Abstract
The current international aid architecture, broadly defined as the set of structures and institutions for delivering aid, is often described as dysfunctional and uncoordinated. Despite attempts to reform it, this architecture has become increasingly complex and incoherent over time and is criticized for a multiplicity of modalities and actors for delivering aid, making coordination virtually impossible, and exponential growth in aid projects, among other things. 1 The legitimacy of global aid governance has been undermined by insufficient representation and feedback from recipient countries in what some refer to as a Northern or donor-dominated system. This legitimacy gap has been exacerbated by the emergence of new actors represented by SouthSouth development cooperation (SSDC) providers2 and the private sector, many of whom operate outside established governance structures aimed at improving the effectiveness of aid.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BetterAid. 2011. ‘Making Development Cooperation Architecture Just: Governance Principles and Pillars’. March. http://betteraid.org/en/member-downloads/doc_ download/138-making-development-cooperation-just.html.
Bräutigam, Deborah. 2011. ‘Aid “With Chinese Characteristics”: Chinese Foreign Aid and Development Finance Meet the OECD-DAC Aid Regime’. Journal of International Development 23 (5): 752–64.
Davies, Penny. 2010. A Review of the Roles and Activities of New Development Partners. CFP Working Paper Series No. 4, Washington, DC: World Bank.
—. 2012. ‘Towards a New Development Cooperation Dynamic’. In Canadian Development Report 2011; Global Challenges: Multilateral Solutions, edited by the North-South Institute, 37–52. Ottawa: North-South Institute.
DCD/DAC (Development Co-operation Directorate/Development Assistance Committee). 2012a. ‘The High Level Fora on Aid Effectiveness: A History’. Accessed March 6, 2012. http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3746,en_2649_ 3236398_46310975_1_1_1_1,00.html.
—. 2012b. ‘Working Party on Aid Effectiveness: Members’. Accessed February 24, 2012. http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_2649_3236398_43364487_1_1_ 1_1,00.html.
—. 2012c. ‘Working Party on Aid Effectiveness: Restructuring’. Accessed February 24, 2012. http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,3746,en_2649_3236398_ 43415127_1_1_1_1,00.html.
—. ‘Next Steps: Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness — (DAC News April-May 2005)’. Accessed February 24, 2012. http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3746,en_ 2649_3236398_34689188_1_1_1_1,00.html.
—. 2011. The Political Roadmap to Busan. DCD/DAC(2011)8/REV1, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DEC/DAC(2011)8/REVI& docLanguage=En.
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). 2012. ‘Mandate of the DCF’. Accessed April 17, 2012. http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/newfunct/mandate.shtml.
Glennie, Jonathan. 2011. ‘Who Should Lead the Aid Effectiveness Debate in the Future?’ July 6. http://www.odi.org.uk/opinion/docs/7179.pdf.
Government of South Africa/New Partnership for Africa’s Development. 2010. ‘The Africa Regional Meeting on Aid Effectiveness, South/South Cooperation and Capacity Development: Pretoria, South Africa, 2–5 March 2010; Summary of Key Outcomes and Recommendations’. March 5, 2010. api.ning.com/files/7We3wwz4TdmWeFazmnMGBVkJXA1a83kVUV4sf0KxMhWJbG ∗ KQY6UCDsaIm7d21NqoDgGwJF4SCck-EyKLIA5zS6cNNn1O0Bf/pretoria.pdf.
Graves, Sue, and Simon Burall. 2008. ‘Develo** a Long-Term and Influential Role for the UN Development Cooperation Forum’. Paper Prepared for the Commonwealth Secretariat Workshop on the DCF, New York, May.
Hammad, Lama, and Bill Morton. 2009. ‘Non-DAC Donors and Reform of the International Aid Architecture’. Issues Brief, Development Cooperation Series, North-South Institute, Ottawa.
HLF4 (4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness). 2011. ‘Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation’. December 1. http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busanhlf4/images/stories/hlf4/OUTCOME_DOCUMENT_-_FINAL_EN.pdf.
International Civil Society Steering Group. 2008. ‘Better Aid: A Civil Society Position Paper for the 2008 Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness’. January 16. http://staging.awid.org/eng/content/download/51578/573628/file/index2.pdf.
