Abstract
This chapter highlights the role of diverse donor bureaucracies in a transforming development cooperation landscape. The participation of donor bureaucracies beyond foreign affairs and development agencies in international cooperation presents both challenges and opportunities. Positive aspects of diverse bureaucratic engagement include the mobilisation of additional financial resources for development, the contribution of thematic expertise, and the enlargement of policy networks relevant for international cooperation. At the same time, differences in bureaucratic interests and approaches can contribute to the coordination and policy coherence deficits known to limit aid and development effectiveness. The chapter elaborates on these prospects and concerns and provides an overview of bureaucratic engagement in international cooperation across donor contexts.
This chapter is a revised version of (Lundsgaarde 2013a). The author thanks Stephan Klingebiel, Adolf Kloke-Lesch, James Mackie, Sebastian Paulo and Imme Scholz as well as participants of the DIE conference “Fragmentation or Pluralism? The Organisation of Development Cooperation Revisited” in October 2013 for helpful comments on earlier versions of the chapter.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Birdsall, N., and H. Kharas. 2010. Quality of official development assistance assessment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution/Center for Global Development.
Brombacher, D. 2009. Geberstrukturen in der Entwicklungspolitik SWP-Studie. Berlin: Stiftiung Wissenschaft und Politik.
Clay, E.J., M. Geddes, L. Natali, and D. Willem te Velde. 2008. The development effectiveness of untied aid: Evaluation of the Paris Declaration. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Davies, P. 2011. Toward a new development cooperation dynamic Canadian development report 2011. Ottawa: The North-South Institute.
Easterly, W., and T. Pfutze. 2008. Where does the money go? Best and worst practices in foreign aid. Journal of Economic Perspectives 22: 29–52.
Halperin, M.H., P.A. Clapp, and A. Kanter. 2006. Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
HLF (High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness). 2011. Busan partnership for effective development cooperation. 4th HLF Final Outcome Document. Paris: HLF.
Hong, Z. 2012. China’s evolving aid landscape: Crossing the river by feeling the stones. In Development cooperation and emerging powers: New partners or old patterns, ed. S. Chaturvedi, T. Fues, and E. Sidiropoulos, 134–168. London: Zed Books.
Keijzer, N., and J. Oppewal. 2012. Learn to walk before you can run? Review of methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation. ECDPM Discussion Paper. Maastricht: European Centre for Policy Analysis and Management.
Kindornay, S. 2011. From aid to development effectiveness: A working paper. Ottawa: The North-South Institute.
Kloke-Lesch, A. 1998. Funktionale Positionsbestimmung der Entwicklungspolitik. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 3: 324–332.
Knack, S., and A. Rahman. 2007. Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients. Journal of Development Economics 83(1): 176–197. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.02.002.
Lundsgaarde, E. 2013a. Bureaucratic pluralism and the transformation of development cooperation. DIE Discussion Paper 16/2013. Bonn: German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).
Lundsgaarde, E. 2013b. The domestic politics of foreign aid. Abingdon: Routledge.
Martens, B. 2008. Why do aid agencies exist? In Reinventing foreign aid, ed. W. Easterly, 285–310. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nicholson-Crotty, J., and S.M. Miller. 2012. Bureaucratic effectiveness and influence in the legislature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 347–371.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2006. Whole of government approaches to fragile states. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008e. Is it ODA? Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008f. Policy coherence for development–Lessons learned. OECD Briefing Paper. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009c. 2009 OECD report on division of labour – Addressing fragmentation and concentration of aid across countries. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009d. Austria. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009e. Building blocks for policy coherence for development. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009f. Managing aid: Practices of DAC member countries. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010a. The increasing importance of the South to the South. In Perspectives on global development 2010: Shifting wealth, ed. OECD. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010d. Japan: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010e. Portugal. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010f. United Kingdom. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. The Netherlands. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2012. Canada. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.
Patrick, S., and K. Brown. 2007. Greater than the sum of its parts? Assessing “whole of government” approaches to fragile states. CGD Brief. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
OPM (Oxford Policy Management) and IDL (the IDL Group). 2008. Evaluation of the implementation of the Paris Declaration: Thematic study–The applicability of the Paris Declaration in fragile and conflict-affected situations, Oxford Policy Management and The IDL Group, Oxford
Pickering, J, Skovgaard, J, Kim, S, Roberts, JT, Rossati, D, Stadelmann, M & Reich, H 2015, ‘Acting on climate finance pledges: Inter-agency dynamics and relationships with aid in contributor states’, World Development, vol. 68, pp. 149-162
Romero, M. 2012. Mexico: Linking Mesoamerica. In Development cooperation and emerging powers: New partners or old patterns? ed. S. Chaturvedi, T. Fues, and E. Sidiropoulos, 190–215. London: Zed Books.
Severino, J.M., and O. Ray. 2009. The end of ODA: Death and rebirth of a global public policy. CGD Working Paper. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
Severino, J.M., and O. Ray. 2010. The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action. CGD Working Paper No. 218. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
Slob, A., and A.M. Jerve. 2008. Managing aid exit and transformation: Lessons from Botswana, Eritrea, India, Malawi, and South Africa: Synthesis report. Stockholm/The Hague/Copenhagen/Oslo: SIDA/Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs/DANIDA/NORAD.
USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2006. The global development alliance. Washington, DC: USAID Office of Global Development Alliances.
Vanheukelom, J., S. Migliorisi, A.H. Cangas, N. Keijzer, and E. Spierings. 2012. Reporting on development: ODA and financing for development. Maastricht: ECDPM.
Vickers, B. 2012. Towards a new aid paradigm: South Africa as African development partner. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(4): 535–556.
Williamson, C.R. 2010. Exploring the failure of foreign aid: The role of incentives and information. Review of Austrian Economics 23(1): 17–33.
Wilson, J.Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
World Bank. 2013. World development indicators. http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=3&id=4. Accessed 12 Sept 2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lundsgaarde, E. (2016). Bilateral Donor Bureaucracies and Development Cooperation Pluralism. In: Klingebiel, S., Mahn, T., Negre, M. (eds) The Fragmentation of Aid. Rethinking International Development series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55357-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55357-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-55356-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-55357-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)