Peter Middlebrook Interview
Peter Middlebrook, an economist, strategist, and CEO of Geopolicity, shares deep insights from decades of experience across over 50 countries. In this wide-ranging conversation, he reflects on post-conflict recovery, policy design, and the importance of sequencing reforms. He explores how dignity-driven design reshapes humanitarian housing, how predictive analytics and geopolitical foresight differentiate his consultancy, and how national ownership, coherence, and inclusive financing can transform fragmented aid into sustainable development. With examples from Afghanistan to Azerbaijan, Middlebrook highlights how grounded strategies, digital public goods, and patient reform pathways can create meaningful change in fragile states and beyond.
Designing Resilience
We started the interview by asking, “You’ve worked across more than 50 countries, advising on national strategies, governance, and economic transitions. What have been the most enduring lessons in designing policy for fragile or post-conflict states?”
Peter Middlebrook replied, “One enduring lesson is that there is no one-size-fits-all blueprint for rebuilding fragile states. Every country has its own historical legacies and economic mix – many are what I call “liberal-hybrids”, blending elements of different systems. So we must be pragmatic and context-specific. Imposing textbook market policies too quickly can overwhelm weak institutions and aggravate fragility. I’ve seen that premature liberalization or cookie-cutter reforms can do more harm than good. Instead, we prioritize building governance foundations first – basic security, rule of law, and core institutions that people trust.
Another key lesson is national ownership and inclusion. Policies will only stick if local stakeholders drive them. That means working with the national government and communities so that donor-funded plans align with local priorities. Donor interventions that bypass government systems or create parallel structures tend to undermine the state. We learned to avoid that. In fact, after conflicts, aid is often fragmented – off-budget projects, NGOs doing their own thing – and that weakens the government’s capacity. So a principle we follow is to align cooperation partner support behind one national strategy, using the country’s own budget and institutions as the primary channel. This “right-financing” approach ensures resources reinforce the state instead of working at cross-purposes.
Sequencing and patience are equally crucial. You can’t reform everything overnight. Early on, people need to see a peace dividend – jobs, services, tangible improvements – to build confidence in the new order. That often means the state initially plays a big role in the economy to deliver quick wins. Deeper structural reforms – like privatization or trade liberalization – should wait until the timing is right. We introduce market reforms gradually, in step with the growth of institutional capacity and social stability. In my experience, successful transitions temper ambition with realism: we strengthen governance step by step, remain flexible to adjust policies as conditions change, and always keep the focus on what ultimately matters – improving citizens’ lives and preventing a return to conflict.”
Looking Ahead
The Arab Today: As CEO of Geopolicity, you’ve positioned the firm at the intersection of geopolitical forecasting and strategic economic planning. How does your approach to predictive analytics differ from traditional consultancy models in development economics?
Peter Middlebrook replied, “Traditional development consultancies often look backwards, analyzing historical trends and focusing on project outputs. At Geopolicity, we try to look forward and outside the box. We combine economics with geopolitics – essentially geo-economics – to anticipate future scenarios in a way standard models might not. For example, when we assessed the impact of the Ukraine war on Kosovo, we treated it as a strategic foresight exercise, projecting out to 2026 to see how energy and food shocks might play out and what responses the government would need. That kind of scenario-based forecasting, integrating conflict dynamics and economic data, is something we emphasize strongly.
Our approach to predictive analytics harnesses a wide set of indicators – not just GDP growth rates or debt ratios, but also political risk signals, climate trends, technological disruptions – to paint a more holistic picture of where a country is heading. We often use advanced data modeling and work with cross-disciplinary experts (economists, data scientists, former policymakers) to stress-test development strategies against various “What if?” situations. In practice, this means our advice isn’t only about where an economy stands, but where it’s going under different conditions. It helps leaders make decisions with an eye on potential future shocks and opportunities.