Kharas, Homi, and Johannes F. Linn. 2008. Better Aid: Responding to Gaps in Effectiveness. Policy Brief No. 2008–06, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kharas, Homi, and Chandy Laurence. 2011. ‘Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? The Practical Limits to International Development Cooperation’. Journal of International Development 23 (5): 739–51.
Kharas, Homi, Koji Makino, and Woo** Jung. 2011. ‘Overview: An Agenda for the Busan High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness’. In Catalyzing Development: A New Vision for Aid, edited by Homi Kharas, Koji Makino, and Woo** Jung, 1–37. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Killen, Brenda. 2011. ‘Cooperation and Communication for Development in South East Asia’. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. May 8. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/3/45223738.pdf.
Killen, Brenda, and Andrew Rogerson. 2010. ‘Global Governance for International Development: Who’s in Charge?’ Development Brief: Consultation Draft, Issue 2, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Kim, Soyeun, and Simon Lightfoot. 2011. ‘Does ‘DAC-Ability’ Really Matter? The Emergence of Non-DAC Donors: Introduction to Policy Arena’. Journal of International Development 23 (5): 711–21.
Kindornay, Shannon. 2012. HLF and the Future of the International Aid Architecture. Backgrounder, Ottawa: The North-South Institute.
Kindornay, Shannon, and Hany Besada. 2011. ‘Multilateral Development Cooperation: Current Trends and Future Prospects’. In Canadian Development Report 2011; Global Challenges: Multilateral Solutions, edited by the North-South Institute, 37–52. Ottawa: North-South Institute.
Kragelund, Peter. 2008. ‘The Return of Non-DAC Donors to Africa: New Prospects for African Development?’ Development Policy Review 26 (5): 555–84.
Manning, Richard. 2006. ‘ “Will Emerging Donors” Change the Face of International Cooperation?’ March 9. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/38/36417541.pdf.
Martin, Matthew, and Richard Watts. 2012. ‘Monitoring Implementation of the Busan Partnership Agreement: Why “Global Light” and “Country-Focussed” Must Work Together Effectively’. April 16. http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/files/research1.pdf.
Naidu, Sanusha. 2012. ‘Representation, Legitimacy and Accountability: Emerging Donors and Multilaterals in Africa’. In Canadian Development Report 2011; Global Challenges: Multilateral Solutions, edited by the North-South Institute, 95–112. Ottawa: North-South Institute.
Naim, Moises. 2007. ‘Rogue aid’. Foreign Policy 159: 95–6.
NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development). 2011. ‘Aid Reform for Africa’s Development’. September. http://www.nepad.org/system/files/FINAL%20DRAFT%20-%20AFRICAN%20CONSENSUS%20%20POSITION %20ON%20DEVELOPMENT%20EFFECTIVENESS%20Sept%202011v3.pdf.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. Aid Effectiveness 2005–10: Progress in Implementing the Paris Declaration. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
—. 2010. Inside the DAC: A guide to the OECD Development Assistance Committee2009–2010. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
—. 2009. Aid Effectiveness: A Progress Report on Implementing the Paris Declaration. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
—. 2008a. 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Making Aid More Effective by2010. Better Aid. Paris: OECD.
—. 2008b. Accra Agenda for Action. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
—. 2005. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
—. 2003a. Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
—. 2003b. Rome Declaration on Harmonization. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD/UNDP (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/United Nations Development Programme). 2012. ‘Arrangements for Joint OECD-UNDP Secretariat Support to the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation’. March. http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/draft_concept_note_undp_and_ oecd_support_to_global_partnership_30march2012.pdf.
Open Forum (Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness). 2012. ‘Building Blocks’. Accessed May 9, 2012. http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/-building-blocks, 212-.html.
Park, Kang-Ho. 2011. New Development Partners and a Global Development Partnership’. In Catalyzing Development: A New Vision for Aid, edited by Homi Kharas, Koji Makino, and Woo** Jung, 38–60. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Paulo, Sebastian, and Helmut Reisen. 2010. ‘Eastern Donors and Western Soft Law: Towards a DAC Donor Peer Review of China and India?’ Development Policy Review 28 (5): 535–52.
