Assistance Committee Research Articles

Emergency Aid 2.0

Does the proliferation of aid donors lead to visible changes in the world of foreign assistance? Aid provided by low- and middle-income countries, autocratic regimes and donors operating outside the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD is gaining in importance. This article uses data on emergency aid supplied by 105 donor countries to explore the determinants of aid and the differences in allocation patterns between donor groups. Our results show that both the so-called “new” and “traditional” donors provide emergency aid based on humanitarian need and their self-interests, but we find evidence that non-DAC donors attach relatively more importance to political motives. Additionally, autocratic donors seem to favor countries rich in natural resources and to disfavor democracies. Since the timeliness of the aid delivery is crucial for aid effectiveness, we furthermore analyze which factors influence the number of days that pass after a natural disaster before a donor commits herself to provide emergency relief. With regard to aid promptness, we find DAC, developed and democratic countries to be significantly faster than non-DAC, developing and autocratic countries.

Where is the money? Post-disaster foreign aid flows

AbstractThis paper describes the flows of aid after large catastrophic natural disasters by using the extensive record of bilateral aid flows, by aid sector, available through the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. For each large donor, the extent of cross-sector reallocation is identified that is occurring in the aftermath of large disasters whereby humanitarian aid increases but other types of aid may decrease. The evidence in this paper suggests that the expectation of large surges in post-disaster aid flows is not warranted given the past diversity of experience of global foreign post-disaster aid by donor and by event. No evidence is found, however, that donors reallocate aid between recipient countries (cross-recipient reallocation). These observations suggest that countries which are predicted to face increasing losses from natural disasters in the coming decades (and almost all are) should be devoting significant resources to prevention, insurance and mitigation, rather than expecting significant post-disaster aid inflows.

Does Aid Promote Donor Exports? Commercial Interest versus Instrumental Philanthropy

SummaryThis paper investigates by means of advanced panel data techniques whether bilateral aid has been successful in promoting bilateral exports to recipient countries during the period 1988–2007 and to what extent changes in aid policies have influenced this relationship. The main novelty of this research is the distinction between tied and untied aid in a multi‐donor gravity model of trade and the comparison between trade and aid policies in this setting. We find an average positive effect of bilateral aid on exports, which varies over time and across donors and which appears to depend on the extent to which donors tied aid to exports. The effect does appear to have decreased substantially over the period studied and it is even not statistically significant in the 2000s, which could suggest that the recommendations given by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) concerning the untying of aid and aid allocation have been followed by the donors and led to declining impacts on their exports. Interestingly, these decreasing aid‐elasticities are accompanied by increasing coefficients of the regional trade agreement variable, which is positive and statistically significant after 1994. Finally, we find that the strength of the relationship between exports and bilateral aid is correlated with the extent to which aid is tied and partially related to the sectoral allocation of aid.

The new scalar politics of evaluation: An emerging governance role for evaluation

In this article we analyze how roles for evaluation are described and argued for in key texts produced and/or promoted by three influential international networks: the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness; the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Assistance Committee’s Network on Development Evaluation; and the Network of Networks for Impact Evaluation. We contend that these complex multilateral networks are working supranationally through soft power to promote: common standards of evaluation practice; a dominant model of evaluation (impact evaluation); and new evaluation roles, relationships and practices for the field of development. Moreover, we argue that this emerging complex multilateral agenda for evaluation may position evaluation and evaluators within a global governance strategy allowing greater influence to international development organizations. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the analysis for evaluators working in the field of international development.

