Two visions of aid effectiveness and allocation are compared. The first, corresponding to the new aid paradigm, argues that aid is only effective if domestic policies are appropriate. The second, in contrast, argues that aid effectiveness depends on the external and climatic environment: the worse this environment, or the more vulnerable the recipient countries, the greater the effectiveness of aid. Cross-sectional econometric tests related to GDP growth on two 12-year pooled periods clearly favour the second view. The two views can be reconciled through the principle of performance-based aid allocation, where performance is defined as outcomes adjusted for the impact of environmental factors. Performance can then be measured in several manners which are subject to comparison. One approach would lead one to allocate more aid the worse the (external) environment is (for a given policy) and the better the policy is (for a given environment).World Bank Report, Aid Effectiveness, Allocation, Environmental Factors, Performance, Measurements,

This paper reports panel gravity estimates of aggregate bilateral trade for 130 countries over the period 1962-96 in which the coe±cient of distance is allowed to change over time. In a standard speci¯cation in which transport costs are proxied by distance only, it is found paradoxically that the absolute value of the elasticity of bilateral trade to distance has been signi¯cantly increasing. The result is attributed to a relatively larger decline in costs independent of distance (such as handling) than in distance-related costs (e.g. oil price). An extended version of the model that controls for these two factors eliminates this positive trend without reversing it. However, when the sample is split into two groups (`rich-rich' and`poor-poor'), the paradox is maintained for the`poor-poor' group. While not conclusive, these results are consistent with the view that poor countries may have been marginalized by the current wave of globalization. Jel Classi¯cation: F12¤ Helpful comments from particpants at seminars at Cerdi and Wto are gratefully acknowledged. Agnµ es B ¶ enassy-Quere, Olivier Cadot, Paul Collier, Marcel Fafchamps, Maurice Schi®, Alan Winters gave helpful comments on an earlier draft.

In response to the need expressed by the UN General Assembly, an economic vulnerability index (EVI) has been defined by the Committee for Development Policy. The present paper, which refers to this index, first examines how a structural economic vulnerability index can be designed for the low-income countries in particular. It recalls the conceptual and empirical grounds of the index, considers the structure of the present EVI, its sensitivity to methodological choices with respect to averaging, as well as related possible improvements, and briefly compares the levels and trends of EVI in various country groups, using a new database from a 'retrospective EVI'. The paper examines how EVI can be used for international development policy, underlining two main purposes: first-the purpose for which EVI was initially designed-is the identification of the least developed countries (LDCs) that are allowed to receive some preferential treatment in aid and trade matters. EVI, in addition to income per capita and human capital, is one of the three complementary criteria a country needs to meet in order to be perceived as a LDC, and consequently it cannot be the sole criterion for countries wishing to avoid exiting the LDC list. And second, EVI is to be used, in addition to other traditional measures, as a criterion for aid allocation between developing countries. We argue that such an inclusion is legitimate for both reasons of effectiveness and equity. The two purposes are presented as complementary.

No abstract

Macro vulnerability of the small island developing states (SIDS) as well as of least developed countries (LDCs) has been an increasing concern for the international community. This has led to the design of an economic vulnerability index (EVI) to assess the structural economic vulnerability resulting from natural or external shocks. We first explain how vulnerability affects growth, development and poverty reduction, particularly in small developing countries. We then examine how the EVI has been designed and how it can be used to compare SIDS and LDCs. We argue that EVI is a relevant tool not only for identification of LDCs, but also for geographical aid allocation to favour vulnerable countries, including LDCs and SIDS, even though not all SIDS qualify as LDCs.