The Embedded Conundrum of South-South and Triangular Cooperation: A Prologue to Shifting Frontiers from Collaboration to Contention

No longer are development agendas framed primarily by traditional aid structures: the post-2015 agenda will involve not just governments, but also the private sector, civil society and individuals. The High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda has coined the phrase of a “global partnership” in this respect.To prepare the ground for implementation of the new agenda, the member states of the United Nations (UN) will be called upon to agree the implications for the UN Development System. What does the post-2015 agenda mean for the UN Development System?The timing for this debate is right. With several reform processes of the UN Development System taking place simultaneously, there is strong momentum for change:- The post-2015 agenda that is to follow the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – linked with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be negotiated through an inter-governmental process – will bring about a new sense of purpose and direction within the UN Development System.- The follow-up to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (“Rio 20”) will see the creation of a High Level Political Forum (HLPF) to permanently anchor the debates at the political level.- The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the UN is set to revise its functions and structures as part of a long-term reform process.However, these processes are currently segregated and not directly linked to each other. In order to result in a coherent overall outcome, it therefore seems necessary to provide a closer linkage under a uniting and coherent “vision” for the United Nations Development System. This vision should have three dimensions:- What: Using the HLPF, member states should translate the post-2015 agenda into a system-wide mandate for the UN Development System that details its purpose as a complement to other actors.- How: The post-2015 agenda is about the recognition that development challenges such as population growth, economic inequality, water shortages and volatile financial markets are increasingly interrelated and global. A set of reforms should therefore be undertaken in conjunction with the elaboration of the future mandate so that the UN Development System can fulfil its mandate supported by a cohesive institutional organisation.- Means: Finally, there is a need to initiate discussions about the future funding of the UN Development System in line with the broadened mandate and reformed structure. What the post-2015 agenda requires is a dramatic shift in perspective to go “beyond aid”.In order to build up the necessary support and momentum for substantial reforms of a funding structure “beyond aid”, stakeholders will need a clear understanding of the specific role that the UN Development System would be playing in the post-2015 agenda, and assurances that the UN Development System “House” is well prepared to deliver. A sequenced approach meets these concerns.

United Nations (UN) development work has long followed the binary logic of “developed” countries providing funding so that UN entities support “developing” countries with their national development efforts. This rigid North–South template, however, is unfit for responding to current sustainability challenges that cut across borders and implicate both “developed” and “developing” member states. Against this backdrop, we suggest that the principle of universality promoted by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development holds untapped potential for rethinking how the UN development pillar operates. We first make the general case for universalizing UN development work, i.e., adapt UN support functions to enable engagement with all member states. We then examine the status quo of UN development work in more detail. Building on the strong North–South bias and the limited examples of UN engagement with “developed” countries we identify, we outline the contours of what a more universal future of UN development work could look like and discuss the political economy of our proposal. Overall, we argue that the principle of differentiated universality provides a helpful heuristic for rethinking the roles and functions of the UN development system in light of sustainable development concerns and persisting inter-state inequalities.

United Nations (UN) entities have repeatedly been asked to mainstream their\nsupport for South-South and triangular cooperation (SSTC). However, there is\nhardly any systematic evidence on whether and how they have done so. This article\ncontributes to addressing this gap. The analysis focuses on organizational efforts\nover the last two decades to integrate SSTC support into institutional processes\nacross the UN development system. It centers around a scorecard of fifteen UN\nentities that maps the levels and contours of their organizational focus on SSTC.\nIn light of a highly diverse SSTC support landscape and the complex political\ndynamics behind mainstreaming efforts, the article discusses the way ahead for UN\nengagement with SSTC, including the potentials and challenges of a continued focus\non mainstreaming itself.

Member states of the United Nations (UN) agree that its development system needs substantial reform given its fragmentation and outdated structures, as well as new demands from the 2030 Agenda. Yet, a recent two-year reform process yielded no substantial reform decisions. Why did member states fail to endorse the necessary reforms despite almost unanimous recognition of the need for change? This paper describes member states’ conflicting positions on reforming the UN and analyses their failure to delegate authority to the UN development system. North and South, donors and recipients, are locked in a struggle for power and control, maximising bilateral influence at the expense of the benefits of multilateral cooperation. The paper contributes to the pool of UN studies, adding a decidedly political perspective of the reform process. It is based on diplomatic statements, negotiation drafts and interviews with UN diplomats.

In UN Reform: 75 Years of Challenge and Change, Stephen Browne, a United Nations (UN) veteran with many years of experience working in the UN development system and the founder of the Future United...