Gendered Leadership: The Effects of Female Development Agency Leaders on Foreign Aid Spending

This article examines the effects of gender on the leadership of bilateral development aid agencies, particularly their official development assistance (ODA) allocations toward gender‐related programming. Drawing on earlier research on gendered leadership, the article tests the hypothesis that female director generals (DGs) and ministers responsible for aid agencies will allocate more ODA than their male counterparts toward gender programming. This existing literature on gendered leadership is divided: some scholars argue that women and men have distinct leadership styles on account of their gender, while others argue that the only distinguishing factor is the institutional context in which they lead. Drawing on data collected on aid flows and agency leadership within the major Western aid donors of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) over the period from 1995 through 2009, we use pooled time series analysis to examine the effects of gendered leadership on aid allocation. Our analysis reveals a tendency for female DGs and ministers to focus ODA on gender‐mainstreaming programs, while male DGs focus ODA on gender‐focused programs. We argue that these divergent priorities reflect the women's desire to reform gendered power structures within their respective aid agencies, and the men's desire to maintain existing gender power structures from which they benefit.

Emerging Actors in International Peacebuilding and Statebuilding: Status Quo or Critical States?

Emerging actors in peacebuilding are generating a slow transformation of the norms and praxes of international peacebuilding, statebuilding, and development. Although each of the emerging donors have different contexts, approaches, motives, and methodologies, their power, influence, and—crucially— their nonadherence to the principles of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have attracted scepticism and criticism from traditional donors. This article highlights the nuances of donors' engagement with peacebuilding and statebuilding. It examines whether they are critical or status quo states and what the implications are for practices of intervention.

Development assistance for neglected tropical diseases: progress since 2009.

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) is an umbrella term for a diverse group of debilitating infections that represent the most common afflictions for 2.7 billion people living on less than US$2 per day. Major efforts have recently re-focused attention on NTDs, including structured advocacy by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, technical and political support by WHO and large-scale drug donation programs by pharmaceutical companies. An analysis of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) for NTDs in 2009 showed that Development Assistance Committee members and multilateral donors had largely ignored funding NTD control projects. This study reviews the changes since 2009 and finds an increased engagement by pharmaceutical manufacturers through drug donation programs substantially increased by the 'London Declaration' in 2012, a focused effort of 77 public and private partners on control or elimination of the 10 most common NTDs, but no increase in ODA for NTDs between 2008 and 2012. The allocation of ODA still does not reflect the respective importance of these diseases.

The Impact of China on the Donor Landscape in African Fragile States

This article analyses the impact of China on the donor landscape in African fragile states. This is undertaken by first discussing the global trends of South–South collaboration as part of the broader post‐Busan development debate, and secondly, the specific role of China in four African fragile states, which are respectively Liberia, Angola, Mali and Sudan. The article has two main findings. Firstly, China provides additional development opportunities but is not applying the same development cooperation model as traditional Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors. This fragmentation of global development cooperation modalities requires capacity to coordinate donors by aid‐recipient countries. Secondly, as China's economic interests grow in Africa, it is also expanding its support for regional stability by participating in UN peacekeeping operations. One of the key conditions for China's participation, however, is a clear mandate by an African regional organisation such as the African Union and Regional Economic Communities. This approach ensures that China maintains its principles of respecting national sovereignty and non‐interference in the domestic affairs of other countries.

China's Foreign Aid at a Transitional Stage

By estimating China's foreign aid as a proxy for China's bilateral Official Development Assistance and by analyzing its implementation structure and policy, this paper sheds some light on China's foreign aid activities, which have been at a transitional stage. Based on our estimates, the level of foreign aid in terms of net disbursement has increased sharply since 2004, reaching around US$7.1 billion in 2013. Some measures to strengthen the implementation structure to deal with this expansion have been introduced by the central government; however, this transition process needs more time. To facilitate this process, China is attempting to absorb knowhow on development assistance from multilateral institutions and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Development Assistance Committee countries that are eager to share their knowledge, with the expectation that China will eventually play a major role in international development.

