Innovating foreign aid—progress and problems

Abstract

This paper assesses two innovative development financing models-specialised global partnership funds (e.g. The Global Fund) and market-based approaches (e.g. GlobalGiving). Via a simple typology of development financing approaches these models are shown to contain distinctive and new elements. They have definite strengths, particularly in raising funds as well as unbundling fundraising from design and implementation. However, these models are not panaceas and replicate many weaknesses of 'traditional' approaches to foreign aid. Donors should carefully consider the merits of supporting new financing structures relative to including innovative design features within existing aid programmes.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Stability and Impact of Remittances and Development Aid on Sustainable Economic Growth in Developing Countries

“…The main purpose of development aid is to help economically disadvantaged regions in their efforts to raise the living standards of their population [27] and to support the sustainable knowledge-based [28], environmental [29], social and economic development. Over the years, the debate about the effectiveness of aid has been characterised by controversy, with aid optimists at one extreme and aid sceptics at the other (see References [30][31][32], for example). Aid optimists believe that aid is supposed to fill the investment-savings gap (and other gaps).…”

Aid, Growth and Employment in Africa

“…The combination of stronger domestic revenues, renewed access to sources of external finance (including commercial debt) and the emergence of countries such as China, Brazil and India as new donors has meant that reliance on traditional forms of concessional assistance has declined in many African countries. New types of donors, in the shape of global funds and philanthropic organizations with a predominant focus on social sectors (such as health and education) have also arisen (see Jones, 2012). Together, these have led to some rethinking of priorities by the traditional (DAC) donors; and there is some evidence that the center of gravity of donor engagement in Africa is slowly shifting away from the social sectors.…”

Elusive accountabilities in the HIV scale-up: ‘Ownership’ as a functional tautology

“…Participation processes are held because the donors want them to be held, but the elected Parliaments are barely involved, the agenda is restricted to technical issues and the participation process exercises hardly any actual influence. (Dijkstra, 2005, p. 23; see also Jones, 2012) Near-identical dynamics have been reported from Ghana where the 'government formulated development strategies with a view of pleasing the donors but with little intention to alter conventional patterns of everyday politics' (Woll, 2008, p. 74), thus providing further illustration of a 'misguided interpretation [by donors] of poverty reduction as a technical, rather than a political, project' (Canagarajah & van Diesen, 2011, p. S152).…”