised to channel resources into infrastructure and social development. While these engagements were symbolically significant, Potgieter hinted that they were often asymmetrical in nature, reflecting deeper power imbalances.

2.3 The political economy of bilateral aid and its limitations

Potgieter’s critique of bilateral aid was particularly compelling. She dismantled the illusion of donor altruism, arguing that most aid packages were embedded in a transactional logic designed to advance the strategic and commercial interests of donor countries. Aid was seldom unconditional. It came with clauses favouring donor-country companies in project implementation, a phenomenon she illustrated using the example of energy infrastructure development in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

This arrangement often meant that aid funds were effectively recycled back to donor economies via contracts awarded to firms headquartered in the Global North. In consequence, African economies saw limited gains in terms of local capacity building, employment or technology transfer. Industrial development stagnated and inter-African trade remained negligible despite decades of donor interventions.

She cited Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who in characteristically blunt terms criticised African leaders for “dancing for donors” while ignoring the fiscal contributions of their own citizens. This metaphor underscored a broader epistemic dependency, where external validation was sought at the expense of internal confidence and ownership.

While acknowledging that some least-developed countries remain structurally dependent on aid, especially for health and education, Potgieter urged a paradigm shift toward recognising and scaling up domestic resource mobilisation, reinforcing the principle that development must be funded and driven by Africans themselves.

2.4 The African Union’s strategic financial reforms

One of the most substantive elements of Potgieter’s address was her detailed account of the African Union’s institutional response to financial dependency. She identified two landmark initiatives:

The first was led by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo. This initiative assessed Africa’s external and internal financing patterns, providing a holistic overview of aid flows, loan repayments, foreign direct investment and infrastructural needs. Its key recommendation was that the African Union should significantly reduce its reliance on external funding. This led to the historic Kigali Financing Decision in 2016, which proposed that the AU finance at least 75% of its operational and programmatic budget internally, alongside 25% to 30% of its peace support operations.

To operationalise this vision, the AU introduced a 0.2% import levy, modelled after ECOWAS’s financing mechanism, to generate predictable and sustainable revenue. While conceptually sound, implementation has been uneven due to resistance from both external partners and AU member states, particularly in the SADC region.

The second initiative was spearheaded by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, who chaired the High-Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs). This panel revealed that Africa loses billions annually due to capital flight, through tax avoidance, under-declaration of mineral exports and illegal financial transactions. The volume of IFFs far outstrips official development assistance, making it a central priority for reform. Importantly, the panel broadened the definition of IFFs to include legal but unethical corporate practices, thus spotlighting systemic enablers of underdevelopment both within and outside Africa.

Both initiatives advanced the principle of developmental sovereignty, arguing that the continent’s future cannot be outsourced to donor agendas, but must be rooted in sound domestic institutions, transparent governance and strategic resource retention.

2.5 Sector-specific challenges and the imperative for differentiated

financing approaches

Potgieter was unequivocal in her assertion that financing African development cannot be approached monolithically. She advocated for a differentiated approach tailored to the unique needs and financing structures of various sectors.

In the realm of peace and security, for instance, she noted that African-led peace enforcement operations are frequently underfunded and strategically marginalised due to the UN’s preference for “peacekeeping” rather than “peace enforcement.” This hesitancy creates a gap that African institutions must fill independently. The Kigali Decision envisioned a more autonomous AU, capable of rapid deployment and intervention in fragile contexts, even when the UN fails to act.

Climate finance represents another sector where global commitments have fallen short. While Africa bears the brunt of climate change, it receives only a fraction of the promised adaptation funds. Financing here must be concessional, long-term and equity-based, with a focus on resilience, loss and damage and disaster preparedness.

In the health and education sectors, Potgieter acknowledged that aid remains vital for many LDCs. However, she emphasised the importance of enhancing domestic fiscal capacity and service delivery mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability. These sectors also require predictable, recurrent funding, which external partners are often reluctant to guarantee.

On infrastructure, she noted a positive trend. Citing an AU-NEPAD review of the PIDA (Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa), Potgieter highlighted that Africa had exceeded some of its targets in attracting external financing for infrastructure projects. While the quality and strategic relevance of these projects vary, this progress signals that infrastructure may be an area of relative strength that can be scaled up.