Comment on “China's Foreign Aid at a Transitional Stage”

Comment on “<scp>C</scp>hina's Foreign Aid at a Transitional Stage”

(An Analysis on the Criteria and Methodology of Priority Recipient Selection for Country Partnership Strategy)

Korean Abstract: 우리나라는 국제개발위원회(DAC: Development Assistance Committee) 가입을 계기로 원조체계를 개선하기 위한 다양한 노력을 기울이고 있다. 그 중 하나가 중점협력국 선정을 체계화하려는 노력이다. 그 결과 2010년에는 26개 중점협력국을 선정하여 이를 2011년부터 적용하고 있다. 그러나 중점협력국 선정과 관련하여 선정기준 및 선정과정의 적절성을 둘러싸고 비판이 제기되기도 하였다. 이런 배경하에서 본 보고서의 일차적인 목적은 합리적인 중점협력국 선정기준과 그것을 이용한 선정방법을 제시하는 것이다. 이와 더불어 본 보고서는 중점협력국 선정과 관련된 다른 문제, 즉 중점협력국의 적정 수, 선정절차, 정보공개범위 등에 관해서도 대안을 제시하고자 한다. English Abstract: South Korea has provided serious efforts to reform the structure and process of ODA since the country joined OECD DAC in 2009. Selecting and managing “priority countries” has been one of those efforts, but it has led to controversies regarding the relevant standards and methods. This study addresses these controversies and further explores a theoretical and methodological alternative to such limited strategies regarding the selection of priority countries. In addition, this study seeks to deal with other related issues, such as the proper number of priority countries, the adequate procedures, and the degree to which the relevant information needs to be released. Methodologically, we use the following strategies: (1) review of past studies; (2) conduct case studies that reflect the experiences of traditional donor countries; (3) employ regression analyses to explicate the factors determining the selection of priority countries in other advanced donor countries; and (4) use of the Delphi technique to assign proper weights to the factors considered. Taken together, this study demonstrates the utility of a mixed method in order to suggest an alternative approach to the selection of priority countries. The analyses of past studies and cases lead us to consider the following four principles as crucial in selecting priority countries: (1) development needs of aid-receiving countries; (2) strategic correspondence; (3) international norms; and (4) aid-effectiveness. First, development needs involve the degree to which recipients need foreign aid in connection with their income-level and the level of poverty. Second, strategic correspondence refers to the extent to which economic and diplomatic interests overlap between a donor and a recipient. Third, respect for international norms indicates the necessity of adhering to globally-recognized norms involving proper ODA. Finally, the principle of aid-effectiveness involves the extent to which the provision of ODA might be used in ways to effectively solve the problems facing the recipient countries. Motivated by those principles, we suggest dozens of quantitative indicators that might highlight the principles and justify the designation of certain countries as priority countries. When using the proposed quantitative strategy, one needs to consider the following caveats: (1) The quantitative strategy needs to be supplemented with a qualitative approach because of the salience of non-qualifiable factors and/or concerns and the possibility that selected indicators might lack a proper level of reliability. (2) No country considers only the quantitative approach for the selection and management of priority countries. It is equally important to consider the pitfalls of the arbitrary use of a qualitative method because it might result in policy biases that weigh down donors’ interests or strategic considerations. Considering the caveats, we select and present twice as much potential priority countries at the first stage, and suggest that policy-makers need to choose the final priority countries at the second stage in conjunction with various diplomatic considerations. In recognition of the importance of assigning proper weights to the indicators proposed, we conducted a Delphi survey for dozens of experts specializing in international development in Korea. The survey results assign 38% for development needs, 17% for strategic correspondence, 20% for international norms, and 25% for aid-effectiveness. The assigned weights for each principle area determine the actual weight of each indicator that corresponds to the demarcated principle area. The assigned weights might need to be modified in ways to balance the survey results reflecting positions of development experts and the real diplomatic considerations coupled with the sentiments of policy-makers. Considering the possibility of such modifications, we assign 30-35% for development needs, 25-30% for strategic correspondence, 25-30% for respecting international norms, and 15-20% for aid-effectiveness. Furthermore, we make several suggestions and/or recommendations regarding the processes by which to officially determine the list of priority countries and the proper levels of public disclosure of information. More specifically, we suggest public discussion of the selection strategy, consultation with experts, in-depth discussion among policy makers, and reporting the strategies and discussions to the National Assembly. With respect to the degree of public disclosure, we suggest that the public disclosure needs to be confined to the broad strategies and plans involving the selection of priority countries.