Various parts of the United Nations (UN) system have been part of the definition and implementation of technical cooperation among developing countries (TCDC), South-South cooperation (SSC) and triangular cooperation (TrC) over the years since the Buenos Aires Plan of Action of 1978 (BAPA). This paper will take the view that there is a perception that South-South and triangular cooperation have not achieved their potential to be transformative because accompanying changes needed for the modalities have not been pursued fully and thus these development modalities seemingly remain largely cosmetic. To respond to this perception, the authors will review what was expected of the United Nations development systems (UNDS) from Bandung to Buenos Aires and what has been achieved since noting the constraints of lack of data and measurement.

This article contributes to the expanding literature on China's position in international organisations by examining the extent to which, and how, China's exercise of power in the United Nations (UN) development pillar has evolved over the last decade. Building on a four‐legged power framework, we contrast the status quo of power configurations in UN development work with China's evolving attempts to exercise compulsory, institutional, structural and productive power. We identify a heterogeneous set of engagement patterns and find that China's standing as a developing country is an integral part of how its global power ambitions unfold at the UN. While shifts in China's power in and through UN development work have remained limited, taken together insights from the power type analysis suggest that China is in the process of challenging and/or redefining some of the central contours of the UN development pillar.

Understanding human development at the international, regional, and national level is essential to the understanding of the needs and wants of vast populations around the world. Since the late 1980's the United Nation's Development Program (UNDP) has published hundreds of reports on development at a variety of geographic extents. This project aims to apply the United Nation's Human Development Index (HDI) to the United States in order to create a sub-national HDI for the measurement of US counties. Due to the inherent spatial methodology in the development of the HDI, this project further introduces the use of geographic information systems tools in hopes of better capturing the results of the development index and employs spatial statistics as a way of identifying clusters of high and low development. The results report high regional, state, and county variation in all of the measures and outcomes associated with the sub-national HDI.

Over the past few years, the international community has undertaken proactive and extensive efforts to build a cohesive and effective United Nations Development System (UNDS) with more solid institutions and robust leadership. In line with the requirements set out in the UN 2030 Agenda, the United Nations, under the leadership of its secretary-general Antonio Guterres, came up with a reform package that would help contain the further fragmentation of the UNDS. Guided by the principles of extensive consultation, joint action, and shared benefits, China has been extending strong support for the United Nations’ reform efforts while playing an important role in global development cooperation. As the world’s largest developing country, China insists that any development agenda should always focus on development and that poverty eradication should be the top priority of the UN 2030 Agenda. A number of issues must be addressed when planning for future UNDS reform, in particular the targets and viable ways to promote incremental administrative reform, to improve the existing regional coordinator system, to bridge the funding gap and imbalance between core and non-core resources, and to exemplify emerging countries’ best practices.

MotivationThe share of earmarked funding to the development pillar of the United Nations (UN) has risen to a record level of 79% (2018) of its total revenue/spending. This poses severe implications for the organizational efficiency, aid effectiveness and multilateralism of the UN. Reforms have not been able to stem the trend towards earmarked funding, raising the question of what explains the continued rise of earmarking in the United Nations Development System (UNDS).PurposeThis article aims to add a new perspective on earmarking, specifically in the UN. It tries to explain not the root causes of earmarking, but the dynamics of the significant rise over the last decade. The argument is that earmarking has been driven by three vicious circles: by the rational factors associated with a collective action breakdown, a change in norms of appropriateness, and institutional fragmentation.Approach and methodsThe article draws on funding data from the UN, on 65 interviews with UN staff and donor representatives conducted in the context of a recent research project, and on document analysis. Special attention is given to two donors, Sweden and Germany, dedicated multilateralists that have increased their earmarked resources in recent years.FindingsConventional explanations of earmarking in the UN—dissatisfaction with the performance of UN organizations, the desire for more accountability, policy differences with organizations—cannot fully explain the significant rise in earmarking over the last decade. Empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that the UN system has reached a tipping point, so that earmarking has become self‐perpetuating.Policy implicationsThe findings put a question mark after the premises that have so far guided practical efforts by the UN and member states to reduce the share of earmarked funding. They suggest that more fundamental changes to rules and incentives are required to rebalance the UN’s funding towards core contributions. Four specific recommendations are derived from the analysis.

