IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Development Aid and Portfolio Funds: Trends, Volatility and Fragmentation

Listed author(s):
  • Emmanuel Frot

    (Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics)

  • Javier Santiso

    (OECD)

This paper presents stylised facts about development aid and capital flows to developing countries. It compares their volumes and volatilities and finds that foreign aid is not the major source of finance for these countries any more, though not for all regions. The expansion of private flows has usually come at the cost of an increased volatility that adds up to aid volatility, already considered to be an issue. We do not find any negative and significant correlations between aid shocks and capital flow shocks. Investigating complementarity between flows, we show that in a cross section of countries official development aid (ODA) and capital flows are substitutes but not within countries. On the other hand capital flows are complements both across and within countries. We also make use of a private funds database in order to underline the differences between portfolio investors to emerging markets and aid donors. To our knowledge this paper is the first to use such data in comparison with aid flows. We find that private portfolio equity is more volatile than ODA, and that it is neither a substitute nor a complement of ODA, both across and within countries. We argue that these results reinforce the calls for a new stabilising role of ODA. We then study aid donors and private funds portfolios to contribute to the current debate on aid fragmentation by providing trends for the last 50 years. We show that aid donors have constantly been fragmenting their portfolios by giving aid to an increasing number of countries, but also by making asset allocations more equal across countries. Private portfolio equity funds, on the other hand, have done the opposite for ten years and put a heavy weight on few countries in their portfolios. These observations complement the existing results about the progressive nature of aid flows and the regressive nature of private flows. Cet article présente une série de faits stylisés sur l’aide au développement et les flux de capitaux en direction des pays en développement. Leurs quantités et volatilités sont comparées. Il est établi que l’aide au développement n’est plus la plus importante source de financement pour ces pays, bien qu’elle le reste pour certaines régions. Par ailleurs l’expansion des flux de capitaux s’accompagne généralement d’un accroissement de volatilité qui s’ajoute à celle de l’aide, elle-même déjà considérée comme problématique. Les chocs négatifs de flux de capitaux ne s’accompagnent généralement pas de chocs positifs d’aide. Nous étudions la complémentarité de ces deux types de transferts et montrons que les pays qui reçoivent plus de flux de capitaux reçoivent moins d’aide, mais que cette conclusion ne vérifie pas à l’intérieur du pays où les variations d’aide et de capitaux ne sont pas corrélées. Nous utilisons pour compléter ces résultats une base de données des fonds d’investissement privés afin de relever les différences entre les décisions des investisseurs qui détiennent ces portefeuilles et celles des donateurs d’aide. Nous établissons que les flux d’actions sont plus volatiles que l’aide et qu’ils n’en sont ni un substitut ni un complément. Ces résultats renforcent les propositions pour un nouveau rôle stabilisateur de l’aide. Nous étudions ensuite les portefeuilles des donateurs d’aide et des fonds d’investissement pour contribuer au débat actuel sur la fragmentation de l’aide en établissant les tendances pour les 50 dernières années. Nous montrons que les donateurs d’aide ont constamment fragmenté leurs portefeuilles en donnant de l’aide à un nombre sans cesse croissant de pays, mais aussi en égalisant leurs allocations parmi ces pays. Les fonds d’investissement en action ont fait l’opposé au cours des dix dernières années en pondérant fortement quelques pays dans leurs portefeuilles. Ces observations complètent les résultats existants sur la nature progressive des flux d’aide et celle régressive des flux privés.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/227641521672
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by OECD Publishing in its series OECD Development Centre Working Papers with number 275.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 01 Dec 2008
Handle: RePEc:oec:devaaa:275-en
Contact details of provider: Postal:
2 rue Andre Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16

Phone: 33-(0)-1-45 24 82 00
Fax: 33-(0)-1-45 24 85 00
Web page: http://www.oecd.org/Dev
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Christopher Adam & Stephen O'Connell & Edward Buffie & Catherine Pattillo, 2009. "Monetary Policy Rules for Managing Aid Surges in Africa," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(s1), pages 464-490, 08.
  2. Geert Bekaert & Campbell R. Harvey, 2000. "Foreign Speculators and Emerging Equity Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(2), pages 565-613, 04.
  3. Martens,Bertin & Mummert,Uwe & Murrell,Peter & Seabright,Paul, 2008. "The Institutional Economics of Foreign Aid," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521055390, February.
  4. Roodman, David, 2006. "Aid Project Proliferation and Absorptive Capacity," WIDER Working Paper Series 004, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
  5. Oya Celasun & Jan Walliser, 2008. "Predictability of aid: Do fickle donors undermine aid effectiveness?," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 23, pages 545-594, 07.
  6. Knack, Stephen & Rahman, Aminur, 2007. "Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 176-197, May.
  7. Bekaert, Geert & Harvey, Campbell R. & Lumsdaine, Robin L., 2002. "Dating the integration of world equity markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 203-247, August.
  8. Daniel Cohen & Hélène Djoufelkit-Cottenet & Pierre Jacquet & Cécile Valadier, 2008. "Lending to the Poorest Countries: A New Counter-Cyclical Debt Instrument," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 269, OECD Publishing.
  9. Wang, Jianxin, 2007. "Foreign equity trading and emerging market volatility: Evidence from Indonesia and Thailand," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 798-811, November.
  10. Froot, Kenneth A. & Tjornhom Donohue, Jessica, 2002. "The persistence of emerging market equity flows," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 338-364, December.
  11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4371 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. Denis Cogneau & Sylvie Lambert, 2006. "L'aide au développement et les autres flux nord-sud : Complémentarité ou substitution ?," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 251, OECD Publishing.
  13. Bekaert, Geert & Harvey, Campbell R., 2003. "Emerging markets finance," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(1-2), pages 3-56, February.
  14. David Fielding & George Mavrotas, 2008. "Aid Volatility and Donor-Recipient Characteristics in 'Difficult Partnership Countries'," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 75(299), pages 481-494, 08.
  15. Javier Santiso, 2008. "Banking on Development. Private Financial Actors and Donors in Developing Countries," OECD Development Centre Policy Briefs 34, OECD Publishing.
  16. Ale Bulir & A. Javier Hamann, 2003. "Aid Volatility: An Empirical Assessment," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 50(1), pages 1-4.
  17. Arnab Acharya & Ana Teresa Fuzzo de Lima & Mick Moore, 2006. "Proliferation and fragmentation: Transactions costs and the value of aid," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:devaaa:275-en. 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: ()

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.