This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from a U4 Partner Agency. The U4 Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International in collaboration with the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre based at the Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Query
Please provide an overview of the existing literature about safeguarding donor funds amid the rapid phasing out of aid.
Summary
Rapid donor exits have been on the rise in recent years, driven by shifting geopolitical priorities, domestic budget pressures and evolving aid strategies. When poorly coordinated and if responsibilities shift too abruptly to local actors, exits can face corruption risks such as the diversion of residual funds, favouritism in fast-tracked hiring, procurement manipulation and reduced whistleblowing capacities. Donors rarely have exit-specific anti-corruption frameworks, but practices such as corruption risk management, proactive auditing and remote monitoring may help safeguard funds and assets.
Main points
- Donor exit processes involve a series of interlinked steps, such as communicating with partners, closing contracts, recovering funds and conducting a final audit. Evidence underscores that successful exits require early planning, realistic timelines, skilled staff, context-sensitive approaches and coordination with other donors.
- Rapid donor exits are often poorly planned, unilateral and executed without clear strategies or coordination, increasing risks to programme continuity and sustainability.
- There are only a limited number of studies on corruption risks associated with rapid donor exits, many of which are dated. This constitutes a notable gap in the literature on corruption and development, especially as rapid exits becoming more frequent, driven by shifting geopolitical priorities and domestic budget pressures.
- Certain characteristics of exits also heighten the risk of corruption, including pressure to disburse funds quickly, inadequate oversight due to reduced donor presence and challenges managing residual assets and contracts.
- These corruption risks include diversion of residual funds and assets, favouritism in fast-tracked hiring and procurement manipulation. The severity of risks during rapid exits is shaped by contextual factors, including country governance capacity, institutional maturity, donor concentration and the political drivers of withdrawal.
- Although few donors have anti-corruption frameworks designed specifically for rapid exits, existing measures in the development sector may help safeguard funds from corruption risks.
- These include adopting a corruption risk mitigation plan in anticipation of the exit with clear roles and responsibilities, ensuring clear communication to and support for all the national stakeholders who had been engaged by the donor, as well as undertaking proactive auditing and remote monitoring of residual funds and assets.
Authors
Miloš Resimić
Reviewers
Jamie Bergin (TI)
Guillaume Nicaise (U4)
Date
09/12/2025
