The Age of Choice: Developing Countries in the New Aid Landscape

Abstract

Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from ODI Working Papers for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. As copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. iii Contents 1 Introduction and rationale behind the study 2 The new aid landscape: trends in TDA and NTDA 2.1 Defining TDA and NTDA 2.2 A first-cut global estimate of development assistance flows 3 Case study theoretical framework and methodology 4 Introduction to the country case studies 4.1 Why these countries? Case study selection 4.2 Contextual information about the case study countries 5 Case study findings 5.1 All countries are receiving flows from NTPs, and the volume has increased significantly over the past decade 5.2 Partner countries welcome more choice and more finance 5.3 Ownership, alignment and speed are key priorities 5.4 Ethiopia and Cambodia are taking a strategic approach to the division of labour between traditional and non-traditional providers 5.5 Ethiopia and Cambodia show limited interest in including NTPs in aid coordination mechanisms; this is less true for Zambia 5.6 Philanthropic and social impact investment flows are small and not yet changing the aid landscape significantly 5.7 Countries' ability to attract and manage climate finance appears to depend heavily on their own strategy 6 Conclusions and policy recommendations 6.1 Key findings on government priorities 6.2 Policy recommendations References Annex 1: Comparing economic and governance contexts in Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Zambia Annex 2: TDA and NTDA, by country ($ millions, current) case study and conducted the in-country research. Thanks are also owed to interviewees in Cambodia, Ethiopia and Zambia, who generously gave up their time to contribute to this report. We would also like to thank the Council for the Development of Cambodia, which facilitated interviews and helped frame the research in Cambodia; and Mohammed Mussa and Chrispin Matenga, who provided very valuable research support in Ethiopia and Zambia, respectively. Finally, we would like to thank Andrew Norton and Edward Hedger at the Overseas Development Institute, who provided very valuable peer review comments on the report.

The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018)

“…For these and other reasons the condition of aquatic ecosystems continues to decline while the pressures continue to grow (Vörösmarty et al, 2013;Bunn, 2016;Reis et al, 2017;Degefu et al, 2018). The world is experiencing a renewed period of dam building driven by new donors and applying different social and environmental safeguards Greenhill et al, 2016;Kirchherr et al, 2016). Moreover, much of the new construction is concentrated in ecologically sensitive river basins where dams will act as barriers to fish and other migrations, and fragment formerly connected populations Anderson et al, 2018).…”

Aid Fragmentation or Aid Pluralism? The Effect of Multiple Donors on Child Survival in Developing Countries, 1990–2010

“…At least some recipient governments do not appear to share the view that fragmentation needs to be reduced (Greenhill, Prizzon, & Rogerson, 2013).…”

After the MDGs: From Social Development to Technoenterprise in Tanzania

“…Changed geopolitical relations alter the relevance of previous aid relationships, potentially giving poorer countries, particularly if they are resource rich, greater autonomy to make choices about development directions (Greenhill et al, 2013). In much of sub-Saharan Africa, however, the circulation of policy options and the material and conceptual resources which support them inhibits the scope for deviation from aggressive marketisation.…”

“…Changed economic conditions, including financial crisis and the rise of China, have reduced the power of northern governments as development partners while creating opportunities for relations with businesses, corporations, and capital (Greenhill, Prizzon, & Rogerson, 2013;Kelsall, 2013;Mohan & Power, 2009;Tull, 2006). As the 2015 end point of the MDGs approaches, hard questions are being asked about what development priorities should be and the best ways to achieve them.…”