Another difference is that we focus on innovating new models and tools for our clients, rather than sticking to the old playbook. We’re a bit of a hybrid ourselves – part think tank, part on-the-ground advisory. We might deploy an AI-driven model to forecast revenue under different commodity price scenarios, or use big data to map poverty in real time. This innovative, forward-looking mindset has been part of Geopolicity’s ethos from the start. Traditional consultancies in development economics do good work, but they can be quite rigid or siloed. We aim to be more agile and predictive, looking at how global trends (from oil prices to pandemics) intersect with local realities. In short, we treat development planning as both an economics exercise and a foresight challenge – helping governments not only plan for today, but also prepare for the next decade in a very uncertain world.”
Restoring Humanity
The Arab Today: Dignity Designed emphasizes dignity-led design in delivering shelter solutions. How does this concept reshape how we approach humanitarian responses in emergencies and urban displacement settings?
Peter Middlebrook replied, “Dignity-led design means we put the human aspect front and center when crafting shelter solutions. In traditional humanitarian responses, the mindset has often been “get basic shelter up, keep people alive.” Necessary, of course – but it sometimes resulted in tent camps or barracks that, while lifesaving, could be dehumanizing over the long term. We wanted to change that. At Dignity Designed, we insist that even emergency shelters can be beautiful, safe, and empowering spaces – something a family could call home, not just a temporary roof over their heads. Our motto is bringing dignity back into people’s lives through design.
In practical terms, this concept has led us to completely rethink emergency and transitional housing. Take our Hexagonal Shelter, for example – it’s about 200 square feet, can house a family comfortably, and is built with insulated panels, windows and a lockable door for privacy and security. Yet it can be flat-packed and assembled by just two people in a couple of hours. And it’s durable – these units last 5 to 10 years depending on conditions, far longer than the typical flimsy tent. By designing shelters to be sturdy mini-homes rather than disposable tents, we ensure that displaced people live in safety and with a sense of normalcy. Children can study at night through a window, parents can lock their door – those little dignities matter.
This approach is reshaping humanitarian response by raising the standards of what we deliver in crises. We’re saying that emergency housing shouldn’t condemn people to years of discomfort or indignity. Instead, we infuse principles of affordability, longevity, and comfort right from the design phase. In urban displacement settings – like informal settlements or refugee populations in cities – dignity-led design pushes us to create housing solutions that integrate into the urban fabric, rather than isolating people. It’s about designing shelters that are not just functional but also culturally appropriate and aesthetically pleasing, so communities accept them and residents feel valued. We also tie our designs to longer-term development aims (our shelters align with UN Sustainable Development Goals on sustainability and inclusion).
Overall, the concept reframes shelter from a purely logistical item to a restoration of dignity. When people have a decent place to live, even amid disaster or displacement, it restores hope. It helps families heal and rebuild. That shift in approach – from seeing people as beneficiaries of handouts to participants deserving the best design we can offer – could transform how humanitarian agencies and governments plan emergency housing in the future. We hope it sets a new benchmark: that even in the toughest situations, design and dignity must go hand in hand.”
Turning Pledges into Progress
The Arab Today: You’ve played a pivotal role in shaping strategies such as the Afghanistan National Development Strategy and the UNSDCF in Azerbaijan. What governance principles are critical to translating donor commitments into implementable national strategies?
Peter Middlebrook replied, “In my experience, the first principle is country ownership. No national strategy will work if it’s seen as a donor-driven exercise. So translating donor pledges into real projects starts with the government in the driver’s seat – ideally with a clear national vision or development plan that donors align to. In Afghanistan, for instance, we had to ensure that the huge international commitments were channeled through the Afghan National Development Strategy’s priorities, rather than creating parallel agendas. That leads to the second principle: alignment and integration. Donor funds should be aligned with the country’s budget and systems. I often say, use the national budget as the primary tool for implementing donor funds. When aid money flows through the government’s budget, it builds local capacity in public financial management and makes it easier to track and coordinate. It also forces everyone – donors and ministries alike – to get on the same page about what the priorities are.