Oda : (A Study on Aid Predictability: Focusing on Multi-Year Rolling Planning and Budgeting Framework)

Korean Abstract: 2011년 제4차 부산세계개발원조총회(HLF 4)에서 모든 협력 대상국가에 대한 3~5년의 중기 연동지원계획(rolling plan)을 2013년까지 제공하기로 하고, 원조예산의 수립절차와 집행계획을 개혁하여 원조의 예측가능성을 높이는 데 국제적인 합의를 도출한 바 있다. 특히 한국은 부산 글로벌 파트너십의 집행위원회에 공여국 대표로 선출되어 부산총회 합의사항 이행을 위한 방안 및 이행계획 수립에 적극적으로 참여하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 다른 OECD 개발원조위원회 회원국들이 중기 원조예산을 어떻게 수립하고 이행하는지 비교ㆍ분석하고, 호주의 원조정책을 주요 사례로 ODA 예산절차, 예측성 강화방안을 어떻게 마련하고 있는지를 조사하였다. 이를 통해 한국의 중기 원조예측성 향상 방안에 대한 정책과제와 시사점을 얻고자 다른 주요 선진공여국의 원조예산 및 계획의 운용 메커니즘을 검토하여 원조예산의 효율성을 높일 수 있는 방안을 종합적으로 분석하였다. English Abstract: At the Fourth High Level Forum held in Busan in 2011, OECD Development Assistance Committee(DAC) member countries pledged to ensure that by 2013, they would provide partner countries with rolling three- to five-year indicative forward expenditures and/or implementation plans. Also, they made an agreement to enhance aid predictability by reforming the process of establishing and implementing the aid budget. Nevertheless, a limited number of studies reviewed the donor countries’ ODA budget systems and its operation mechanism to find the way to promote the effective use of the aid budget. This study examines how donor countries establish and implement multi-year aid budgets and applies the results to the Korean ODA budget system in order to improve mid-term aid predictability. The main findings of this study are as follows. First, several DAC members have made efforts to improve mid-term aid predictability by linking the forward strategic spending plans with their ODA budget process. Mokoro Ltd.(2011) has categorized aid planning and budgeting systems of OECD DAC member countries into three types; agency-wide rolling multi-annual programme, agency-wide cliff-edge multi-annual programme, and no agency-wide multi-annual programming with country-level multi-annual programming. Second, the Australian budget system, adopting no agency-wide multi-annual programming with country-level multi-annual programming, is selected as a good example that can be applied to the Korean system. Australia has been reforming its ODA policies since 2010. In order to increase aid effectiveness and predictability, Australia adopted the rolling four-year budget plan, aid budget system by program, and performance evaluation system on achievements of policy objectives. Third, Korea, however, does not present the explicit budget plan in the process of establishing Country Partnership Strategy(CPS). Thus, it is difficult to improve the effectiveness of mid-term plans as well as aid predictability. Moreover, Korea lacks a performance management system that enables reasonable distribution of the ODA budget by gathering feedback on performances of previous projects. The results from this study provide some policy recommendations as follows. First, Korea needs to develop a performance management system for ODA to utilize the feedback on previous performances as the standard of establishing and distributing the aid budget. Second, Korea should improve the budget structure to introduce multi-year ODA planning and mid-term budget system which are suitable for ODA projects that extend periods of time. Third, Korea should reduce the number of priority partner countries from 26 countries to 15 to 20 countries. In addition, consulting with partner countries, Korea should establish a three-year operation plan for each country and priority project support plans to enhance aid predictability.

