IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Crushed Aid: Fragmentation in Sectoral Aid


  • Emmanuel Frot

    (Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics)

  • Javier Santiso



This paper measures and compares fragmentation in aid sectors. Past studies focused on aggregate country data but a sector analysis provides a better picture of fragmentation. We start by counting the number of aid projects in the developing world and find that, in 2007, more than 90 000 projects were running simultaneously. Project proliferation is on a steep upward trend and will certainly be reinforced by the emergence of new donors. Developing countries with the largest numbers of aid projects have more than 2 000 in a single year. In parallel to this boom of aid projects, there has been a major shift towards social sectors and, as a consequence, these are the most fragmented. We quantify fragmentation in each aid sector for donors and recipients and identify which exhibit the highest fragmentation. While fragmentation is usually seen as an issue when it is excessive, we also show that some countries suffer from too little fragmentation. An original contribution of this paper is to develop a monopoly index that identifies countries where a donor enjoys monopoly power. Finally, we characterise countries with high fragmentation levels. Countries that are poor, democratic and have a large population get more fragmented aid. However, this is only because poor and democratic countries attract more donors. Once we control for the number of donors in a country-sector, democratic countries do not appear different from non-democratic ones in any sector and poor countries actually have a slightly less fragmented aid allocation. Cet article mesure et compare le niveau de fragmentation de l’aide au développement dans différents secteurs d’allocation. Les précédents travaux consacrés au sujet se limitaient à l’analyse de données agrégées au niveau national. Une décomposition sectorielle permet d’appréhender plus précisément le phénomène de fragmentation. On évalue à plus de 90 000 le nombre de projets financés par l’aide en 2007. Cette prolifération est en constante augmentation, et sera certainement renforcée par l’émergence de nouveaux pays donneurs. Les pays en développement qui sont le siège du plus grand nombre de projets en accueillent plus de 2000 par an. Parallèlement à cette explosion du nombre de projets, l’allocation sectorielle de l’aide a été modifiée, avec de plus en plus de projets dans les secteurs à buts sociaux. En conséquence, ces secteurs sont les plus fragmentés. Nous quantifions cette fragmentation pour les pays donneurs et récipiendaires, et établissons une liste de ceux où elle est la plus élevée. Nous étudions aussi le revers du problème de la fragmentation de l’aide : tandis que celle-ci est généralement considérée comme problématique lorsqu’elle est trop élevée, nous montrons que certains pays souffrent de trop peu de fragmentation. Nous créons un indice afin d’identifier les pays en développement où un donneur bénéficie d’une position de monopole. La dernière partie de l’article s’attache à caractériser les pays qui ont des niveaux de fragmentation élevés. Les pays pauvres, démocratiques et avec une importante population, reçoivent une aide plus fragmentée. Mais ces résultats s’expliquent par le fait que les pays pauvres et démocratiques attirent aussi plus de donneurs. Une fois que nous prenons cet effet en compte, il apparaît que le niveau de démocratie n’influence pas la fragmentation de l’aide, et que l’aide aux pays pauvres est en fait légèrement moins fragmentée.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel Frot & Javier Santiso, 2010. "Crushed Aid: Fragmentation in Sectoral Aid," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 284, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:devaaa:284-en

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Djankov, Simeon & Montalvo, Jose G. & Reynal-Querol, Marta, 2009. "Aid with multiple personalities," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 217-229, June.
    2. 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.
    3. William Easterly, 2009. "Can the West Save Africa?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 373-447, June.
    4. Emmanuel Frot & Javier Santiso, 2008. "Development Aid and Portfolio Funds: Trends, Volatility and Fragmentation," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 275, OECD Publishing.
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James A. Robinson, 2001. "The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1369-1401, December.
    6. William Easterly & Tobias Pfutze, 2008. "Where Does the Money Go? Best and Worst Practices in Foreign Aid," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 29-52, Spring.
    7. 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.
    8. Eduardo Borensztein & Julia Cagé & Daniel Cohen & Cécile Valadier, 2008. "Aid Volatility and Macro Risks in Low-Income Countries," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 273, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    aid; aide; fragmentation; fragmentation;

    JEL classification:

    • F35 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Foreign Aid

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    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:devaaa:284-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: (). 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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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.