2.6 Conclusions and strategic recommendations

Ambassador Potgieter concluded with a stark, but hopeful message: while Africa has made commendable progress in articulating its development priorities and designing institutional mechanisms, the challenge remains one of implementation and political will. The continent’s financing future hinges not only on external conditions, but on internal choices, alignments and reforms.

She called for a revival of the Kigali Decision, strengthened enforcement of AU member obligations and a renewed campaign to operationalise the recommendations of both the Obasanjo and Mbeki panels. Equally important is a shift in narrative, from one of dependence to one of agency. African leaders must centre their citizens’ contributions, challenge exploitative trade dynamics and reclaim the continent’s role as a proactive agent in global development.

Above all, Potgieter urged African institutions to adopt strategically disaggregated financing strategies. Peacekeeping, climate resilience, infrastructure, education and health all demand distinct financing models, tailored governance arrangements and sector-specific partnerships.

Her address stands as a compelling call to action, insisting that Africa's development trajectory is not merely shaped by global forces, but by the courage and coordination of its own institutions.

3 DELEGATE PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPMENT

FINACING

Ground-level realities and strategic reflections

As the keynote concluded, the dialogue opened to participants from across the continent, think tank representatives, who brought national and regional perspectives into sharper focus. Their contributions revealed a shared concern about Africa’s entrenched reliance on external financing, as well as a collective desire to see greater fiscal ownership, institutional discipline and mindset transformation in how the continent finances its development priorities.

The contributions, grounded in lived national realities, provided compelling illustrations of how financing challenges play out at policy and operational levels. Despite differences in country contexts, a number of strong thematic threads emerged: an enduring dependence on external funding; limited progress in mobilising domestic resources; institutional misalignment between fiscal policy and development ambitions; and the urgent need for African governments to demonstrate greater political and budgetary ownership over national development agendas.

3.1 Enduring Aid Dependency and Its Institutional Impacts

Across multiple interventions, the extent to which African states remain dependent on donor financing was laid bare. A participant from Nigeria spoke candidly about the situation in their country, particularly within the health sector, where international donors continue to play an outsized role in sustaining essential services. “Most of our countries are largely dependent on external funding,” the participant said, adding that in many cases, donors provide 80 to 90 percent of the financial resources required to run health programmes. Governments may contribute the remaining 10 or 20 percent, but this often functions more as a symbolic gesture than a foundation for sovereignty.

This reality, the speaker emphasised, is not limited to Nigeria. It is reflective of a broader pattern across the continent, where reliance on bilateral and multilateral development assistance, particularly for social sectors, remains deeply entrenched. While such aid has filled vital gaps, its continued dominance raises questions about ownership, sustainability and accountability.

Another delegate echoed this concern, noting that donor-dependency distorts national priorities. With programmes and timelines often shaped to fit donor cycles, governments may find themselves aligning with external benchmarks rather than homegrown development plans. This, in turn, weakens the autonomy of national institutions and limits their capacity to build long-term financing frameworks tailored to local needs.

3.2 The gap between fiscal discourse and budgetary commitment

Several participants drew attention to the disjuncture between public policy discourse and actual fiscal behaviour. While national leaders routinely emphasise the importance of African self-reliance and ownership over development financing, national budgets frequently fail to reflect these priorities in meaningful terms.

For example, one participant pointed out that although domestic funding for health or education is often formally included in national plans, the actual disbursement of such funds is frequently delayed, incomplete or deprioritised. External donors are then called upon to fill the void. This reinforces the dependency cycle and signals to development partners that national leadership may not fully prioritise these sectors.

Delegates noted that this credibility gap has long-term consequences. Donors may become reluctant to transition financial and programmatic control to national governments if those governments appear unwilling or unable to take full fiscal responsibility. Thus, the absence of consistent and timely domestic funding undermines both national autonomy and international trust.

3.3 Domestic resource mobilisation: An ambition yet to be realised

The imperative to strengthen domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) emerged as a core theme. One delegate observed that African countries often speak passionately about the need to take charge of their development, but continue to rely overwhelmingly on foreign funding when it comes to actual implementation. “We must take ownership,” a participant urged, emphasising that the continent already possesses the material and human capital necessary to drive its development, what is lacking is the coordination and resolve to marshal those resources effectively.

