Debt Relief and Social Services Expenditure: The African Experience, 1989–2003

Abstract

In June 2005 the G8 proposed the Multilateral Debt Relief

Debt Relief Effectiveness and Institution Building

“…However, the results are generally not significant. The lack of nonlinearities according to policies is consistent with the finding of Depetris Chauvin and Kraay (2005) but contrary to Harrabi, Bousrih and Mohammed (2007) and Dessy and Vencatachellum (2007) who document a larger influence of debt relief in countries with sound institutions and policies. Notes: The table reports regression coefficients and, in brackets, the associated standard errors.…”

“…A recent strand of literature explicitly addresses the outcomes of actual debt relief on growth and investment (Depetris Chauvin and Kraay, 2005;Johansson, 2008), on credit availability to the private sector (Harrabi, Bousrih and Mohammed, 2007) and on social services expenditures (Dessy and Vencatachellum, 2007), finding a mixed evidence. The main contribution of this paper is to build on this literature providing further evidence of the consequences of debt forgiveness on different macroeconomic indicators and on institutional quality 2 , focusing on a sample of developing countries and also explicitly on HIPCs, and trying to disentangle possible heterogeneous effects according to the country-specific institutional framework, given that a certain level of institutional quality is required in order to benefit from debt relief (Asiedu, 2003).…”

The Nexus Between External Debt And Economic Growth In Nigeria (1981 – 2009).

“…They posit that loans from multilateral organization do not ameliorate the adverse consequences of debt on social expenditures. Thus, if Lora and Olivera's results hold for Africa, beneficiaries of debt relief should have increased their expenditure in the social (Dessy and Vencatachellum, 2007). Evidence from (Dessy and Vencatachellum, 2007) study however show that if a government has a high discount factor, it will consume than invest once debt relief is granted.…”

“…Thus, if Lora and Olivera's results hold for Africa, beneficiaries of debt relief should have increased their expenditure in the social (Dessy and Vencatachellum, 2007). Evidence from (Dessy and Vencatachellum, 2007) study however show that if a government has a high discount factor, it will consume than invest once debt relief is granted. This is particularly true of most developing countries that have high marginal propensity to import.…”

Strengthening the Human Right to Sanitation as an Instrument for Inclusive Development

“…First, although there is limited evidence that foreign debt relief inevitably results in increased public expenditure on social infrastructure (Dessy & Vencatachellum, 2007;Kaddar & Furrer, 2008), foreign debts reduce the capacity of poor States for such investments (Varma et al, 2008). Second, within formal and informal settlements and humanitarian situations, insufficient funds partly due to the fragmented governance of sanitation (Isunju, 2011) that frustrate the realisation of the right to water, or using water as a means of coercion .…”