An analysis of donor engagement with education policy development in Lao PDR from 1991 to 2000

Abstract

This paper describes the relationship between donor agencies and government during the development of Lao basic education policy in the post‐Cold War period, 1991‐2000. We argue that Laos had only recently been ‘re‐ born’ from colonial regimes, and was thus unable to resist or mediate donor policy agendas and donors who acted on behalf of economically developed nations. The nature of the power relationship between donor and government is explored through an analysis of policy developed at that time as well as the perceptions of aid conditionalities, as recalled by government officials and those working in the aid sector at that time. These perceptions were gathered through interviews conducted by one of the authors.

Development assistance, donor–recipient dynamic, and domestic policy: a case study of two health interventions supported by World Bank–UK and Global Fund in China

“…On the other hand, insufficient dialogues between the Fund and the Chinese counterparts and the subsequent exclusion of the Fund in the transitional planning of the HIV/AIDS RCC might have left the fate of nascent civil society engagement uncertain in a government-dominant context after the Fund’s exit. This study thus highlights that donor–recipient dynamics could evolve to a point where dialogues become collaborative, based on consensus, trust, and voluntary participation in domestic policy formulation [ 4 , 7 , 13 , 28 , 45 ]. These collaborative dialogues could positively impact the recipient’s perception of DAH benefits for policy formulation and health outcomes and the donor’s understanding of domestic policy actors’ strategic objectives, policy preferences, and tools [ 107 ].…”

“…They exert their influence through financial resources, knowledge transfer, technical expertise, inter-sectoral leverage, and indirect financial and political incentives [ 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 ]. Factors such as colonial legacies [ 5 , 12 – 15 ], donors’ concerns over domestic bureaucratic capacity, and domestic elites’ vested interests gained from the past DAH could contribute to the weak bargaining power of domestic policy actors [ 13 , 15 – 19 ]. Donors’ influence, therefore, could align domestic actors and institutions with donor-dominated systems [ 20 – 23 ], leading to distortions in healthcare systems and exacerbating health inequalities [ 20 , 24 – 28 ].…”