Taking Support for Accountability in New Directions

Continuing to assess what a post-USAID world means for efforts to advance anti-corruption, transparency and good governance, I spoke recently with Blair Glencorse and Cheri Leigh Erasmus, Co-CEOs of Accountability Lab. Glencorse launched Accountability Lab in 2012 to work with youth to drive new thinking and energy in the space. Accountability Lab elevated localization before it became a buzzword, building a network of local organizations that both tap into and generate momentum for change. Given their “finger on the pulse” of grassroots anti-corruption, I asked Glencorse and Erasmus to share their concerns and asked whether we can have reasons for optimism. 

To begin, they stressed that it is impossible to overstate the importance of the role of the US Government in the anti-corruption sector. Blair described the US government as the largest, and in some sense only, major donor with a core anti-corruption focus, particularly over the last five years. Deprived of key support, many NGOs now must sort through a host of legal and financial issues, which may impact the willingness of other donors to fund them. Compounding those challenges, many other bilateral donors are also cutting overall aid budgets, including for anti-corruption and governance. Glencorse and Erasmus noted that the Danish, Spanish and Irish are exceptions, for example, but the size of their aid budgets is not nearly enough to make up for the loss of USAID. Thus, it is too soon to say how this major funding gap will be filled. 

Further, given shrinking public sector aid budgets, they heard much discussion at the recent Skoll World Forum about the need for civil society organizations to embrace revenue models and focus on sustainability. But core elements of anti-corruption are difficult to monetize, he pointed out, such as advocacy, policy reform and efforts to promote integrity. From the corporate side, Erasmus noted at the March 2025 OECD Global Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum that while companies are affirming their commitment to ethical business, their focus remains on transactional concerns, such as risks in their value chains. She feels they may not yet have grappled with the need to support civil society actors who sustain more stable, transparent and fair business and investment environments.

By the same token, Glencorse has seen leaders in civil society, philanthropy, and other governments’ aid agencies begin thinking about anti-corruption and governance. He sees new interest on the part of some individual philanthropists, foundations and donor advised funds. Private donors who previously avoided governance and anti-corruption programming – because of a perception of interference in political affairs, or because it can be difficult to draw a clear line from the work to tangible results – are starting to realize that by improving the transparency of government systems, it is possible to improve outcomes in areas that they have traditionally funded, such as health and education.  

Glencorse chalks this up to a successful messaging effort on the part of the anti-corruption community. He also notes that some foundations are recognizing the costs of diminished accountability and transparency in the US, thus becoming more receptive to anti-corruption conversations more globally. Finally, Glencorse and Erasmus noted that performance-based funding models might offer a new direction for anti-corruption work. He pointed to the IMF collaboration with Transparency International to build integrity and governance metrics into the most recent Sri Lanka assessment. From that point of view, it will be important to track whether the US Development Finance Corporation can address transparency concerns in the countries in which it invests.

Marc Schleifer

Governance, Democracy and Economic Development Expert