From Global Governance to National Interest: Populism and the Reconfiguration of International Development Cooperation in the United States of America and Nigeria

This study examined how the contemporary rise of populism reshaped international development cooperation by reorienting state behaviour from multilateral, rule-based global governance toward sovereignty-centred and national-interest–driven engagement. Using the United States and Nigeria as comparative cases, the study conceptualized populism as a thin-centred ideology grounded in anti-elitism, moralized constructions of “the people,” and claims to restore popular sovereignty, and explored how these ideas extended beyond domestic politics into foreign and development policy. Drawing on a qualitative, literature-based comparative design, the study synthesized theoretical and empirical scholarship on populism, global governance, and development cooperation, alongside policy analyses of aid, trade, climate governance, and regional integration. The findings showed that in both countries populist discourse delegitimized multilateral institutions by portraying them as elite-driven constraints on national autonomy, thereby encouraging selective compliance, transactional diplomacy, and a preference for bilateral or executive-centred arrangements. In the United States, populist nationalism contributed to reduced commitment to multilateral agreements and institutions, the politicization of development assistance, and the reframing of trade and climate cooperation in security and competitiveness terms, with systemic implications for the legitimacy and capacity of global development regimes. In Nigeria, populism was intertwined with post-colonial and sovereignty-centred narratives that generated ambivalence toward external conditionality and regional integration, leading to selective engagement with and occasional defiance of Economic Community of West African States and African Continental Free Trade Area commitments, thereby disrupting African-led development frameworks. The comparative analysis further demonstrated that structural position in the international system mediated the scale and reach of populism’s effects: while a global power reshaped international norms and institutional authority, a regional power primarily influenced sub-regional and continental governance. The study concluded that populism did not eliminate international development cooperation but reconfigured it toward a more fragmented, interest-driven, and politically instrumental form, posing significant challenges to the sustainability, predictability, and legitimacy of collective action in global and regional development governance.

