Aid Targeting to Fragile and Conflict-Affected States and Implications for Aid Effectiveness

Yiagadeesen Samy,David Carment

doi:10.17645/pag.v7i2.1852

Abstract

While significant amounts of foreign aid have been allocated to the group of so-called fragile and conflict-affected states in recent years, it is not clear whether that aid is targeted to where it is most needed. This article extends recent work by Carment and Samy (2017, in press), and focuses on aid targeting in fragile states by using the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy fragility index together with sectoral aid flows from the OECD Creditor Reporting System. Specifically, it considers six country-cases from a three-fold typology of states and evaluates the performance of these countries in terms of their fragility relative to the types of aid that they have received. The article argues that aid is poorly targeted in fragile states and by considering the sectoral allocation of aid it also contributes indirectly to the related issue of aid effectiveness.

Highlights

Fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS) have attracted a significant amount of donor attention and resources in recent years.1 According to the latest States of Fragility report by the OECD (2018), donors spent US$ 68 billion or more than 65% of their earmarked funding in 58 fragile contexts in 2016, and more than in other developing countries
Given that poverty will become increasingly concentrated in fragile states in the decade, and that progress in these countries has been slow historically, it is likely that aid flows in FCAS will continue their steady increase
We argue that we can categorize countries according to three types of states when one considers their performance over time: states that are stuck in a fragility trap, states that move in and out of fragility, and states that have exited fragility for a significant period of time

Summary

Introduction

Fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS) have attracted a significant amount of donor attention and resources in recent years. According to the latest States of Fragility report by the OECD (2018), donors spent US$ 68 billion or more than 65% of their earmarked funding in 58 fragile contexts in 2016, and more than in other developing countries. Carment, Prest and Samy (2008) find that aid is allocated to fragile states on the basis of their capacity and authority structures but not according to legitimacy, which could be problematic if countries remain trapped or face challenges in overcoming fragility as a result of lack of legitimacy. These empirical studies consider fragile states as a group and do not fully exploit the different ways in which countries are fragile.

A Typology of States

Evolution of States Using the ALC Framework

Country-Cases5

Sectoral Aid Allocations and the CIFP Framework

Findings

Conclusions