SURROGATE REGEN

This survey report which presents the results from the second, follow-up survey on monitoring the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, assesses progress in 55 developing countries and helps us understand the challenges in making aid more effective in advancing development. The findings are clear: progress is being made, but not fast enough. Unless they seriously gear up their efforts, developing countries and their external partners will not meet their international commitments and targets for effective aid by 2010. Action is needed now. This report makes three high-level policy recommendations that will help accelerate progress and transform the aid relationship into a full partnership.

The OECD-DAC has published detailed financial information on ODA core spending by the ILO in 2014 and 2015

This paper explores the new role that non-OECD nations such as Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa, South Korea and, especially, China are playing in providing international development aid.  While global aid flows from traditional OECD nations remain significant to the development of global politics and what William Robinson calls the “Transnational State” (TNS) apparatus, these new aid donors are challenging the Western nations’ vision of what development means and what kind of global economy is being built.  The consequences of these increasing aid flows for the global economy and for the development of aid recipient nations at this point are unclear.  But it is crucial for scholars to pay close attention to the rise in official development assistance (ODA) from non-OECD nations as a key indicator of global political and economic integration. Bringing together insights from world systems theory, world polity theory, field theory, Robinson’s Transnational State perspective, and Saskia Sassen’s work on deterritorialityand denationization, this paper considers the role that new donors are likely to play within the global political economy in the coming decades.   Particular attention is paid to whether the so-called “South-South” aid from these new donors is really “South-South,” whether we can expect to see a counterhegemonic shift in aid practice, what kind of future conflicts between donors are on the horizon, what this might mean for world state formation, and finally, whether any of this amounts to the beginning of the end for the nearly 60-year old Western aid apparatus.

Ulkoministeriön verkkopalvelu

Our women’s economic empowerment team wanted to include as many international funding flows as possible when analysing development assistance data. In this blog, Benjamin Honey explores the pros and cons of merging the two main data sources and describes the methodology we employed.

The European Journal of Development Research - This article analyzes the rise and fall of the aid effectiveness norm, using the lens of Finnemore and Sikkink’s norm ‘life cycle’....

OECD figures suggest that aid to the poorest countries continue to fall

Guides, case studies and resources for government & civil society on the

book

Ngaire Woods, Whose Aid? Whose Influence? China, Emerging Donors and the Silent Revolution in Development Assistance, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 84, No. 6 (Nov., 2008), pp. 1205-1221

Additional Information  (From Whom to Whom)AcronymsAfDB - African Development Bank; AfDF - African Development Fund; AFRO - WHO African Region; AMRO -WHO Region of the Americas;

Donor countries can now use some of the budgets to support the military and security forces in fragile states

Foreign aid donors face many decisions about how they should disburse aid, and must be able to justify these choices to their constituents. Among the choices that donors must make is whether to