(Korea's Multilateral Aid: Recent Developments and Future Challenges)

(Korea's Multilateral Aid: Recent Developments and Future Challenges)

Data Resource Profile: Countdown to 2015: Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival

The Countdown to 2015 country profiles present, in one place, comprehensive evidence to enable an assessment of a country’s progress in improving reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health. Profiles are available for each of the 75 countries that together account for more than 95% of all maternal and child deaths. The two-page profiles are updated approximately every 2 years with new data and analyses. Profile data include demographics, mortality, nutritional status, coverage of evidence-based interventions, within-countries inequalities in coverage, measures of health system functionality, supportive policies and financing indicators. The main sources of data for the coverage, nutritional status and equity indicators are the US Agency for Internal Development (USAID)-supported demographic and health surveys and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)-supported multiple indicator cluster surveys. Data on coverage are first summarized and checked for quality by UNICEF, and data on equity in intervention coverage are summarized and checked by the Federal University of Pelotas. The mortality estimates are developed by the Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation and the Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-Agency Group. The financing data are abstracted from datasets maintained by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee, and the policies and health systems data are derived from a special compilation prepared by the World Health Organization. Associated country profiles include equity-specific profiles and one-page profiles prepared annually that report on the 11 indicators selected by the Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health.

How to Shape Development Cooperation? The Global Partnership and the Development Cooperation Forum

2014 will be an important milestone for shaping the policy field of development cooperation in a post-2015 context. Two central events are taking place. The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) will convene for its first High-Level Meeting in April 2014 in Mexico City. The United Nations (UN) Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) will hold its biennial meeting in July 2014 in New York. How will these two platforms shape development cooperation and its future governance architecture? Development cooperation, as a policy field dealing with the mobilisation of budgetary resources for the purpose of promoting development, is in a transition phase. For a long period, development cooperation has been closely linked to “aid”, a concept developed by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). However, this system has increasingly come under pressure to adapt to a more differentiated global landscape characterised by newly emerging actors, new forms of cooperation and a growing awareness of global challenges such as climate change, financial regulation and security. The shifts in the policy field have given rise to competing global platforms for development cooperation and incentives for “forum shopping”. Still, any global platform to manage development cooperation needs to provide a set of principles, norms, and mechanisms for knowledge exchange around which actors’ expectations converge. In order to adequately fulfil this function, it will have to be legitimate, effective and relevant. Applying these criteria to the GPEDC and DCF, three models are possible: 1) Each platform for itself: This model describes a perpetuation of the status quo, characterised by a lack of cohesion between the GPEDC and the DCF. The continuation of parallel efforts on competing platforms will not sufficiently enable current challenges to be addressed. 2) Two platforms, different functions: Under this model, stakeholders in the GPEDC and the DCF agree to clearly describe their functions in support of the overarching post-2015 agenda. This model would mark an improvement over the status quo; however, challenges in day to day coordination between both platforms would remain. 3) One platform for all: This model envisions a merger of both platforms to consolidate discussions around the functioning of development cooperation. The platform would have universal membership and strong monitoring, evaluation and accountability mechanisms, combining the best features of DCF and GPEDC. It would draw on a clear UN mandate to manage development cooperation towards implementing the post-2015 agenda. Only such a common platform would be legitimate, effective and relevant at the same time.

Monitoring What Governments “Give for” and “Spend on” Vaccine Procurement: Vaccine Procurement Assistance and Vaccine Procurement Baseline

BackgroundThe Global Vaccine Action Plan will require, inter alia, the mobilization of financial resources from donors and national governments – both rich and poor. Vaccine Procurement Assistance (VPA) and Vaccine Procurement Baseline (VPB) are two metrics that could measure government performance and track resources in this arena. VPA is proposed as a new subcategory of Official Development Assistance (ODA) given for the procurement of vaccines and VPB is a previously suggested measure of the share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that governments spend on their own vaccine procurement.ObjectiveTo determine realistic targets for VPA and VPB.MethodsOrganization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and World Bank data for 2009 were analyzed to determine the proportions of bilateral ODA from the 23 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries disbursed (as % of GDP in current US$) for infectious disease control. DAC country contributions to the GAVI Alliance for 2009 were assessed as a measure of multilateral donor support for vaccines and immunization programs.FindingsIn 2009, total DAC bilateral ODA was 0.16% of global GDP and 0.25% of DAC GDP. As a percentage of GDP, Norway (0.013%) and United Kingdom (0.0085%) disbursed the greatest proportion of bilateral ODA for infectious disease control, and Norway (0.024%) and Canada (0.008%) made the greatest contributions to the GAVI Alliance. In 2009 0.02% of DAC GDP was US$7.61 billion and 0.02% of the GDP of the poorest 117 countries was US$2.88 billion.ConclusionsAdopting 0.02% GDP as minimum targets for both VPA and VPB is based on realistic estimates of what both developed and developing countries should spend, and can afford to spend, to jointly ensure procurement of vaccines recommended by national and global bodies. New OECD purpose codes are needed to specifically track ODA disbursed for a) vaccine procurement; and b) immunization programs.

