At the turn of the century, the World Bank classified 63 countries as low-income (that is, with a per-capita income below $1,025); by July 2012, that number had fallen to 36.
Such classifications come with caveats, of course – a year earlier the figure was 35, demonstrating that states can fall back as well as progress. Moreover, average income offers a fairly limited picture of poverty.
Yet the broad pattern is clear: from Mozambique to the Philippines, the geography of growth is altering.
This shift has the potential to redefine the traditional aid landscape. As emerging economies begin to attract new economic investment from the private sector and nation states such as China, Singapore and Brazil, countries that once looked to established institutions like the World Bank and UN for development assistance now have a greater range of choice.
"Many countries are fortunate enough to have new sources of finance that they can mix and match," says Andrew Rogerson, senior research associate at the Overseas Development Institute.
"The arrival of new [funding] sources like China and, to some extent, new philanthropy, means they're less beholden to only one source of aid. They may still be quite dependent on a package of aid from a variety of sources, but not necessarily from the old donors."
Neither is aid the full story. Greater political and economic stability, along with increased capacity, mean many countries – not least India, to which the UK's Department for International Development recently cut aid – are in a stronger position to make the most of their natural resources and drive their own development. Once obliged to dance to the tune of donors, they are able to choose (and, if they wish, dismiss) agencies or technical consultants as they see fit.
"These countries are much more masters of their own fortune than they were before, because now they have revenue sources that are much more diversified and not just in the form of aid," says Dr Claudia Manning, the Johannesburg-based managing director for international development
consultancy DAI.
"Many donors and multilaterals have done absolutely essential development work, taking the edge off global poverty. But as the world changes, there is an opportunity to think in different ways."
With the ground shifting beneath them, the onus is on NGOs and other aid agencies to adapt. Yet development is big business and – with money, pensions and jobs at stake – some doubt their willingness to do so.
"These are large industries employing tens of thousands in each country," says Manning. "They have a vested interest in more or less remaining where they are. It's difficult for people to accept change, to accept they have different roles and that there are different ways of doing things. But it's a reality."
That being so, how should traditional development actors change? Rogerson cites technological innovations such as the successful M-Pesa mobile money-transfer system as evidence of the need for a more imaginative and efficient approach to delivery – a shift that could have far-reaching implications.
"This kind of citizens' involvement, and using social media to engage people, could displace the whole purpose for which we initially put together compulsory taxes to be spent on development assistance," says Rogerson.
"The rationale for taxing citizens is undermined by a world where there are many other ways to get even altruistic or philanthropic money out to the bush. I'd like to think these sorts of prospects are going to make development agencies think and change."
Equally, argues Manning, with their money now less relevant, NGOs and bilateral and multilateral aid organisations must make the most of their knowledge base.
"Donors have a huge amount of development experience – some good, some not so good," she says. "What do you do in a context where, with other sources of income available, your money is no longer the primary thing you have to offer? It's about sharing knowledge – giving advice or providing guidelines about how to spend properly, about programmes that do and don't work."
Notably, says Manning, the World Bank has been overtaken as a development funder by BNDES, the Brazilian development bank – "but what the World Bank has that BNDES doesn't is a huge repository of knowledge and experience."
To impart that accumulated understanding effectively, however, the nature of the dialogue must be equitable and collaborative rather than prescriptive; conditionality must give way to conversation, with southern voices both heard and heeded.
On that score, Manning is optimistic. "African voices are emerging," she says, "and they're beginning to get louder. As the opportunities for corporate investment increase, and companies are more attracted to the continent, I think African voices will be heard much more."
Traditional development bodies would do well to listen.
