Shift funding for international organizations from tightly earmarked money to shared funds the organizations can allocate themselves
Steps to make it happen
- Countries that fund international organizations agree together on a minimum share of money that comes with no strings on how it is used.
- Each country promises its payments several years ahead, so organizations do not have to worry about funding every year.
- Countries that want to choose how their money is used also pay the full cost of managing that work on top.
- Each year, international organizations tell everyone where they sent their free-to-use money and how much went to each place.
- Outside experts check whether the money really helped and publish what they find.
- Money reaches the places that need it, even less noticed countries, diseases, and disasters, and this becomes normal.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers international organizations in areas such as development, humanitarian aid, health, and the environment that depend heavily on voluntary contributions from countries and private donors, not only on the mandatory dues of member states. Contributions come in three main forms. The first is money with no restriction on use, which the organization can allocate by its own judgment. The second is pooled funds, where several donors put money in and decide only a broad area, such as climate or children's health. The third is money tightly earmarked for a specific project in a specific country. The core of the proposal is a common commitment, agreed among donors, to set a minimum share of total contributions that must be unrestricted money and pooled funds combined. Each organization's governing board sets the figure through talks between donors and the organization, and raises it step by step. Alongside this, contributions are made as multi-year commitments rather than for a single year. Tightly earmarked money is not banned, but it comes with a condition: the actual cost of managing and auditing that project must be added on top, so that it is not covered by other funds. Organizations that receive the money take on two duties. Each year they must publish which regions and issues received unrestricted money and by what criteria, and they must have their results checked by an independent outside evaluator. For sudden major disasters or disease outbreaks, contributions aimed at a particular crisis are allowed, but as a rule they should not be earmarked down to the level of individual projects.
BenefitsMoney reaches the places that need it, with a long view ahead
When there is more unrestricted money, international organizations can look at how large the needs are across the whole world and send money even to crises and regions that get little media or donor attention. With multi-year commitments, organizations no longer have to scramble for funds every year, and it becomes easier to take on work that takes time to show results, such as hiring and keeping skilled people, long-term planning, and preventing crises. When fewer different reports and audit procedures are demanded by each donor, the time and money spent on paperwork are saved and can go to work on the ground. The waste of similar projects overlapping in the same region also shrinks. For countries that give small amounts, pooled funds make it easier to take part in large efforts, and it eases the situation where a few wealthy donors alone shape what the organization does. In addition, by combining this with the conditions of publishing the criteria and results of allocation every year and accepting outside checks, the system raises freedom while keeping the use of money open for anyone to verify.
DrawbacksHarder to explain to citizens where their tax money goes
What opponents weigh most heavily is that much of the money comes from citizens' taxes. With money whose use cannot be set in detail, it becomes harder for a government to explain to its people and its legislature exactly what the money was spent on and what results it produced. There is also a persistent view, pointing to past inefficiency and misconduct in running international organizations, that it is risky to widen freedom of use before the checking systems have caught up. If some countries respond to the loss of earmarking by cutting their contributions altogether, the organization's total funding could end up smaller. The legitimate wish of donors to support fields they are strong in or regions they have close ties to, and their wish to help in a way where their own name is visible, would also weaken. Furthermore, because the allocation of unrestricted money is left to the judgment of the organization's board and secretariat, the way those decisions are made could itself lean toward some countries or the secretariat, which raises a new question of who decides the allocation.
Learn the background
International organizations were created as tools for the world to work together on problems that cross borders. But in many of them, it is pointed out, the share of money that donors earmark in detail has grown over a long period. Donors have their reasons: it is easier to explain results to their own citizens, and the money is sure to reach the regions and fields they care about. As a result, organizations are chased by different reports and conditions from each donor, similar projects run separately in the same region, and staff come and go on short contracts. Crises that draw attention attract money, while long-running conflicts, diseases that rarely make the news, and preparation for crises that have not yet happened struggle to get funds. Concerns have been raised, inside and outside the organizations, that a system meant for working together has in practice become a contractor for the individual projects of some donors. As government budgets tighten, the time has come to rethink the way money is given, not just how much.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes