Development cooperation: New study examines disinformation
"Football stadiums in Brazil, cycle paths in Peru – paid for with German development aid." Such claims have been circulating online for years. A new study by the non-profit Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy (CeMAS) has now systematically investigated the origins of disinformation and derogatory narratives about development cooperation.
Between October 2024 and November 2025, approximately 36,000 posts from nearly 1,500 German-language Telegram groups and channels were analyzed. German development cooperation, in particular, is frequently portrayed as wasteful and corrupt, often based on unsubstantiated or out-of-context accusations. The German government is accused of neglecting the interests of its own citizens and prioritizing "foreign" concerns – creating the image of an out-of-touch elite harming the population.
Who is behind this?
Conspiracy theorist, far-right, and pro-Russian Telegram communities are particularly active in posting on this topic. Many small but disproportionately active accounts frequently forward these messages, ensuring a wide reach. While some accounts are managed by humans, message bots also play a significant role. Through these bots, the content reaches a broader, more diverse audience and ultimately the mainstream of society.
Network analysis provides strong evidence that some of this disinformation is strategically controlled. Russian disinformation actors are exploiting the issue of development cooperation to discredit the German government and democratic institutions.
How disinformation works
The CeMAS analysis reveals recurring patterns:
- Complex relationships are radically simplified.
- Individual examples are distorted or taken out of context.
- Emotions such as anger and outrage are deliberately targeted to maximize reach.
This leads to catchy headlines that generate attention but have little to do with reality. For example, so-called "positive masculinity workshops" are often sensationalized – falsely portrayed as "re-education of men in the Global South." In reality, these are violence prevention programs that raise awareness among men and boys about equality and non-violent conflict resolution. The goal is to reduce violence – especially against women and children – and thereby promote safety, participation, and development in regions heavily affected by conflict.
From clickbait to campaign
Initially isolated, outrage-driven posts evolve into recurring narrative patterns, amplified and politically charged across interconnected channels. The result: a distorted image of development cooperation that fuels mistrust and shifts public debate away from facts and toward resentment. In fact, German development cooperation—both governmental and civil society—is continuously evaluated. The German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEVAL) even has its own independent institute dedicated to this purpose. Clearly, development cooperation must become more transparent, better explain its impact, and take criticism seriously. Nevertheless, the blanket narrative of waste remains false.
Why this is dangerous
Targeted disinformation aims to weaken trust in state institutions and thus in democracy. When false or misleading narratives dominate the discourse, fact-based solutions lose ground. Ultimately, this harms precisely the people whose living conditions are meant to be improved.
Development policy is not perfect. Criticism has its place – but it should be based on verifiable information, not on myths, manipulation, or disinformation. Only then will the debate remain objective, critical, and solution-oriented.
Recognizing disinformation: Three tips
- Check and compare sources (cross-checking)
Check the sender: Is it a well-known, reputable news source, an official institution, or an unknown website? Search for the story in other, established media outlets. If a sensational story appears only on a single, unknown site, be skeptical.
- Pay attention to emotional language and sensationalist presentation
Disinformation often aims to generate strong emotions such as anger, fear, or panic. Sensationalist headlines, excessive use of exclamation marks, grammatical errors, or a lack of sources are clear warning signs. If a post is highly emotional but offers little factual information, caution is advised.
- Use fact checks
Search for the topic in combination with the word "fact check". Use specialized websites such as CORRECTIV, Mimikama, or the ARD fact finder.