After three decades of continuous foreign assistance, Cambodia’s civil society faces a critical test. The challenge is not merely to survive budget cuts, but to outgrow a dependency mindset. The question is no longer how to return to the way things were, but how to create a future in which Cambodian civil society remains strong, relevant, and independent. This think piece is not a roadmap but a provocation—a call to rethink, reimagine, and reorient. There is no golden bullet, no new donor arriving to save the sector. Yet there is a chance to build something more significant and enduring.
I. Introduction: A Shrinking Tide
Cambodia stands at a moment of profound transition. After more than thirty years of continuous international development assistance since the end of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia´s (UNTAC) mission, the tide is receding. What began as a post-conflict lifeline is now caught in the undercurrent of global political turbulence, geostrategic realignment, and a visible power shift toward a multipolar world order.
"My Country First” populist rhetoric has hardened attitudes against foreign aid. The shrinking pool of resources is a global pattern of no return.
International humanitarian and development resources are declining worldwide. Regional wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the rise of authoritarianism, and “My Country First” populist rhetoric have hardened attitudes against foreign aid. The unexpected USAID funding cut and the dissolution of its implementing presence in Cambodia were not an anomaly—it was an extreme example of a broader, irreversible trend.
Cambodian Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have already adjusted to the phase-out of Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) funding by the end of 2024. The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) has announced significant cuts to its global budget, impacting German bilateral cooperation (GIZ/KfW), but also political foundations, NGOs, and church-based organizations.
This shrinking pool of resources is a global pattern of no return. For many Cambodian NGOs, it will become harder to sustain programs in gender equality, environmental protection, and democratic participation.
The remaining donors will witness a firsthand decline in these funding lines through their own direct experience with reduced contributions. As they observe their fellow funding agencies cut funding year after year, along with the uncertainty surrounding pending withdrawals, they cannot help but reflect on their own situations, feeling a sense of foreboding about potentially falling short in the near future.
In recent years, funding agencies have encouraged formally registered national NGOs as part of larger Civil Society to collaborate and join a funding pool. This effort aimed to connect national and local-level CSOs, ensuring that limited funds reach grassroots levels while simultaneously building the capacity of local CSOs and non-formal Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) that have historically relied on larger, well-established national organizations. This situation has highlighted a cycle of dependency. When national NGOs develop a mindset of reliance, it becomes challenging for them to avoid passing this dependency down to grassroots civil society groups, rather than fostering an independent attitude.
Cambodian civil society organizations (CSO) recognize the necessity of understanding that true sustainability lies in how organizations continue to operate—being creative and adaptable—regardless of external support.
Funding agencies are dedicated to assessing how recent changes affect their partners and the wider Cambodian civil society organization (CSO) and non-governmental organization (NGO) landscape, especially after three decades of relatively stable funding. They recognize the necessity of understanding that true sustainability, which has been a long-standing topic of discussion and evaluation through project and program assessments, lies in how organizations continue to operate—being creative and adaptable—regardless of external support.
II. Thirty Years of Aid: Gains, Losses, and Dependencies
The Cambodian CSO ecosystem is a direct product of the post-1992 aid surge. The UNTAC period marked the beginning of substantial international investment in peacebuilding, human rights, democracy, and reconstruction. For decades, international development assistance was steady, generous, and largely donor-driven.
This produced both gains and structural weaknesses. Gains included capacity building, the emergence of new voices, pluralist perspectives, and the institutionalization of certain democratic practices. Weaknesses included deep operational and financial dependency, limited domestic funding mechanisms, and the entrenchment of donor-shaped agendas and language.
Aid was treated not as a transition, but as an entitlement. This fixed mindset of dependency persists, even as the landscape changes.
The story of aid in Cambodia is not just about funding flows—it is about mindsets. Over time, grant culture created a psychological comfort zone: donor funding became the default. NGOs proudly displayed donor logos, often more prominently than the communities they served - until this was re-negotiated in the 2010s and became less prominent with the nationalization of international NGOs. Capacity was too often built around project cycles, not permanence.
It is the comfort zone of aid dependency. The enduring reliance on international assistance illustrates how dependency became normalized. What began as a necessary intervention in the early 1990s evolved into a culture of permanence. The aid system’s comfort zone, reinforced by donor expectations and CSO adaptation, has hindered the development of sustainable, locally anchored alternatives.
Many organizations lack contingency plans or financial independence. Aid was treated not as a transition, but as an entitlement. This fixed mindset of dependency persists, even as the landscape changes.
Failed institutionalization—where organizations, both states and non-states, were unable to carry donor-supported models forward independently—exposes deeper issues. Structures were designed to deliver outputs, not to outgrow the need for aid. The expectation that donors will “always be there” has become a fantasy, blinding many to the reality of a shifting global order.
