Highlight 9/2026: South-South and Triangular Cooperation: Alternative Governance Models

María Paula Vásquez, 16 March 2026

The key to understanding the value of South–South Cooperation (SSC), and Triangular Cooperation (TrC) lies beyond their role as complementary mechanisms to the current aid system structure; these two modalities can also serve as an alternate forms of governance for international cooperation that create new opportunities for meaningful international cooperation.

In contrast to the North-South paradigm (which has historically included elements of conditional donor support, one-way agenda setting, and externally determined policy directives) SSC and TrC reframe how authority, accountability and ownership are exercised within international cooperation modalities.

These forms of cooperation offer significant benefits to developing countries since they promote horizontal relationships and collaborative responsibility at the regional level, while expanding the number of geopolitical and economic structures that define the conditions under which development occurs.

Cooperation within SSC is normatively grounded in multilateral platforms, including the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, which articulate principles of cooperation, including non-intervention, mutual benefit and demand driven engagement. These principles contest the vertically structured OECD DAC (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Development Assistance Committee) aid system, positioning participating states as both producers of knowledge and beneficiaries of cooperation.

Regional organizations such as CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), CARICOM (Caribbean Community) and others, similarly create inter-governmental institutions that incorporate cooperation into decision making processes based on rotating leadership, consensus-based decision making and technical peer-to-peer exchange. These institutions embed procedural equality and distribute the power of agenda setting amongst member states. Asymmetry of material resources still exists, and thus there is a possibility that larger economies may possess greater technical capacity or financial capital; however, the governance framework is not hierarchical. The impact of this is that the way in which development priorities are defined, and how legitimacy is created, are altered.

These approaches can foster greater local ownership, as development strategies are formulated by Southern actors themselves. Volumes such as Good Practices in South-South and Triangular Cooperation for Sustainable Development compiled by the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation document hundreds of evidence-based cases where Southern countries share innovations tailored to their own contexts (from health information systems to agricultural techniques) demonstrating scalable and adaptable models that traditional North-South aid might overlook.

However, critics warn that South–South and triangular cooperation (SSC/TrC) can still reproduce power imbalances. Larger countries such as China, Brazil, and India may dominate these partnerships because of their greater economic and political influence. This raises concerns about whether such cooperation truly promotes equality or simply reshapes old hierarchies in a new way.

Scholars also point out that SSC usually does not replace North–South cooperation. Instead, it works alongside it and remains part of wider global systems that continue to influence development priorities and funding decisions.

Horizontality is not merely rhetoric in the context of SSC and TrC; rather, horizontality is practiced through joint problem solving with respect to structural challenges that countries face, such as inequality, informality, disaster vulnerability, or commodity dependency. Therefore, unlike the practice of importing policy templates, SSC and TrC involve policy dialogue that is derived from shared experiences and realities. These processes expand the range of geopolitical and economic actors influencing development, reducing dependence on traditional Northern donors and diversifying partnerships.

The critical question is whether these models represent genuine structural alternatives or merely softer variants of existing hierarchies. I contend that SSC and TrC do constitute alternative governance models, not because they eliminate power asymmetries, but because they redefine the rules of engagement. By embedding horizontality, shared accountability, and regional ownership into cooperative practice, they influence development outcomes in ways that are more informed, contextually grounded, and politically legitimate. The debate, therefore, should not center on whether SSC and TrC are perfect, but on whether strengthening them can further democratize global development governance.

María Paula Vásquez, Highlight 9/2026: South-South and Triangular Cooperation: Alternative Governance Models, 16 March 2026, available at www.meig.ch

The views expressed in the MEIG Highlights are personal to the authors and neither reflect the positions of the MEIG Programme nor those of the University of Geneva