However, delegates were not naïve about the obstacles. A narrow tax base, large informal economies and limited administrative capacity to collect and manage revenue were all cited as structural constraints to effective DRM. Moreover, the legitimacy of taxation itself is often undermined by poor service delivery and weak public trust, which make citizens less willing to comply with tax obligations. One speaker summarised this cycle succinctly: “If people don’t see the benefits of paying taxes, they will continue to evade them.”

Nonetheless, there was strong support for DRM as the only viable path to sustainable development finance. Delegates called for reforms in tax administration, more equitable revenue policies and more transparent use of public funds. Several noted that when citizens believe their contributions are being used responsibly, they are more likely to accept taxation as part of a legitimate social contract.

3.4 Mindset shift: Beyond material constraints

Beyond technical and institutional constraints, some participants emphasised the importance of changing the way African states and societies conceptualise their own capabilities. “We must stop thinking we are poor,” one speaker urged, calling for a revaluation of Africa’s internal strengths, its people, its culture, its natural resources and its economic potential. This mindset, they argued, is not only necessary for building public confidence, but also for shifting how African countries position themselves globally, not as aid recipients, but as equal partners and contributors to global development.

This was not merely a rhetorical point. Several participants connected this mindset to concrete governance behaviour: When leaders believe they must rely on donors, they structure their budgets, policies and political strategies accordingly. But when they commit to mobilising internal resources, even modestly, they begin to invest in the systems and institutions that enable long-term transformation.

3.5 National case studies: Illustrations from the ground

Delegates offered insights from specific country contexts to ground these broader themes. A representative spoke of Côte d’Ivoire, saying that while strategic frameworks for national development are in place, the actual financial resources required to implement them often fall short. The speaker highlighted the tensions between national ambition and fiscal reality, a gap that too often results in underperformance or missed targets.

Another participant shared the Ugandan perspective, that while efforts are underway to increase domestic contributions to national priorities, challenges persist. The tax base remains narrow, enforcement mechanisms are weak and institutional coordination is inconsistent. Despite these hurdles, there was cautious optimism that gradual reforms and increased fiscal discipline could pave the way for more predictable and autonomous financing in the years ahead.

Other speakers echoed these sentiments, reinforcing the view that while no country is immune to constraints, each must find its own pathway to incrementally reduce its reliance on external financing and strengthen domestic systems of financial governance.

3.6 Conclusion: Redefining responsibility in African development

finance

The delegate inputs underscored a crucial insight: that the question of financing development in Africa is not simply a matter of technical solutions or financial inflows. It is fundamentally a question of political will, institutional integrity and shared responsibility, between governments and citizens and among countries within the continent.

While donors will likely remain part of the financing mix in the near term, the overwhelming message was clear: Africa must take decisive steps to own its development trajectory, not only in policy, but in budgeting, implementation and accountability. This includes setting clear national priorities, committing adequate domestic resources, building trust with citizens through responsible governance and resisting the temptation to default to donor dependency.

In short, the dialogue confirmed that development financing is inseparable from development ownership. And until African governments prioritise the internal financing of their national ambitions, external actors will continue to shape the pace, scope and direction of Africa’s future.

4 INSIGHTS FROM THE DISCUSSION

This report presents an extensive overview of Africa's development financing landscape, integrating an in-depth discussion and insights from African perspectives, to outline pivotal conclusions, recommendations and a strategic roadmap.

Furthermore, it emphasises the need for integrated policy proposals that address funding, security and economic growth comprehensively. The success of these goals hinges on the pivotal role of governance and leadership in empowering African institutions to take ownership of their development and security challenges.

Key conclusions

• Dependency on external funding

Africa's development has predominantly relied on external funding, like Official Development Assistance (ODA) and private capital. However, diminishing ODA and the limited efficacy of private capital mechanisms have exposed the vulnerabilities of this model.

• Financial fragility

Factors such as capital flight, illicit financial flows, inefficient tax systems and constrained institutional capacity have exacerbated Africa's financial fragility, limiting fiscal space for essential social and infrastructure investments.