The 2010 publication Donor Playground Cambodia by development economist Adam Fforde and Katrin Seidel (former hbs Cambodia Director), remains a landmark critique of these dynamics, showing how aid shaped not only institutions but also discourse—producing what might be called a parroting of donor vocabulary rather than the generation of locally rooted narratives.
III. Unsustainable Growth, Invisible Losses
Cambodia has undeniably changed—roads, high-rises, and economic expansion. But what kind of development have we pursued?
External investors and donor-backed infrastructure have driven urban development booms—but at the cost of green space, traditional livelihoods, and indigenous territories. This kind of growth is visible, but the losses are invisible: forests, fisheries, wildlife, cultural commons and community resilience.
The economy may be growing, but is it well-being that’s growing? Or just GDP figures? What about care work, unpaid labor, community health, and prosperity —the backbone of real development and the final purpose of the later?
These questions are too rarely asked. Environmental degradation and destruction of commons are not factored into the balance sheets of progress. Cambodia risks following models that replicate extractive logics—while losing the very ground that makes sustainable futures possible.
IV. A Shrinking Civic Space in a Shifting World
The global political economy is reshaping development cooperation, and Cambodia is not alone in feeling the tremors. Over the past 15 years, the space for independent, critical civil society has narrowed worldwide. Restrictions on freedoms of expression, association, and assembly have tightened, while external financing for independent media, democracy, gender equality, and land rights has declined—reinforcing authoritarian tendencies.
At the same time, the aid “pizza” is shrinking. USAID’s cuts were only one slice. In Europe, the rise of right-wing populism has fueled resentment toward international aid, whereas the “America First” rhetoric under Trump found echoes elsewhere, questioning the legitimacy of supporting the Global South. Even relatively stable donors face pressure, including those from Germany. Sweden has exited altogether, citing systemic frustrations.
The same forces that cut budgets also constrict civic space.
These shifts mark a long-term trend, and the trend is clear. The pie is getting smaller and the table more crowded. For NGOs, this dual squeeze—tightening political space and declining resources—has demanded adaptation, often at the cost of visibility, autonomy, thematic breadth or risk of cooptation. The same forces that cut budgets also constrict civic space.
This contraction is also evident in Cambodia’s most robust post-1993 industry: the textile and garment sector, long supported by active trade unions. Yet space for union activity is shrinking. New independent unions face restrictive registration processes and credible threats against organizers and their families, creating a climate of fear. Membership decline compounds the challenge, as unions that fail to meet legal thresholds risk inoperability or dissolution. While some federations maintain only minimal compliance, others fall below requirements, leaving them vulnerable. A potential response is consolidation—merging to pool strength and numbers—but this strategy carries risks of internal conflict and contested leadership. Whether unions can frame the merger as collective resilience rather than loss will be critical to their survival.
V. Decolonization, Post-Colonial Critique, and Post-Growth Futures
To speak of decolonization is not to reject all foreign support—it is first and foremost decolonizing one's own mind, to question the logic behind it. Decolonizing development in Cambodia means confronting structural imbalances: the dominance of external priorities, the narratives reinforced by aid, and the internalized belief that Cambodian CSOs, universities, or communities cannot succeed without foreign validation.
This is not an ideological exercise but a practical one. If aid were to disappear tomorrow, what would survive? What would continue to serve people? The challenge is to shift from dependency to self-determined development—a model rooted in local priorities, values, and knowledge. Such a model builds ecosystems rather than isolated projects, embracing alternatives like heterodox and feminist economics, centering care work as the ultimate precondition of any type of development and growth, commons-based governance, do it yourself and do it together -initiatives beyond (not against!) market and state.
The challenge is to shift from dependency to self-determined development—a model rooted in local priorities, values, and knowledge.
Globally, critical academia and progressive civil society are advancing decolonization and post-growth discourses. These frameworks question the legitimacy of entirely growth-driven development, which is built on environmental extraction, social inequity, and the pursuit of endless expansion.
For Cambodia, these debates raise pressing questions: (a) To what extent have Cambodian groups engaged with these ideas? (b) Are there examples of CSOs resisting donor-driven growth models in favor of commons-based, sustainability-oriented approaches? And (c) How can local actors connect their struggles to global conversations without being subsumed into yet another imported framework?
VI. From Grant Dependency Culture to Self-Induced and Generative Financing Models
There are emerging examples of alternative thinking in Cambodia. Local CSOs are experimenting with new models, though they still face a lack of an enabling ecosystem. Some NGOs are piloting social enterprises, yet legal and financial frameworks remain weak and vague. Funding agencies and other actors have sought to institutionalize approaches, but often encounter resistance from within government systems.
The sector must confront a hard truth: there is no return to the “comfort zone” of abundant aid.