I am very pleased to join with you today and to have an opportunity to discuss the role of United Nations organizations in the field of prosthetics and orthotics and, more generally, of the rehabilitation of disabled persons. As a former Deputy Administrator of the United States Veterans Administration I have had some direct working responsibility for the welfare of disabled persons. I know just a little of your marvellous work and I have seen too much of the desperate plight of handicapped people in the developing countries not to believe that we in the United Nations development system must intensify our efforts in all possible ways to help those hundreds of millions of people. In the widest and longer-term context, our efforts of course must be preventive-the very process of integrated and co-ordinated development is one that seeks to eradicate the C U U S ~ J of many forms of disability. Thus, for example, the United Nations Development Programme is working with the World Health Organization and the World Bank, and many bilateral donors, in seven African countries both to eradicate the tiny blackfly that produces onchocerciasis river blindness-and to build up an integrated development programme for the entire area as it becomes safe for human settlement. In the same way, UNDP and WHO have launched a major new attack on the six great tropical diseases that kill, debilitate and disable millions of people. Our work in the drive to increase production of nutritious food in the developing countries, including applied research in plant genetics to breed into grain crops for a higher nutritional value, will also serve to cut back nutrition*] causes of disablement. A new concentration on problems of providing safe water for every village in the world by 1990, one of the goals set by the recent United Nations Water Conference, will yet again progressively reducc causes of the effects which you who are specialists in rehabilitation must cope with. But I am fully aware that all these massive longer-term development efforts do not reach to the hundreds of millions who are already disabled, or day by day are being born with handicaps, or are becoming afflicted as children and adults. Let me therefore shorten the perspective, and try to give you a brief overview of United Nations work more directly in rehabilitation. Under the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination, which is chaired by the United Nations Secretary General, I believe that we are moving towards a more concerted inter-agency effort among the agencies concerned with the disabled. These, as you know, are the United Nations Social Development Division; the World Health Organization; the International Labour Office especially in respect of Vocational Rehabilitation; UNESCO which deals with special education for the handicapped; UNICEF which works in the maternal, infant, and childhood areas; and the High Commission for Refugees which must care for handicapped refugees. At a special meeting of these agencies in 1975, a “New Concept” was agreed, incorporating a set of objectives, aims and basic principles. I believe these are important as the foundation for a strategy and, not least, for an approach t o the disabled in developing countries that can at least begin to overcome the terrible difficulty of scarce financial resources and the paramount importance of finding cost-beneficial arguments for development planners. Let me quote to you some of the key points in this New Concept: ‘‘ (a) the main objective of the programme should be to reduce the problems arising from disability for the disabled person himself, for his immediate surroundings, and for the community, utilizing all possible preventive and curative measures, or measures that might wholly or partly reverse an already present disability, or delay its progress. The action taken should not only be directed towards the individual but also towards factors in his surroundings or in the society at large;. (b) the programme should be directed towards vulnerable groups in the developing world with a high risk of disability and persons whose disability could be expected to be preventable or with whom a rehabilitative intervention was likely to be successful;

Perishing Heritage:

On 22 May 2019, the Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD), in association with the University of South Africa (Unisa) and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), co-hosted a dialogue titled “Appraising the Dynamics of South-South Cooperation and Triangular Cooperation: Lessons beyond the BAPA+40 Conference”. The event reflected on the international development arena and global development agenda in the context of the United Nations (UN) Conference on Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC) held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 30 August to 12 September 1978, and the Second High-Level UN Conference on South-South Cooperation (SSC) also held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 20 to 22 March 2019, otherwise known as BAPA+40. The dialogue built on research drawn from the participation of the IGD at BAPA+40 and its engagement in a number of side events in Buenos Aires. The event brought together wide-ranging participants including scholars, academics, diplomats, government representatives, media and civil society.

The purpose of this essay is to show how the United Nations system including the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and such specialized agencies as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNESCO, and the International Labour Organization (ILO), etc. has been incorporated into the international network of aid agencies and to discuss some of the consequences for host countries. Specifically the UN development system has been coopted into providing what is known as preinvestment which paves the way for investors of all kinds, generally foreign investors. Preinvestment is a kind of technical which consists of sending ''experts (generally from the specialized agencies) and equipment to a host country and financing fellowship trainees from the country. Preinvestment projects were designed especially to identify and prepare projects for investors, particularly the World Bank and other international financial institutions. In this way the UNDP joins the other agencies in financing the infrastructure necessary for further productive investment, public and private, local and foreign. I show how this occurs in Colombia by describing the country programing exercise of 1971. Country programing is the process by which the resident representative of UNDP and the host government agree upon a list of technical projects that UNDP will finance over a five-year period. Colombia provides an excellent case study. A prime example of an open or outward-looking economy, Colombia has been selected by many international aid agencies as a testing ground for their various programs. In 1948-1949 it was the first nation to be surveyed by an economic mission of the World Bank. In the 1960s it was one of the first four nations to have a consultative group organized by the World Bank. In 1969-1970 it was chosen to be a test case for comprehensive preinvestment planning by the Bank. In 1969 the ILO selected Colombia as the first nation to study under its World Employment Program (International Labour Organization, 1970). It hoped to convince the Colombian government to try ILO strategies for coping with employment problems. In 1971 Colombia became one of the original eighteen nations to undertake country programing with the UNDP. Colombia was also one of the original Latin American nations to receive assistance from the Alliance for Progress. According to the study prepared

The United Nations development system and environmental management