IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/diebps/122013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

50 years of peer reviews by the OECD's development assistance committee: an instrument of quality assurance and mutual learning

Author

Listed:
  • Ashoff, Guido

Abstract

In December 2012, the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) celebrated 50 years of reviewing its members' development cooperation. The reviews form part of the DAC's initial mandate, which called for an increase in resources for development, an improvement in their effectiveness and periodic reviews of the members' aid programmes. Although the DAC mandate has been repeatedly updated (most recently for the period 2011–2015), it has remained basically unchanged. In fulfilling its mandate, the DAC performs four tasks: (i) It records all resource and official development assistance (ODA) flows to developing countries in line with common criteria. (ii) It sets ODA standards (e.g. definition and terms of ODA; list of ODA recipients; rules on aid-tying; evaluation principles; anti-corruption proposals). (iii) It develops principles and guidelines for important areas of ODA (policy coordination). (iv) It reviews the application of the common standards, principles and guidelines (referred to as DAC standards in the following) and of other international and national commitments made by its members in relation to development cooperation. The DAC has 25 members from the ranks of the OECD plus the European Commission representing the EU's ODA. The work of the DAC is largely done by the members and supported by the DAC Secretariat (a directorate of the OECD Secretariat). The DAC takes decisions by consensus, i.e. all agreements reflect the consent of all members. The aim of the Peer Reviews is to improve the quality and effectiveness of ODA through the DAC members' individual and collective learning. They assess the entire ODA system and are unrivalled in this respect. Each member is reviewed every four to five years by the DAC Secretariat and one or two examiners from each of two other members. The team's main findings and proposed recommendations are submitted to the DAC for discussion and approval, whereupon they gain DAC status. The implementation of the recommendations is checked 18 to 24 months later at a mid - term review and at the next Peer Review. The Peer Reviews are meant to be critical and constructive. In an evaluation of the DAC, more than three-quarters of its members assessed the quality of the Peer Review reports as high or very high. The Peer Reviews have an impact: over 90 percent of DAC members rated their policy impact as medium to very high. According to the DAC Secretariat, 88 percent of recommendations have been partly or fully implemented in the last two years. The DAC has repeatedly adjusted the Peer Reviews. In doing so, it has not always been able to avoid trade-offs. The Peer Reviews have also met with interest outside the DAC and OECD (requests from non-DAC OECD donors for special reviews, participation of non-DAC and even non- OECD countries and institutions as observers). International development cooperation is experiencing changes which not only require adjustments to the Peer Reviews but also affect the basic role of the DAC and its Reviews. But, as long as there are no equivalent alternatives, the DAC should retain its Peer Reviews, since they have proved their worth as a quality assurance and mutual learning instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashoff, Guido, 2013. "50 years of peer reviews by the OECD's development assistance committee: an instrument of quality assurance and mutual learning," Briefing Papers 12/2013, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:diebps:122013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/199712/1/die-bp-2013-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Matt Andrews & Nick Fanning, 2015. "Mapping Peer Learning Initiatives in Public Sector Reforms in Development," CID Working Papers 298, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    2. Mahn, Timo C., 2017. "Accountability for development cooperation under the 2030 Agenda," IDOS Discussion Papers 10/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    3. Gonsior, Victoria & Klingebiel, Stephan, 2019. "The development policy system under pressure: acknowledging limitations, sourcing advantages and moving towards a broader perspective," IDOS Discussion Papers 6/2019, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    4. Ashoff, Guido, 2015. "Die Global Governance-Qualität der internationalen Aid Effectiveness Agenda: eine theoretische Analyse und Bewertung der Systemreform der internationalen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 87, number 87.

    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:zbw:diebps:122013. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ditubde.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.