‘It Takes Two to Tango’: South–South Cooperation Measurement Politics in a Multiplex World

Abstract

This paper examines whether and how the imperatives of measuring Official Development Assistance (ODA; or development aid) are being translated to the policy world of South-South cooperation (SSC). Through a historical and political ethnographic account of a decade of global policy debates on Southern-led development cooperation between 2009 and 2019, the paper argues that growing conversations on 'SSC effectiveness', and how to measure it, reflect both prevalent 'measurementalities' in the field as well as 'traditional/Northern donor countries' continuous will to socialise and integrate '(re)-emerging Southern providers' into existing aid norms and practices. The paper also demonstrates Southern powerhouses'-such as Brazil, China, and India-agency in these accountability-related debates and their will to integrate differently into the 'aid system' by proposing alternative tools to measure SSC flows and initiatives in their own terms. Finally, the paper argues that unfolding negotiations over quantifying, reporting, and evaluating Southern-led development cooperation reflect the politicised consolidation of SSC in the second decade of the 21st century.Current impasses at the multilateral level, moreover, reveal unsolved North-South disputes over power, status, and responsibility in international development and international affairs, more broadly. | 335SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION MEASUREMENT POLITICS expanded, intertwined with a growing need to account and measure development and development cooperation flows (Fukuda-Parr & McNeill, 2019;Mitchell, 2002;Rottenburg, 2009). Rather than being static, understandings of responsibility and measurement in the field are currently being disputed and (re)negotiated in light of the major geopolitical shifts in the past two decades and the changing geographies of development across the North-South divide. The 'rise of the South' and of South-South Cooperation (SSC) is a major element in this changing landscape (Eyben & Savage, 2013).This paper provides an empirically based account of the ongoing disputes over whether and how to measure SSC. It examines two United Nations (UN) High-Level Conferences on South-South Cooperation (in 2009 and 2019) and treats them as 'diagnosis events' 1 for investigating how the imperatives of measuring Official Development Assistance (ODA; or development aid) are being translated to the policy world of SSC. 2 By doing so, it also examines the effects of growing 'international development measurementalities', as labelled here, on North-South power relations and on broader disputes over responsibilities in the field of global development.The paper makes three major contributions. First, it argues that growing conversations on 'SSC effectiveness', and how to measure it, reflect both prevalent 'measurementalities' in the field as well as 'traditional donor countries"-members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC)-continuous will to socialise and integrate Southern countries into existi...

Global Development Governance 2.0: Fractured accountabilities in a divided governance complex

“…Mexico, for instance, connects OECD and SSC spaces and has tried to promote its own reporting methodology as a step towards a common Southern reporting approach (Haug, 2021). However, responsiveness to such deliberative engagement has been limited, as large Southern providers emphasise the sovereignty of their development activities and, thus, resist attempts at common standard-setting and monitoring deliberations irrespective of whether these are led by Northern or Southern actors (Waisbich, 2022). Hence efforts to change the discourse on development finance responsibilities have yielded limited results in a context that remains divided both within and across North and South.…”

“…Yet SSC providers have resisted standards imposed by traditional Northern donors and view the GPEDC as DAC‐dominated, while showing little interest in creating shared SSC frameworks (Bracho, 2017; Waisbich, 2022). Globally accepted common standards for private sector actors are also largely lacking.…”

“…Some have a global outlook, such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative (Pamment, 2019); others ‐ like the DAC ‐ have a more limited focus on their restricted membership. They offer different approaches and compete with non‐reporting practices or (limited) self‐reporting of individual players, including Southern providers (Waisbich, 2022). Non‐state actors, particularly CSOs, engage in rankings and sometimes heated discussions on cooperation approaches, creating opportunities for provider monitoring.…”

“…Competition in GDG 2.0 is, thus, dominated by Northern donors, multilateral organisations and large (Northern based) NGOs; when they engage, private sector entities and Southern providers can also play dominant roles in spaces like the GPEDC. However, major Southern powers have shown no inclination towards establishing shared Southern frameworks that compete with the Northern status quo, instead emphasising national interests and accountability to domestic constituencies over responsiveness to recipients or global audiences (Waisbich, 2022). Southernisation dynamics, where Northern donors adopt similar economic rationales to SSC (Mawdsley, 2018), means that competition not only fails to enhance accountability in GDG but can also lead to a race to the bottom where geopolitical interests override established accountability practices.…”

“…In 2012, this culminated in the multi-stakeholder Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), which adopted four principles to guide development efforts, including country ownership, results, inclusivity, and transparency and accountability (OECD, 2011). Yet SSC providers have resisted standards imposed by traditional Northern donors and view the GPEDC as DAC-dominated, while showing little interest in creating shared SSC frameworks (Bracho, 2017;Waisbich, 2022). Globally accepted common standards for private sector actors are also largely lacking.…”