Transparency and accountability are also vital governance principles here. Donors need confidence that funds are used as intended, and citizens need to see results. That means setting up robust monitoring frameworks and insisting on international standards in financial management. In practice, this could be joint donor-government review boards or public reporting on aid spending. In Azerbaijan’s UNSDCF, for example, we emphasized strong result frameworks so that each donor contribution was linked to a tangible outcome in the country’s development plan. Good governance is about turning promises into progress that people can observe, so having a clear system to measure performance and outcomes is key.
Another principle is coordination and coherence. Often, I’ve observed gaps where multiple donors fund similar things in silos – one ministry gets overloaded with overlapping projects while another priority is underfunded. To avoid that, a strong coordination mechanism led by the host government (like a high-level council or aid management platform) is needed. All major stakeholders – government, donors, even civil society – should regularly meet to harmonize efforts. This is how you translate a bunch of separate donor commitments into one implementable program. It’s a lesson I took from drafting national strategies: you have to break down donor-funded projects into who does what, by when, and ensure it fits into the local administrative context.
Lastly, realism and prioritization must guide the process. Donors often come with ambitious goals and pet initiatives. A sound governance approach will critically prioritize projects that are most feasible and impactful, and sequence them properly. It might mean telling some donors, “Great idea, but let’s phase that in later,” to avoid overloading the system. In fragile settings, I always stress the importance of not scattering resources too thin. It’s better to fully fund and implement five key national programs than to have fifty halfway-done pilot projects. Governance is the art of focus here – aligning money, capacity, and political will around a clear set of national priorities. If you get that right, you honor donor commitments and deliver visible development results, which in turn builds trust for future cooperation.”
Fixing the Disconnect
The Arab Today: Having served with the World Bank, DFID, EU, and others, what are the gaps you’ve observed in multilateral development coordination, and how can those be bridged in the era of climate finance and digital public goods?
Peter Middlebrook replied, “One gap I’ve often seen is what you might call the silo syndrome. Each multilateral or donor agency has its own mandates, procedures, and timelines. On the ground, this can translate into fragmented efforts – for example, parallel projects that don’t talk to each other, or multiple donors funding separate data systems that aren’t interoperable. In an era of new challenges like climate change and the need for digital public goods, this lack of coordination becomes even more pronounced. Climate finance, for instance, is coming in through various channels (UN funds, multilateral banks, private sector) and sometimes it’s not well integrated into countries’ overall development plans. Similarly, different donors might be developing digital tools or platforms for a country (say an e-health system by one, digital ID by another) without a common architecture, leading to data disharmony.
To bridge these gaps, one approach I advocate is the use of Integrated National Financing Frameworks (INFFs) and similar comprehensive planning tools. We’re helping countries like Malaysia, Botswana, Indonesia and others develop INFFs for the SDGs. The idea is to bring all financing streams – domestic budgets, donor aid, climate funds, private investments – under one umbrella strategy. This fosters a unified conversation among donors and government about who finances what, and how it all fits together toward the country’s goals. In the climate finance context, for example, an INFF can ensure that climate-related funds align with national priorities (like renewable energy or climate-resilient agriculture programs in the development plan) rather than being standalone projects. Essentially, it’s forcing coordination by design.
Another important step is improving data sharing and transparency among multilaterals. Often the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing simply due to poor information flows. Modern digital platforms can help here – for instance, some countries have aid management dashboards accessible to all donors, so everyone can see in real time who is doing what. Embracing such collaborative technology (a “digital public good” in itself) can reduce duplication and let donors piggyback on each other’s successes. In the era of digital public goods, coordination also means agreeing on open standards. If multiple donors are supporting, say, digital payments or e-governance systems in a region, they should coordinate to use interoperable, open-source solutions that any country can adopt. This way, we avoid proprietary systems that lock governments in, and we create regional synergies.
