IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oec/dcdkaa/5kzbqdwvg4f0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DAC Peer Review of Canada

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 Belgium and Switzerland for the Peer Review Meeting on 10 October 2007. This peer review of Canada’s development co-operation programme highlights Canada’s renewed commitment to Africa; a promising approach toward fragile states, such as Haiti and Afghanistan; initiatives to make Canadian aid more effective, focusing on accountability and explaining results to the Canadian public and parliament; and strong commitment to good humanitarian donorship (GHD). Canada still faces some challenges, including: i) strengthening the mandate for development co-operation and for CIDA, while addressing some of the agency’s fundamental structural issues; ii) producing a policy for development co-operation which focuses on reducing poverty; iii) articulating an approach to policy coherence for development; iv) continuing to increase aid to meet Canada’s commitments made at Monterrey; v) focusing its aid on fewer partner countries in order to generate stronger impact and voice; and vi) galvanising the implementation of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. These steps are needed if Canada’s performance is to match its ambition to become a leading player in the donor community.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of Canada," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 263-387.
    • Handle: RePEc:oec:dcdkaa:5kzbqdwvg4f0
    DOI: 10.1787/journal_dev-v8-art35-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v8-art35-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-v8-art35-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. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    2. Marcin Kacperczyk & Philipp Schnabl, 2010. "When Safe Proved Risky: Commercial Paper during the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 29-50, Winter.
    3. 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.
    4. Louise Bedsworth, 2012. "California’s local health agencies and the state’s climate adaptation strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 119-133, March.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. Edmund Byrne, 2014. "Towards Enforceable Bans on Illicit Businesses: From Moral Relativism to Human Rights," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 119-130, January.
    8. Andreas Ortmann & Benoît Walraevens, 2012. "Adam Smith, Philosopher and Man of the World," Post-Print halshs-00756341, HAL.
    9. E. Klein & E. Fouksman, 2022. "Reparations as a Rightful Share: From Universalism to Redress in Distributive Justice," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 53(1), pages 31-57, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Siddarth Srinivasan & Jamie Morgenstern, 2021. "Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review," Papers 2109.00923, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    12. 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.
    13. José Cendejas Bueno & Cecilia Font de Villanueva, 2015. "Convergence of inflation with a common cycle: estimating and modelling Spanish historical inflation from the 16th to the 18th centuries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1643-1665, June.

    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:5kzbqdwvg4f0. 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.