IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

DAC Peer Review of Austria


  • OECD


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 Luxembourg and Norway for the Peer Review meeting on 29 April 2009. Among the issues covered were: the welcome efforts to focus Austrian development co-operation on the world’s poorest people; plans to substantially increase aid for humanitarian action, priority partner countries, and UN agencies; and progress made with the organisational reform started in 2004. Austria needs to sharply increase its aid to meet its commitment to reach 0.7% of ODA/GNI by 2015; to make its aid more predictable; and to increase the share of aid that can be programmed by partner countries. Staffing and technical expertise in the Foreign Affairs Ministry must be strengthened so that it can effectively carry out its mandate as the national co-ordinator for aid and development policy; there should be increased focus on public and political awareness about global development challenges; and a medium-term development policy, endorsed by the government, which commits all ministries to Austria’s development co-operation objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2010. "DAC Peer Review of Austria," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 10(3), pages 109-219.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:dcdkaa:5km9c89xd7r2

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text available to READ online. PDF download available to OECD iLibrary subscribers.

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


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

    Cited by:

    1. Nico Voigtl?nder & Hans-Joachim Voth, 2013. "How the West "Invented" Fertility Restriction," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2227-2264, October.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:5km9c89xd7r2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.