Comments on: New players in the Foreign Aid Race http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/new-players-in-the-foreign-aid-race/ Open Budgets. Transform lives Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:45:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: What next for Aid? Double or nothing or new conditionalities? « Open Budgets Blog http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/new-players-in-the-foreign-aid-race/#comment-280 What next for Aid? Double or nothing or new conditionalities? « Open Budgets Blog Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:39:31 +0000 http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-280 [...] deferring, misreporting or negotiating past such conditionalities. The proliferation and growth of new donors has made it even easier for poor governments to dilute the power of [...] [...] deferring, misreporting or negotiating past such conditionalities. The proliferation and growth of new donors has made it even easier for poor governments to dilute the power of [...]

]]> By: Is it true what they say about the Chinese? The effects of China’s lending in Africa « Open Budgets Blog http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/new-players-in-the-foreign-aid-race/#comment-71 Is it true what they say about the Chinese? The effects of China’s lending in Africa « Open Budgets Blog Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:55:38 +0000 http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-71 [...] they say about the Chinese? The effects of China’s lending in Africa A few weeks ago we posted about the entry and growth of new aid donors. A recent paper published by the Norwegian Campaign for [...] [...] they say about the Chinese? The effects of China’s lending in Africa A few weeks ago we posted about the entry and growth of new aid donors. A recent paper published by the Norwegian Campaign for [...]

]]> By: Albert@ Open Budgets http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/new-players-in-the-foreign-aid-race/#comment-45 Albert@ Open Budgets Wed, 21 May 2008 07:14:44 +0000 http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-45 Mr Carman, No one would disagree, but at the moment foreign aid is growing and set to keep on doing so. The question still remains, how and to whom should donors give? And how and to what extent should they coordinate their work? Your thoughts? Mr Carman,

No one would disagree, but at the moment foreign aid is growing and set to keep on doing so. The question still remains, how and to whom should donors give? And how and to what extent should they coordinate their work? Your thoughts?

]]> By: mrcarman http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/new-players-in-the-foreign-aid-race/#comment-44 mrcarman Wed, 21 May 2008 03:03:46 +0000 http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-44 This reminds me of the new book by Clifton Lambreth - Ford and the American Dream. Everyone has to give and be less selfish. This reminds me of the new book by Clifton Lambreth – Ford and the American Dream. Everyone has to give and be less selfish.

]]> By: anonymous http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/new-players-in-the-foreign-aid-race/#comment-38 anonymous Tue, 20 May 2008 12:12:25 +0000 http://internationalbudget.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-38 This is an interetsing and timely post as 2008 is the year of 'aid effectiveness'. Three comments: 1) ODA from DAC donors is decreasing in percentage terms, this is worrying and gives leeway to new dnors to bridge the financing gap in developing countries. 2) Although it is in the whole aid effectiveness agenda to have new donors integrated in the debates but how do DAC donors ensure that, given that they do not fulfill their commitments in the Paris Declaration [e.g. using country systems, conditionality, lack of predictability, tied aid]? 3) New donors have become very influencial on a bilateral basis especially in Africa, but it's important to separate investments from aid [e.g. China]. Furthermore, these donors tend to be flexible and more repsonsive to countries' needs, it is in the DAC's interest to take these features on board and adopt them. Finally just to be a little controversial, what if DAC lost influence, does it necessarily means that aid won't be effective? I think what matters more is that DAC acts upon its commitments and that new donors embrace the principles of Paris. This is an interetsing and timely post as 2008 is the year of ‘aid effectiveness’. Three comments: 1) ODA from DAC donors is decreasing in percentage terms, this is worrying and gives leeway to new dnors to bridge the financing gap in developing countries. 2) Although it is in the whole aid effectiveness agenda to have new donors integrated in the debates but how do DAC donors ensure that, given that they do not fulfill their commitments in the Paris Declaration [e.g. using country systems, conditionality, lack of predictability, tied aid]? 3) New donors have become very influencial on a bilateral basis especially in Africa, but it’s important to separate investments from aid [e.g. China]. Furthermore, these donors tend to be flexible and more repsonsive to countries’ needs, it is in the DAC’s interest to take these features on board and adopt them.
Finally just to be a little controversial, what if DAC lost influence, does it necessarily means that aid won’t be effective? I think what matters more is that DAC acts upon its commitments and that new donors embrace the principles of Paris.

]]>