I should also mention multi-stakeholder partnerships. The gaps in coordination aren’t just between traditional donors; they’re also between donors and the private sector or civil society, which are increasingly important in areas like climate and tech. Bringing those actors into coordination forums is part of the solution. For example, a climate resilience project might benefit from a joint task force that includes government, donors, NGOs and even a renewable energy company – all aligning efforts. We need more of these platforms. The good news is that with global challenges like climate change, there’s a growing recognition that no single agency or country can tackle them alone. I’m seeing more appetite for joint initiatives and pooled funds (like multi-donor trust funds for climate action or digital innovation). The era of competition among development actors is giving way, slowly, to an era of collaboration, out of necessity. Our job as advisors is often to facilitate that: to help connect the dots, ensure everyone is speaking the same language (or at least working off the same game plan), and that new funding modalities – whether it’s green bonds or digital infrastructure investments – fit into a coherent national strategy. If we can achieve that, we turn a cacophony of good intentions into a concerted, effective development chorus.”
Reform with Caution
The Arab Today: Your article “Liberalization – Building a Fragile Consensus” warns of premature economic liberalization in unstable states. What timeline or conditions do you consider optimal for introducing market reforms in such settings?
Peter Middlebrook replied, “The core message of that paper is that sequence and timing are everything when it comes to market reforms in fragile states. In a very unstable or post-conflict situation, I would advocate a deliberate, phased approach rather than a big-bang liberalization. Early on, the priority should be restoring basic economic stability and confidence: controlling inflation, getting people back to work, and re-establishing core government services. Market reforms that introduce high uncertainty – like sudden removal of price controls, rapid privatization of state firms, or opening the economy fully to global competition – can be destabilizing if done too soon. I’ve found that fragile states cannot bear liberalization if it comes “too hard and too fast”; reforms must be carefully calibrated and matched to the country’s institutional strengt.
In terms of timeline, I’d say first build the scaffolding, then remove the supports gradually. The “scaffolding” is things like regulatory institutions, social safety nets, and a minimal level of political consensus. For example, before liberalizing the financial sector, make sure you have a decent central bank and banking supervision in place. Before slashing tariffs, ensure your local industries or farmers have some support to compete, and maybe sequence it so that the most sensitive sectors liberalize last. Sometimes this process can take years – and that’s okay. In East Asia’s post-war development, governments kept certain protections until their economies were ready, rather than obeying a strict ideological timetable. Each country must judge when it has attained the essential preconditions – macro stability, regulatory capacity, and a bit of public buy-in – to safely roll out major market reforms.
Another condition I emphasize is consensus-building, which is where the title “fragile consensus” comes in. Market reforms create winners and losers, and in fragile states the losers can feel it acutely (and potentially resort to conflict or unrest). So reforms should follow extensive dialogue with stakeholders – businesses, labor groups, civil society – to build a consensus on the direction and pacing. This often means packaging reforms with compensatory measures. For instance, if you’re going to reduce subsidies or open markets, have parallel programs to cushion the poor or help state workers transition to the private sector. That way reforms don’t undercut peace by fueling grievances.
In short, there’s no universal clock for liberalization, but the rule of thumb is: don’t rush. Gradualism isn’t a dirty word in fragile contexts – it’s often the smarter path. You introduce competition and private sector dynamism in steps, monitor the impact, and expand as things stabilize. Perhaps one could outline a rough roadmap: Years 1–2, focus on stability and institution-building; Years 3–5, introduce pilot reforms in less critical sectors; Years 5–10, if all goes well, undertake broader liberalization once governance has improved and the economy can handle shocks. And if at any point the reforms threaten to outpace the political or social consensus, you pause and consolidate. The goal is to eventually reach a liberalized economy, but on a timeline that the society can absorb. That way, liberalization becomes a boost to resilience rather than a trigger for new fragility.”
Tech with Equity
Lastly we asked, “With the increasing role of AI and data ecosystems in shaping public policy, how should frontier economies harness technology without exacerbating inequality or governance risks?”
