IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/diebps/192017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Thematic aid allocation: what are the benefits and risks?

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Paulo
  • Janus, Heiner
  • Holzapfel, Sarah

Abstract

Aid allocation is typically country-based, i.e. focusing first on how to distribute Official Development Assistance (ODA) across countries. Donors consider the needs of developing countries as well as their own interests before deciding which country should receive how much assistance. Subsequently, donor and partner governments choose the thematic areas or sectors of cooperation, such as health, education, the environment, or food security. As an alternative approach, thematic allocation has gained increasing relevance. This form of allocation earmarks funds for specific issues prior to the selection of partner countries. The special initiatives of Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the United States (US) presidential initiatives for health and food security are prominent examples. The process of aid allocation is crucial for the effective use of scarce public funds. Global changes raise the question to what extent funds should continue to be allocated in a primarily country-based manner or whether a thematic approach is more useful. Historically, development cooperation has evolved as a policy to support poor countries. However, these countries now vary greatly in their development (fragile states, graduated countries, etc.). The North-South logic underlying the term “develop¬ing country” is inconsistent with the universal 2030 Agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are organised thematically. Many challenges require cross-border solutions (e.g. climate, health, migration). Thematic allocation aligns development cooperation with international challenges. Experience thus far shows both benefits and risks. Thematic allocation can mobilise funding for key issues, bundle resources and raise the visibility of aid. It enables cross-border cooperation, offers room for innovations and is more flexible. Yet, a number of initiatives bypass local capacities and the institutions of partner countries more frequently than country-based allocation does. In other cases, uncoordinated parallel structures arise, which do not take sufficient account of ongoing activities. Thematic allocation is likely to become more important as part of the global effort to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Donors should therefore systematically examine to what extent they want to use thematic allocation in the future. A rigorous assessment can help to better utilise benefits and minimise risks. The key challenge is to make effective use of the more flexible cooperation framework offered by thematic allo¬cation. To this end, donors should sharpen their thematic profiles and select issues according to their comparative advantages. Donors also require adequate organisational structures to be able to coordinate all relevant actors in a given issue area, both internally (e.g. through whole-of-government approaches) and externally working together with a broad range of partners. Ultimately, donors should further strengthen the role of partner countries in thematic programmes and initiatives to ensure that a shift of perspective from countries to themes does not come at the expense of country ownership.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Paulo & Janus, Heiner & Holzapfel, Sarah, 2017. "Thematic aid allocation: what are the benefits and risks?," Briefing Papers 19/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:diebps:192017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/199807/1/die-bp-2017-19.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rachael Calleja & Beata Cichocka, 2022. "Good for now but not forever: officials' perspectives on the relevance of the effectiveness agenda and the need for change," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2022-140, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. R. Melis Baydag & Stephan Klingebiel, 2023. "Partner country selection between development narratives and self‐interests: A new method for analysing complex donor approaches," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 1199-1223, May.
    3. Niels Keijzer & Stephan Klingebiel & Fabian Scholtes, 2020. "Promoting ownership in a “post‐aid effectiveness” world: Evidence from Rwanda and Liberia," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 38(S1), pages 32-49, May.
    4. Weinlich, Silke & Baumann, Max-Otto & Lundsgaarde, Erik & Wolff, Peter, 2020. "Earmarking in the multilateral development system: Many shades of grey," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 101, number 101.

    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:192017. 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.