• Shift Towards Self-Reliance

There is a growing consensus that Africa must adopt a more self-reliant, diversified and resilient financing strategy, focusing on strengthening domestic resource mobilisation and pursuing regional pooled financing mechanisms.

• Global financial governance

Africa's influence in shaping global financial norms on debt, aid and investments remains limited, necessitating strategic recalibration.

• Sector-specific financing challenges

Sectors like peace, security, climate finance, health and education require tailored financial strategies.

• Inclusive economic growth

Emphasis was placed on fostering growth that benefits all citizens, addressing debt relief, equitable trade agreements and robust infrastructure development.

• Civil Society Engagement

Civil society’s role is critical in addressing security challenges, promoting good governance, accountability and ensuring efficient resource utilisation.

• Leadership and institutional capacity

Strong leadership and robust institutions are vital for effective resources management, corruption mitigation and policy implementation.

• Interconnected pillars

Security, funding, economic growth and governance are intrinsically linked. Inclusive sustainable development hinges on addressing these elements collectively when designing policies.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ROADMAP

To achieve financial sovereignty, Africa must transition from external dependency to proactive internal strategies and reforms. This includes seizing potential opportunities for growth and investing in innovative technologies. These actionable recommendations offer an opportunity to shape the continent’s development future.

The proposed Roadmap serves as a call to action for Africa to take decisive steps in shaping its development trajectory. This involves setting clear national priorities, committing sufficient domestic resources, fostering trust with citizens, including the Youth, through responsible governance, and resisting the allure of donor dependency.

• Revive the Kigali Decision, which aims to reduce Africa's reliance on external funding by financing at least 75% of the African Union's operational and programmatic budget internally, alongside 25% to 30% of its peace support operations. Pursuing regional pooled mechanisms to fund continental priorities through internally generated revenues is crucial.

• Enforce the AU member commitments in order to ensure compliance with agreed-upon financial obligations.

• Implement the recommendations of the Obasanjo and Mbeki Reports, which recommendations focus on reducing external financial dependency and curbing illicit financial flows.

• Adopt differentiated financing strategies, whereby African institutions are urged to tailor sector-specific approaches, such as concessional loans for infrastructure, long-term financing for climate resilience and predictable funding for peacekeeping, education and health.

• Promote a narrative of agency in which African leaders are encouraged to highlight citizens' contributions, challenge inequitable trade dynamics and assert Africa’s proactive role in global development.

• Strengthen domestic resource mobilisation by expanding tax bases, enhancing public fiscal management and boosting institutional efficiency to collect and manage public revenue.

• Recalibrate Africa's position in global financial governance by coordinating negotiation strategies, strengthening regional blocs and amplifying Africa’s collective voice in global forums and institutions.

  
  

• Enhance political will and institutional integrity so as to align national priorities with budgeting, implementation and accountability.

ROADMAP

1. Short-Term (1-2 years):

• Reform tax and fiscal management systems to improve domestic resource mobilisation.

• Activate regional financing frameworks like the Kigali Financing Decision.

• Develop and implement sector-specific financial strategies.

2. Medium-Term (3-5 years):

• Strengthen regional blocs for global influence.

• Scale up and sustain successful domestic resource mobilisation initiatives.

• Align sector-specific financing models with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

3. Long-Term (5+ years):

• Drastically reduce reliance on external funding.

• Position Africa as a key global development actor.

• Ensure resilient, sustainable financing aligned with long-term development objectives.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute

The Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) is an autonomous and independent institution that functions independently from any other entity. It is founded for the purpose of supporting and further deepening multi-party democracy. The ISI’s work is motivated by its desire to achieve non-racialism, non-sexism, social justice and cohesion, economic development and equality in South Africa, through a value system that embodies the social and national democratic principles associated with a developmental state. It recognises that a well-functioning democracy requires well-functioning political formations that are suitably equipped and capacitated. It further acknowledges that South Africa is inextricably linked to the ever transforming and interdependent global world, which necessitates international and multilateral cooperation. As such, the ISI also seeks to achieve its ideals at a global level through cooperation with like-minded parties and organs of civil society who share its basic values. In South Africa, ISI’s ideological positioning is aligned with that of the current ruling party and others in broader society with similar ideals.

Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za

Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589

Web: www.inclusivesociety.org.za