“This is one of the great questions of our time. Frontier and emerging economies absolutely have a chance to leapfrog using AI and big data – but they must be very intentional about how they do it. The first step is to bridge the digital divide. If AI benefits only those with internet access or tech skills, it could widen inequality. So governments should invest in broad-based digital infrastructure (getting affordable internet to rural areas, for example) and in human capital – digital literacy, STEM education, vocational tech training – so that a wide segment of society can participate in the new digital economy. I often say that any tech rollout must have inclusion at its core, because otherwise you’re just deepening the divide. That means we also need policies like affordable data plans or community internet centers, so the poor aren’t left offline. Digital inclusion is a prerequisite for harnessing AI beneficially.
On the governance side, strong frameworks and ethical guardrails are needed from the get-go. AI and data can be double-edged swords – they can make public services more efficient, but they also pose risks like privacy breaches, bias in algorithms, or even misuse for surveillance. Frontier economies should proactively put in place data protection laws, AI ethics guidelines, and transparency requirements for algorithms used in government decision-making. It’s much easier to build trust if citizens know, for instance, how an AI is deciding who gets a loan or which region gets extra health resources. I believe in a model of collaborative governance for tech: involve academia, tech companies, and civil society in creating and overseeing these AI systems. In fact, we’re seeing that effective governance in the digital age is often multi-stakeholder – governments partnering with tech innovators and watchdog groups to ensure technology serves the public good, not just narrow interests. This collaborative, technology-driven governance approach might even redefine how we think of governance, shifting some roles from traditional hierarchies to more networked oversight mechanisms (as the world becomes more interconnected and tech-centric).
Another key point is to manage the disruption to jobs and equity. Automation and AI can boost productivity, but they can also displace workers. Frontier economies often have large young populations and not enough jobs as it is. So policymakers should carefully choose where and how to deploy AI. Use it to augment human workers rather than replace them outright wherever possible. For example, an AI tool in agriculture might help farmers predict weather patterns (enhancing their output) without eliminating the need for farmers – that’s a win-win. But introducing AI-driven automation in a sector that employs tens of thousands of unskilled workers might require a slower approach. I’ve warned before that if we blindly chase efficiency – adopting ultra-efficient AI systems in a context that can’t absorb the shock – we risk major social fallout. In places like South Asia or Africa, adopting a perfectly efficient tech solution that cuts jobs can actually undermine development. The risk is adopting an economic model that’s very efficient but doesn’t create employment for the many. To counter that, governments should pair tech adoption with workforce re-skilling programs and maybe even consider temporary social supports (like unemployment benefits or universal basic income pilots) to cushion transitions.
Finally, use AI and data to strengthen governance, not weaken it. That means using technology for things like improving service delivery (e.g., digital IDs to ensure welfare payments reach the right people), increasing transparency (open data portals for budgets and procurement), and better targeting of resources (using data analytics to identify which communities need a new school or clinic). Frontier economies can actually leapfrog some traditional development hurdles by using data smartly – for instance, deploying mobile platforms for banking to boost financial inclusion. But all this must be done with community buy-in and oversight. If people sense that AI is something being “done to them” rather than “for them,” trust will erode. Engaging citizens in dialogues about tech, maintaining human oversight over critical decisions, and ensuring algorithms are audited for fairness – these are all part of a responsible approach. In summary, embrace the technology, but do so with eyes open. Use it to include, not exclude; to empower, not control. Frontier economies that get this balance right can harness AI and data to accelerate development and good governance, without falling into the traps of greater inequality or authoritarian abuse. It’s a delicate balance, but with the right principles in place, technology can truly be a tool for upliftment rather than a new source of division.” Peter Middlebrook concluded
Also Read:
Benedikt Lüchinger on Edel & Stark’s Global Luxury Vision
Nadeem Tayyab Crafting Excellence through Decorage
Medhat Elabd: Shaping ACME Group’s Strategic Future
