Official Development Assistance
Identifying differences and similarities between donors regarding the long-term allocation of official development assistance
Abstract:
Advanced countries have pledged to mobilize additional financial resources to developing countries, including funding from multiple sources other than official development assistance (ODA), known as foreign aid. However, the effect of the novel coronavirus pandemic has raised doubts about the feasibility of such a pledge, highlighting, once again, the possible role of ODA and the importance of explaining its allocation, which could be of vital relevance for understanding its effectiveness. Identifying differences and similarities between donors regarding the long-term allocation of official development assistance analyzes a vast number of bilateral and multilateral donors by applying a novel methodology in the context of aid allocation – principal-component factor analysis – covering the period 1990–2015. The results revealed four distinct clusters of donors: (i) the proportionally largest Western European donors, characterized by a significant number of beneficiaries, especially low-income countries; (ii) donors that are predominantly driven by structural links with recipients, especially links derived from colonial connections; (iii) a group of mainly Eastern European donors who are engaged with lower-income countries in Eastern Europe and Western Asia; and (iv) a group of Asian and Oceanian donors that select their partners mainly based on the geographical proximity criterion.
Quotation:
Paulo Francisco, Sandrina B. Moreira & Jorge Caiado (2021) Identifying differences and similarities between donors regarding the long-term allocation of official development assistance, Development Studies Research, 8:1, 181-198, DOI: 10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965
Working Paper 169/2018: Beyond Aid: How trade interests Trumps EU-ASEAN development cooperation
Abstract:
The emergence of new state donors from Latin America, Middle East and Asia as key development partners offering alternative models of development cooperation has had a significant impact on the workings of the international development cooperation arena (Hackenesch & Janus, 2013). The main distinction between the traditional and emerging donors has been the fact that, unlike the former, the latter present themselves as interested parties in what is described to be a mutually beneficial relationship with their development partner countries. In general, these emerging donors have been less eager to respect the dominant OECD-DAC normative discourse on quantity and quality of aid to focus more on mutual economic gains from the relationship. In exchange for aid from these emerging donors, beneficiary countries have been less constrained by political conditionalities and less subjected to scrutiny or oversight on macroeconomic policies. The EU Agenda for Change adopted in 2011 is the basis of the current EU´s development policy and aims at responding to the changes undergoing in the international development arena. One of the key principles and policy priorities of this agenda is differentiation which manifests the EU intention to increasingly provide aid only to Low Income countries (LICs). Beyond Aid: How trade interests Trumps EU-ASEAN development cooperation will critically analyse to what extent this shift to differentiation is shaping the relations between the EU and ASEAN. It will argue that EU relations with ASEAN have always been differentiated from other developing countries as they have been subordinated to trade interests rather than development goals.
Quotation:
Mah, Luís (2018). “Beyond Aid: How trade interests Trumps EU-ASEAN development cooperation”. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão – CEsA/ CSG – Documentos de Trabalho nº 169/2018.
