Abstract
AbstractThe Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) is regarded as being the twenty-first-century epitome of a partnership within a polycentric world in the arena of international development cooperation. The chapter argues that, among the group of emerging economies, the GPEDC is considered to be just another form of the DAC’s recent transformation. That is why the emerging powers are sceptical—they are not a part of it; hence, they are reluctant to join it. However, we also explain why the GPEDC is a valuable platform for continuing the role of development cooperation for global development and implementing the 2030 Agenda. The chapter suggests how different stakeholders—including the emerging ones, particularly China—can work together to make the GPEDC a genuine partnership.
Highlights
Due to their continued reluctance—or even suspicious attitudes, which started right at the beginning of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) process—four of the five BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) were absent from the second forum, as onlyMajor parts of this paper were published in Discussion Paper 17/2017 of the German Development Institute (DIE).Li Xiaoyun was a visiting fellow at the DIE
Qi Gubo is a professor at the China Institute for South-South Cooperation in Agriculture/China Belt and Road Institute in Agriculture/College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricultural University
From all perspectives, instead of maintaining the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)’s hegemonic role, it is important to support the DAC-led development cooperation move towards more openness and inclusiveness—the GPEDC is the first step in this direction
Summary
Due to their continued reluctance—or even suspicious attitudes, which started right at the beginning of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (GPEDC) process—four of the five BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) were absent from the second forum, as only. The absence of China and India in the two events—and the absence of Brazil and South Africa in the Nairobi forum— raised doubts as to the legitimacy of the fora This signifies that the good intentions of starting an era in which traditional and emerging aid donors can hold talks on a level playing field in development cooperation have failed, and that the transformation of existing international development and cooperation architecture is still under way (Fues and Klingebiel 2014). 395 the effectiveness of the agenda and believe that it will fail to achieve salient results in the immediate future (Glennie 2014) Contrary to these opinions, many have responded positively with regard to the shift in focus from aid to development towards more openness and inclusiveness. The chapter illustrates how—and under what conditions and circumstances—this can happen
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
