IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/diedps/42018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evidence-based allocation in global health: lessons learned for Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Minasyan, Anna

Abstract

This paper studies evidence-based aid allocations in global health with the aim to identify lessons learned for Germany as a donor for bilateral and multilateral aid programmes. At the same time, it contributes to the conceptualisation of evidence-based aid by defining two types of evidence, practical and scientific, where the former makes use of discretionary information to support the financing of aid projects, while the latter relies on the evidence from rigorous (scientific) research. This desk-study combined with interviews shows that practical evidence is commonly used in health aid allocations, while scientific evidence is used mainly at The Global Fund and is included in World Health Organization guidelines for health policies worldwide. Furthermore, benefits of and barriers to scientific evidence-based allocation are discussed, while recommendations are provided with the aim of developing a scientific, evidence-based aid approach for a bilateral donor in health aid.

Suggested Citation

  • Minasyan, Anna, 2018. "Evidence-based allocation in global health: lessons learned for Germany," Discussion Papers 4/2018, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:diedps:42018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/199524/1/die-dp-2018-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nunnenkamp, Peter & Öhler, Hannes, 2011. "Aid Allocation through Various Official and Private Channels: Need, Merit, and Self-Interest as Motives of German Donors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 308-323, March.
    2. McGillivray, Mark & Pham, Thi Kim Cuong, 2017. "Reforming Performance-Based Aid Allocation Practice," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-5.
    3. Rainer Thiele & Peter Nunnenkamp & Axel Dreher, 2007. "Do Donors Target Aid in Line with the Millennium Development Goals? A Sector Perspective of Aid Allocation," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 143(4), pages 596-630, December.
    4. Alesina, Alberto & Dollar, David, 2000. "Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 33-63, March.
    5. Berthelemy, Jean-Claude & Tichit, Ariane, 2004. "Bilateral donors' aid allocation decisions--a three-dimensional panel analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 253-274.
    6. Easterly, William & Williamson, Claudia R., 2011. "Rhetoric versus Reality: The Best and Worst of Aid Agency Practices," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 1930-1949.
    7. Katharina Stepping, 2012. "Do poor health conditions lead to higher allocation of development assistance?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201230, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. Davis, Peter & Howden-Chapman, Philippa, 1996. "Translating research findings into health policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 865-872, September.
    9. Simon Feeny & Mark McGillivray, 2008. "What Determines Bilateral Aid Allocations? Evidence From Time Series Data," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 515-529, August.
    10. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:diedps:42018. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ditubde.html .

    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.