Much ado about nothing? The European Union and the global politics of untying aid

This article has two main purposes. The first is that of providing a longitudinal analysis of the global politics of untying aid, by looking at a number of debates that have occurred within the Development Assistance Committee and in the context of a number of high-level forums on aid effectiveness. The second is that of proposing some explanations for the lack of significant progress in these contexts. The focus is on the European Union (EU), which has been widely perceived as one of the most fervent supporters of promoting the aid untying agenda. In all these debates, the EU's leadership aspirations have remained largely unfulfilled. Thus, the EU has failed to adopt a EU-wide vision on aid untying; persuade non-EU donors to untie their aid, even when it has played the reciprocity card; and promote a pro-poor use of foreign aid, by supporting local ownership and facilitating greater access of developing country firms to aid contracts.

II-1. 東日本大震災災害復興支援検討委員会から&amp;mdash;活動経過と今後の方針

II-1. 東日本大震災災害復興支援検討委員会から&amp;mdash;活動経過と今後の方針

The Questionable Economics of Development Assistance in Africa: Hot-Fresh Evidence, 1996–2010

This paper assesses the aid-development nexus in 52 African countries using updated data (1996–2010) and a new indicator of human development (adjusted for inequality). The effects of Total Net Official Development Assistance (NODA), NODA from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and NODA from Multilateral donors on economic prosperity (at national and per capita levels) are also examined. The findings broadly indicate that development assistance is detrimental to GDP growth, GDP per capita growth and inequality adjusted human development. The magnitude of negativity (which is consistent across specifications and development dynamics) is highest for NODA from Multilateral donors, followed by NODA from DAC countries. Given concerns on the achievement of the MDGs, the relevance of these results point to the deficiency of foreign aid as a sustainable cure to poverty in Africa. Though the stated intents or purposes of aid are socio-economic, the actual impact from the findings negates this. It is a momentous epoque to solve the second tragedy of foreign aid; it is high time economists and policy makers start rethinking the models and theories on which foreign aid is based. In the meantime, it is up to people who care about the poor to hold aid agencies accountable for piecemeal results. Policy implications and caveats are discussed.

Japanese educational aid in transition: between the aid coordination and unique model

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to untangle the domestic and international factors that have affected policy making and implementation of the Japanese Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), particularly in education, at different times in its history. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on analysis of governmental policy documents and reports, minutes of ODA consultative meetings, and statistical data on Japanese financial and technical developmental assistance. The major methodology was discourse analysis of primary documents; secondary sources supplement this. Findings – Japan was the first non-western Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) member and has always been in the ambivalent position of being both a DAC member and an Asian latecomer. As the Education for All paradigm took the ground, Japanese ODA to the education sector has shifted to the primary education from Technical and Vocational Education and Training and higher education from the mid-1990s until the mid-2000s. While the global trend is clear in Japanese ODA, it has always stressed the importance of establishing and demonstrating the “Japanese model” in ODA policy documents and practices. The sensitive balance between the demand to harmonize with mainstream aid modalities and the drive to demonstrate uniqueness characterize Japanese educational aid. Originality/value – While many important works examined the decision-making mechanism and philosophies of Japanese educational ODA, this paper contextualizes governmental programs in the intersection between domestic factors – bureaucratic, political, and societal – and international influence. It clarifies the changing relationships between Japan and western and Asian countries in determining its agendas and directions from the 1960s to the present.