IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oec/dcdkaa/5kzsmfx6v5jh.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DAC Peer Review of the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • OECD

Abstract

This review contains the Main Findings and Recommendations of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the report of the Secretariat. It was prepared with examiners from Sweden and Japan for the Peer Review meeting held on 12 September 2006. The review welcomed the Netherlands’ strong commitment to policy coherence for development and to maintaining high levels of development aid. The Committee noted that the Netherlands gives strong attention to issues of aid quality and uses innovative approaches to enable recipient countries to lead their own development agenda. It identified a number of recommendations (e.g. continuing efforts towards geographic and sector concentration, ensuring that spending targets do not jeopardise the principles of aid effectiveness, developing a more coherent strategy with respect to private sector development, and developing overall aid effectiveness and conditionality strategies) to assist the Netherlands in pursuing its efforts to improve the effectiveness of its development co-operation programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the Netherlands," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(3), pages 115-214.
    • Handle: RePEc:oec:dcdkaa:5kzsmfx6v5jh
    DOI: 10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art38-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art38-en
    Download Restriction: Full text available to READ online. PDF download available to OECD iLibrary subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art38-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    3. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    4. Besim Bilalli & Rana Faisal Munir & Alberto Abelló, 2021. "A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 545-563, January.
    5. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:dcdkaa:5kzsmfx6v5jh. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/oecddfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.