Populism; Global governance; Development cooperation

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2019). The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Penguin Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Acharya, A. (2018). The end of American world order (2nd ed.). Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Adebajo, A. (2020). The curse of Berlin: Africa after the Cold War. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Adebajo, A. (2021). The Pan-African pantheon: Prophets, poets, and philosophers. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Adebayo, A. G. (2020). Populism and political communication in Nigeria. Journal of African Media Studies, 12(2), 215–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Adegbite, E. (2018). Corporate governance in Nigeria: A review of the post-2003 reforms. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 345–366. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Adesina, J. O. (2019). Social policy in Africa: The challenges of nation-building in a globalised world. Policy Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Adeyemi, K. S. (2021). Nationalism, populism and regional integration in West Africa. African Studies Quarterly, 20(3), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Ake, C. (1996). Democracy and development in Africa. Brookings Institution. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Amin, S. (1976). Unequal development: An essay on the social formations of peripheral capitalism. Monthly Review Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2021). Dysfunctional state institutions, trust, and governance in areas of limited statehood. Regulation & Governance, 15(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Börzel, T. A., & Zürn, M. (2021). Contestations of the liberal international order: From liberal multilateralism to postnational liberalism. International Organization, 75(2), 282–305. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chivunda, A. (2020). Populism and postcolonial sovereignty in Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 38(3), 421–438. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Colantone, I., & Stanig, P. (2018). The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 936–953. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Corrales, J., & Penfold, M. (2015). Dragon in the tropics: Hugo Chávez and the political economy of revolution in Venezuela. Brookings Institution Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. De Vries, C. E., & Hobolt, S. B. (2020). Political entrepreneurs: The rise of challenger parties in Europe. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Falkner, R. (2020). Global climate governance after the Paris Agreement: The role of non-state actors and transnational networks. International Affairs, 96(3), 707–729. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Fearnside, P. M. (2020). Brazil’s Amazonian forest under threat from Bolsonaro’s populist policies. Land Use Policy, 95, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fiedler, C. (2022). Populism and development aid: The politics of donor retrenchment. Third World Quarterly, 43(6), 1285–1303. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Flockhart, T. (2018). The coming multi-order world. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(1), 3–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Fukuyama, F. (2020). Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Funke, M., Schularick, M., & Trebesch, C. (2020). Populist leaders and the economy. Economic Policy, 35(102), 1–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Gidron, N., & Bonikowski, B. (2022). Varieties of populism: Literature review and research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology, 48, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Gidron, N., & Hall, P. A. (2023). Populism as a problem of social integration. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hlongwane, T. (2021). Regional integration and economic nationalism in West Africa: Nigeria’s border closure and its implications. Journal of African Trade, 8(2), 145–160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2020). Community, scale, and regional governance: A postfunctionalist theory of governance. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ikenwa, C. O., & Oguji, A. N. (2020). Border closure and regional trade in West Africa: Implications for Nigeria’s leadership in the Economic Community of West African States. African Economic Review, 12(1), 77–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Lancaster, C. (2020). Foreign aid: Diplomacy, development, domestic politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mamdani, M. (2022). Neither settler nor native: The making and unmaking of permanent minorities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W. W. Norton. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mlambo, D. N. (2019). Colonial legacies and regional integration in Africa. Journal of African Foreign Affairs, 6(1), 25–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Mudde, C. (2019). The far right today. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Mudde, C. (2022). The populist radical right: A reader. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Okoro, E. (2023). Regional leadership and economic nationalism in West Africa: Nigeria and the politics of the African Continental Free Trade Area. African Affairs, 122(488), 215–234. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Pappas, T. S. (2019). Populism and liberal democracy: A comparative and theoretical analysis. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Ramirez, S., & Johnson, L. (2020). South–South cooperation and development finance: New actors, new challenges. World Development, 132, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Rodrik, D. (2017). Straight talk on trade: Ideas for a sane world economy. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1–2), 12–33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Rojas, R., & Basurto, X. (2019). Institutional trust and collective action in development governance. World Development, 122, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Rooduijn, M. (2014). The nucleus of populism: In search of the lowest common denominator. Government and Opposition, 49(4), 573–599. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Schaffer, F. C., & Schmidt, P. (2021). Democracy and populism in the Global South. Third World Quarterly, 42(6), 1231–1250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Signé, L. (2020). Winning the 21st century: Strategies for effective United States–Africa partnerships. Brookings Institution Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Smith, J. (2020a). Nationalism and development cooperation in comparative perspective. Global Governance, 26(2), 189–207. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Smith, J. (2020b). Populist foreign policy and the crisis of multilateralism. International Politics, 57(4), 623–641. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Stanley, B. (2008). The thin ideology of populism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 95–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Taggart, P. (2018). Populism and “unpolitics.” In C. Rovira Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P. Ochoa Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp. 79–91). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Tella, O. (2024). Populism, sovereignty, and regionalism in contemporary Africa. African Security Review, 33(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. United Nations Development Programme. (2021). Human development report 2021/2022: Uncertain times, unsettled lives. United Nations Development Programme. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. World Health Organization. (2020). World health statistics 2020: Monitoring health for the Sustainable Development Goals. World Health Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. World Bank. (2021). World development report 2021: Data for better lives. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. World Trade Organization. (2020). World trade report 2020: Government policies to promote innovation in the digital age. World Trade Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Weyland, K. (2001). Clarifying a contested concept: Populism in the study of Latin American politics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Comparative Politics, 34(1), 1–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Zielonka, J. (2018). Counter-revolution: Liberal Europe in retreat. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Global Political Economy and Educational Reforms in the Global South: An Evolutionary Study of Ghana
• Electoral Militarization and the Challenges of Free and Fair Elections in Nigeria: A Focus on the 2023 Presidential Election
• Political Awareness and Engagement in Relation to Voting Behavior among College Students
• Role of Community Leaders in Ensuring Secure Electoral Process in Nairobi City County, Kenya
• Assessing the Delivery of Local Disaster Management Services and Client Satisfaction through SERVQUAL Dimensions