5.  Mr Roger Riddell, author of "Does Aid Really Work?" told us that "aid began in the 1940s."[4] The British Government's ground nuts scheme in Tanganyika was an early example. 6.  When former colonies reached independence, economic progress often lagged, and former colonial powers maintained development programmes. Aid programmes became an important strand in relations between Western developed and developing countries, coupled until the fall of the Soviet Union with a Western desire to limit Soviet political influence in the developing world. DONORS 7.  The main established donors are members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).[5] Set up in 1960, the DAC serves as a consultative forum. Its statistics give the global picture of member-states' Official Development Assistance (ODA). Other OECD member-states are now donors also.[6] Non-OECD countries such as China, India and Brazil are becoming significant donors, although still recipients of British aid. Private foundations are also now active in development aid. The arrival of all these new entrants means that sources of aid are more diverse. Whereas in 1970 75% of recorded aid to poor countries came from the US, the UK and France, by 2010 their collective share had fallen to 44%.[7] 8.  In 2010, the United States was by far the biggest single DAC donor followed by the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan in that order. Only Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands met the UN target of spending 0.7% of GNI on aid. FIGURE 3 DAC Donors: Who gives what?[8] Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee Statistics on Resource Flows to Developing Countries http://webnet.oecd.org/oda2010 SPENDING 9.  From 1960 to 2010 net development finance from DAC members rose from about $40 billion to over $125 billion a year in real terms. The proportion of donors' Gross National Income (GNI) devoted to aid fell over the same period from about 0.5% to 0.3%. Although the US is the largest DAC donor, it nonetheless allocates only 0.2% of its national income to aid. Excluding the US, the average contribution of DAC donors is about 0.4%. If all DAC donors gave 0.7% the annual total of development finance would more than double to $270 billion.[9] FIGURE 4 The Long View: Net ODA from DAC Members, US$ billions and share of Gross National Income (GNI) Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee Statistics on Resource Flows to Developing Countries http://webnet.oecd.org/dcdgraphs/ODAhistory/ OECD Development Assistance Committee net ODA is measured in constant 2009 prices and includes debt relief, which was particularly high in 2005 and 2006 as a result of the relief of £2.7 billion owed by Nigeria to the UK's Export Credit Guarantee Department. 10.  While global aid spending by member states of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has risen steadily over the past fifty years, its share of donors' Gross National Income fell from 1960 to 1970 and again in the 1990s (when aid declined in absolute terms). Today, aid accounts for about the same share of donors' Gross National Income as it did in the early 1970s. 11.  ODA remains a significant strand of international economic relations and is the means by which donor governments contribute directly to development. Total aid grew fast—8% a year—in the first decade of this century.[10] In 2010 net DAC aid was $128.5 billion, the highest ever total in real terms.[11] But developing countries' income from other external sources was much higher. In 2010 private capital flows from DAC members to developing countries—which have surged in the last couple of decades—totalled over US$1 trillion and remittances were $321 billion (Table 1). Trade is even more important; the export earnings of all developing countries in 2010 were more than 40 times the level of official aid flows.[12] Professor Paul Collier of Oxford University, author of "The Bottom Billion"[13], said "supporting development is very much more than aid. Aid is almost a sideshow in the portfolio."[14] TABLE 1 Aid and Private Capital Flows to Developing Countries 2010 Flows US$ billions % of total official and private flows Total Official Flows (net ODA)128 10.9% Total Private Flows (including remittances) 1042 89.1% Foreign direct investment509 43.5% Portfolio Investment128 10.9% Net private long-term debt84 7.2% Remittances321 27.4% Source: Aid Data: OECD Development Assistance Committee Statistics on Resource Flows to Developing Countries Table 1 www.oecd.org/dac/stats/dcrannex; Private flows: World Bank Global Development Finance http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=1&id=4 Definitions for Private Capital Flows: Net Inflows on Foreign Direct Investment (US$ millions); Net Inflows of Portfolio / Equity Investment (US$ millions); Net flows on private non-guaranteed long-term debt (US$ millions); Workers remittances received from overseas. Developing countries defined as all low and middle income countries that are DAC eligible Since private capital flows to developing countries are now so much greater than official aid flows it seems clear that private spending has become a much greater contributor to development than official aid. AID RECIPIENTS 12.  Some countries, for example the "Asian Tigers" such as South Korea, have graduated over time from eligibility or need for aid, while other long-term aid recipients such as Botswana have achieved impressive growth.[15] In others, such as Bangladesh, aid as a proportion of national income has fallen sharply over the years.[16] But there are still many poor people in a range of recipient countries. 148 countries remain eligible for aid by DAC criteria.[17] 13.  The main destinations of DAC aid in 2010 were Sub-Saharan Africa (44%), which also received more aid per head than other regions, followed at some distance by South and Central Asia (19.5%) and Middle East and North Africa (10%). FIGURE 5 Aid by destination: DAC donors 2010 Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee Statistics on Resource Flows to Developing Countries Table 27 www.oecd.org/dac/stats/dcrannex FIGURE 6 Aid by destination: UK 2010 Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee Statistics on Resource Flows to Developing Countries Table 27 www.oecd.org/dac/stats/dcrannex Note: UK Aid to South and Central Asia is dominated by aid to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Major recipients in Sub-Saharan Africa are Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nigeria, Uganda, Mozambique and Rwanda. Sub Saharan Africa remains by far the main destination of global and British aid flows. It seems likely that an even higher share of British than of overall DAC aid goes to the region because of the UK's links to its former colonies. 4   Q 9 Back 5   Appendix 5 Back 6   Appendix 5-6  Back 7   DFID 1, para 71 Back 8   China and India are not included since they are not members of the Development Assistance Committee. But their programmes are substantial and growing.  Back 9   Carter and Temple, para 11 Back 10   Riddell, Q 20 Back 11   OECD DAC Back 12   Calculated using data from World Bank, World Development Indicators, Exports of Goods and Services Back 13   Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion (OUP, 2007) Back 14   Q 333 Back 15   DFID 1, para 22, table 1 Back 16   Q 287 Back 17   OECD, The DAC List of ODA Recipients, Factsheet-January 2012 Back