As the development sector contends with shrinking aid budgets, rising compliance demands, and increasing scrutiny over impact, the latest Palladium Conversation Series, held in our London office, explored a timely question: what does it really take to “think and work politically” (TWP) in practice?

The session, Working Politically, Patiently and Sustainably: Lessons from the UK Governance Work in Nigeria, brought together development practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to reflect on two major UK-funded programs in Nigeria: the Partnership to Engage, Reform and Learn (PERL) and the Nigeria Portfolio Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (PMEL) program.

Moderated by Alina Rocha Menocal, Director of the TWP Community of Practice, the discussion offered real-world reflections on the value — and vulnerability — of TWP approaches in development. Thinking and working politically is an approach used in international development and governance work. It’s about understanding the political dynamics, relationships, and power structures that influence how decisions are made and how change happens — and then using that understanding to design and implement more effective programs.

Locally Led Reform Built on Trust and Collaboration

One of the clearest takeaways from the event was the role of trust in driving sustainable reform. The PERL program shifted away from treating government and civil society as opponents on either side of a demand/supply divide. Instead, it created opportunities for shared problem solving and collaboration.

In a video recorded for the event, Claire Hughes, the UK Member of Parliament Consultant who led the review of the TWP approach pursued by PERL, described how the program “worked to facilitate a space where people can come together, work around a common issue and build a shared agenda.” This politically-savvy, trust-based approach helped embed the programme’s methods and empowered local partners to drive the change they wanted to see.

These partnerships endured even after PERL officially ended — evidence that when reform is locally owned and politically informed, it is more likely to stick. As the event highlighted, this kind of work doesn’t just deliver technical results; it supports the emergence of resilient, citizen-focused governance ecosystems.

Buffering and Adaptive Management in Complex Environments

The success of PERL was not accidental. It was made possible, in part, by what John Mutu, Team Leader for the Engaged Citizens pillar of the PERL program, describes as deliberate “buffering” of donor demands. “Program managers across FCDO and Palladium protected frontline delivery teams from excessive compliance pressures, giving them the flexibility and political space needed to respond to local realities,” John adds.

But this flexibility is under threat.

“Doing development differently becomes nearly impossible when programs are struggling just to do development” opined a member of the audience. The growing emphasis on short-term diplomatic visibility and tighter compliance is beginning to erode the very conditions that made TWP work viable.

TWP as a Strategic Investment

In today’s aid landscape — characterised by reduced budgets and shifting donor priorities — the conversation underscored the strategic value of thinking and working politically. While often low on visibility, the approach delivers high public value by enabling systemic reform in key sectors like education and health.

“PERL’s model showed that patient, facilitative support can catalyse change at scale, especially when aligned with national priorities and supported by flexible funding instruments that recognise local partners have the resources they need to make change,” adds Hughes, reflecting on the successes of the programme. In other words, working politically isn’t just about being principled - it’s also a pragmatic investment strategy for donors seeking sustainable, long-term impact.

Balancing Technical Expertise with Local Ownership

A recurring theme during the session was the tension between the UK’s overseas developmental assistance and aid budget’s emphasis on technical assistance and the need to support locally led development. Reflections from a recent article from BOND, the UK’s leading network for organizations working in international development, framed the dilemma: how can UK development efforts reconcile the strategic interest in exporting expertise with the imperative to empower local actors?

Participants questioned whether the emerging technical assistance model leaves space for politically informed, locally driven work like PERL. The conversation made clear that empowering local actors — and ensuring civil society remains centra — must remain a priority, even as donor strategies evolve and civic space narrows.

Throughout the event, PERL stood out as a rare success story. The enduring partnerships in PERL’s focal states were held up as evidence that thinking and working politically can lead to meaningful and lasting change.

As the development community continues to reckon with what “sustainability” and “value for money” really mean, PERL offers an example of what’s possible when programmes are given the time, space, and trust to work politically.