Local leadership must now envision development beyond aid. This requires asking fundamental questions: what services are truly needed, how can resources be pooled locally, and what knowledge, culture, or traditions can be mobilized to support sustainable models? A vivid lesson comes from the banana, which features in many Cambodian rituals. Bananas are locally available, affordable, and have sustained cultural practices over generations. If a fruit like strawberries were substituted, the rituals would face practical and symbolic challenges—strawberries are neither affordable nor locally available, and their introduction could undermine the solidarity and continuity of the practice. The lesson is clear: solutions rooted in local realities, resources, and traditions are far more sustainable.
Cambodian CSOs should aspire to a mindset of genuine resilience: if funding continues, that is welcome; if not, they are prepared to carry on. The sector must confront a hard truth: there is no return to the “comfort zone” of abundant aid. As the funding “pizza” shrinks and more actors compete for slices, survival will depend on creativity, collaboration, and self-driven development models.
This means moving beyond grant culture toward diverse revenue streams, including social enterprises, community contributions, and service provision. It may require mergers or alliances to consolidate resources and prioritize core thematic strengths rather than overextending for donor-driven opportunities. Ultimately, sustainability must be embedded in operations rather than dependent on indefinite external subsidy.
VII. Rethinking Development and Growth: A Post-Aid Vision
It is time to question the predominant growth driven development model promoted by both, major donors and the Cambodian government—a model heavily reliant on foreign investment, resource extraction, and speculative urban growth. Who truly benefits from this growth, and what are the costs in terms of land loss, environmental degradation, and cultural erosion? Cambodia must explore alternative pathways rooted in well-being, commons management, and ecological sustainability.
Globally, examples such as South Korea and Japan illustrate a post-growth tendency in some sectors enforced by demographic shifts. Younger generations in both countries have begun prioritizing not just productivity, but health, rest, and a life in dignity. Cambodia, too, must ask what needs to grow. Do we need more high-rise condos or more green spaces? More corporate brands or more livelihoods? While Thailand and Vietnam built centralized, strategic growth models, Cambodia must chart its own path—one guided not by clans or contracts, but by resilient local production pattern for collective well-being.
This is not a return to state-controlled systems, nor a blind adherence to market logic. Instead, it is a third way: a focus on commons and commoning practices, where community, culture, and care are central drivers for development.
VIII. From Dependency to Creation: Mapping Challenges and Ways Forward
As we approach 2030 and the clock ticks for the aid lifeline, the gradual phasing out of official development assistance should not be seen as a crisis, but rather as an opportunity to ask more profound questions: What is the purpose of civil society? Which structures must survive without aid? How can communities be protected when access to land, resources, or funds are restricted or withdrawn? Aid was never meant to be permanent—but the power of creative communities is. Cambodian CSOs must shift from seeing themselves as implementers to becoming creators of alternatives, narratives, and resilient futures.
Brainstorming exercises are needed to better understand the future of funding and its challenges. However, more questions will likely arise than answers available. Conscious funding agencies are increasingly recognizing the need to channel resources directly to local partners. This shift necessitates a strategic mapping of the landscape to identify and address structural vulnerabilities within Cambodia’s civil society organizations (CSOs) and social enterprise ecosystems. It is essential to highlight not only these vulnerabilities but also existing adaptation strategies with potential for scaling.
The decolonization of our mental infrastructures and broadening our imagination accelerate a transition from dependency toward generative, locally rooted models.
Amid impending funding declines, attention must be paid to thematic and operational gaps that risk being neglected. There is also a significant opportunity to integrate principles of post-growth and heterodox economics into a future Cambodian development narrative, thus contributing to the decolonization of our mental infrastructures and broadening our imagination for alternative development pathways.
Adopting this type of strategic approach strengthens the capacity to navigate the complexities of the current landscape and enhances the resilience of local organizations within a diminishing funding environment.
Together, this approach accelerates a transition from dependency toward generative, locally rooted models—where people do not merely react to external funding but actively shape resilient and sustainable futures.
IX. Conclusion: Beyond Aid: Building a Lasting Cambodian Civil Society
After three decades of continuous foreign assistance, Cambodia’s civil society faces a critical test. The challenge is not merely to survive budget cuts, but to outgrow a dependency mindset. The question is no longer how to return to the way things were, but how to create a future in which Cambodian civil society remains strong, relevant, and independent—regardless of whether donors are present.
Civil society in Cambodia re-emerged in the era of aid, but it cannot remain stagnant within it. This moment calls for critical reflection, bold experimentation, and alliances rooted in local priorities. It is an opportunity to replace the donor playground with a space that belongs to and is sustained by Cambodians themselves.
This think piece is not a roadmap but a provocation—a call to rethink, reimagine, and reorient. There is no golden bullet, no new donor arriving to save the sector. Yet there is a chance to build something more significant and enduring. The path ahead is challenging: it requires to think like a commoner, to organize differently, to experiment boldly, and to ground the way forward deeply in Cambodian values and creativity.
At the heart of this transition lies a simple yet profound question: who will we become, and what will we create, beyond aid?