PBIG (Post-Busan Interim Group). 2012. ‘PBIG Meeting 4–5 April 2012’. April 5. http://www.cso-effectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/4–5_april_pbig_meeting_report_-_final.pdf.
Regazzi, Daniele. 2011. ‘Post-Busan Governance Scenarios: A Working Paper for the Busan HLF IV’. ActionAid.
Schulz, Nils-Sjard. 2010. The Third Wave of Development Players. Policy Brief No. 60, Madrid: FRIDE.
—. 2009. ‘On Track Towards the Global Governance of Aid (in Turbulent Times)’. Comment, FRIDE, Madrid. http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/Global_governance_ of_aid_90.pdf.
Smith, Kimberly, Talita Yamashiro Fordelone, and Felix Zimmerman. 2010. Beyond the DAC: The Welcome Role of Other Providers of Development Co-operation. DCD Issues Brief, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Development Co-operation Directorate.
South Centre. 2008. Develo** Country Perspectives on the Role of the Development Cooperation Forum: Building Strategic Approaches to Enhancing Multilateral Development Cooperation. Analytical Note. SC/GGDP/AN/GEG/10. Geneva: South Centre. http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option= com_docman&task= doc_ download&gid= 1085&Itemid= &lang= en.
Steering Committee. 2010. ‘Bogota Statement: Towards Effective and Inclusive Development Partnerships’. Bogota High Level Event on South-South Cooperation and Capacity Development. March 25. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/23/45497536.pdf.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2008. Ministerial Declaration of the Group of 77 and China on the Occasion of UNCTAD XII. TD/436, New York: United Nations. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs//td436_en.pdf.
Wood, Bernard, Dorte Kabell, Nansozi Muwanga, and Francisco Sagasti. 2008. Synthesis Report on the First Phase of the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration. Copenhagen: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.
Wood, Bernard, Julia Betts, Florence Etta, Julian Gayfer, Dorte Kabell, Naomi Ngwira, Francisco Sagasti, and Mallika Samaranayake. 2011. The Evaluation of the Paris Declaration, Final Report. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.
World Bank. 2008. Aid Architecture: An Overview of the Main Trends in Official Development Assistance Flows. Washington, DC: World Bank.
WP-EFF (Working Party on Aid Effectiveness). 2012a. Interim Work Process of the WP-EFF January-June 2012. DCD/DAC/EFF(2012)1/REV1, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/EFF %282012%291/REV1&docLanguage=En.
—. 2012b. Revised Draft Summary Record: First Meeting of the Post-Busan Interim Group, 13–14 February 2012. DCD/DAC/EFF/M(2012)1/PROV/REV1, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/EFF/M%282012%291/PROV/REV1&docLanguage=En.
—. 2011a. Co-Chairs’ Letter to the WP-EFF on the Proposal by the Post-Busan Advisory Group. DCD/DAC/EFF(2011)9, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote= DCD/DAC/EFF%282011%299&docLanguage= En.
—. 2011b. ‘Partner Countries’ Vision and Priorities Issues for HLF 4’. June 12. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/21/48219553.pdf.
—. 2010. ‘The Working Party on Aid Effectiveness — Transforming Global Partnerships for Development’. March. Http://Www.Oecd.Org/dataoecd/0/40/45498646.pdf.
—. 2008. Accra Agenda for Action (AAA): Consultation Process. DCD/DAC/EFF(2008)9/REV1. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ACCRAEXT/Resources/4700790–1205870632880/AAA.ConsultationProcess.7April.2008.pdf.
Zimmerman, Felix, and Kimberly Smith. 2011. ‘More Actors, More Money, More Ideas for International Development Cooperation’. Journal of International Development 23 (5): 722–38.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Shannon Kindornay and Yiagadeesen Samy
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kindornay, S., Samy, Y. (2013). Establishing a Legitimate Development Cooperation Architecture in the Post-Busan Era. In: Besada, H., Kindornay, S. (eds) Multilateral Development Cooperation in a Changing Global Order. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137297761_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137297761_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45219-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-29776-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)