Political constraints on division of labor in development policy across countries: A proposal for a more viable coordination procedure at the EU level

This paper discusses integral implementation problems of the aid harmonization process within the European Union (EU) which has pretty much failed to show up with convincing results yet. Therefore this paper looks on the origins of the problems EU donors struggle with. It has turned out that in the past, comparative advantage assessment has been avoided by most donors. Hence, it is argued here that it is more a barrier rather than viable approach to an effective implementation of Division of Labor (DoL) in development policy. Incentives from the arena of international politics are underlying constraints for this procedure and thus crucial to understanding the problems of implementation. It is also argued that the regulations currently in place obscure the real problems of too much aid proliferation and too little aid harmonization. Therefore it is important to bring back political dialogue to allow a widening of the discussion about the effectiveness of aid, which is has yet been dominated by a very narrow, technical approach. Understanding the political constraints is of major importance to understanding the problems of aid harmonization. As the technical challenges of the DoL have already been convincingly analyzed by the OECD, this paper analyzes the politics of aid harmonization and their contributions to the problems of the current EU approach, and finally suggests an alternative route. This paper argues that a more viable procedure must take the political conditions of aid into account and should therefore rather focus on the specialization rather than comparative advantage as an organizing principle for aid harmonization.Harmonisierung von Entwicklungspolitik ist eines der Hauptanliegen der Wirksamkeitsagenda der OECD. Dem stehen derzeit in erster Linie zwei fundamentale Probleme gegenüber: donor proliferation (eine ausufernde Anzahl an Geber pro Empfängerland) und aid fragmentation (eine große Anzahl von geringfügigen EZA-Engagements). Diese haben nachteilige Auswirkungen für die Entwicklungspolitik und deren Zielsetzungen. Eine Veränderung der aktuellen Praxis wollte die EU-Kommission durch einen "Verhaltenskodex für Komplementarität und Arbeitsteilung in der Entwicklungspolitik" im Jahr 2007 erwirken, dessen Ziel die Abstimmung der entwicklungspolitischen Strategien war. Später folgte der Operational Framework on Aid Effectiveness (operativer Rahmen zur Wirksamkeit der Entwicklungspolitik), der die Umsetzung der Harmonisierungsvorhaben regelte. ..

Between ambitions and realities: The pathway of European Development Cooperation since Maastricht

As soon as with the Treaty of Maastricht, the newly founded European Union formally stated a broad development cooperation approach in the supranational treaties. Since then the overall institutional framework has been continuously improved in favour of development cooperation by both, legal acts and 'soft law' while implementation of development policy issues mostly has lagged behind. Based on an evaluation of the changes on the institutional layer, the analysis will provide few selected evidence, that from a political view European development cooperation has failed to meet its rather high ambitions.Die Gründung der Europäischen Union im Jahr 1992 markiert den Zeitpunkt, an dem Entwicklungszusammenarbeit auf breiter Basis in den supranationalen Verträgen festgeschrieben wurde. Seither wurden die institutionellen Rahmenbedingungen durch Gesetzgebung und nicht rechtsverbindliche Übereinkünfte ('soft law') für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit auf europäischer Ebene fortwährend verbessert; die Umsetzung auf politischer Ebene wird diesem Prozess jedoch nicht ausreichend gerecht. Auf Basis einer Bewertung der institutionellen Veränderungen liefert die Analyse einige Belege dafür, dass die politische Umsetzung den ziemlich hohen Ansprüchen der europäischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit bis heute nicht gerecht wurde

Geberverhalten in der internationalen Entwicklungspolitik: Schwierigkeiten beim Umgang mit dem Spannungsfeld Rechenschaftspflichten

Partnerschaft zwischen Geber- und Empfängerländern soll zu mehr entwicklungspolitischer Wirksamkeit beitragen. Die Stärkung der Eigenverantwortung der Empfänger ist dabei ein zentrales Prinzip. Dazu bekannten sich zumindest die traditionellen DAC-Geber nicht zuletzt in der "Erklärung von Paris über die Wirksamkeit der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit" von 2005. [...] Ziel des vorliegenden Papers ist es, anhand der Diskussion entwicklungspolitischer Partnerschaften im Spannungsfeld Eigenverantwortung und Rechenschaftspflichten, zu einem besseren Verständnis der aktuell wichtigsten entwicklungspolitischen Herausforderungen in diesem Zusammenhang beizutragen. Die Schlussfolgerungen am Ende des Papers liefern diesbezüglich eine Orientierung für die Gestaltung von Entwicklungspolitik.The current OECD aid paradigm suggests that partnership produces more aid effectiveness. Donors widely agree on partner country ownership of development policy as key principle for more effective aid, as stated in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. However this says little about donor behavior in the ever-day political business. Two-way effective domestic accountability mechanisms in developing countries are key for sustainable development. Anyway, donors are influencing distribution of power within developing countries by supporting actors from the state and/or the society. Hence it happens a lot that donors at least gradually undermine existing domestic accountability mechanisms. "Do no harm" to them is a first step to provide space for both, aid and development effectiveness. Secondly, donors have to think about ways to support the domestic accountability mechanisms in recipient countries. Adapting on existing domestic institutions has to be given priority. Choice in development policy has to be based on deep insights in local and regional context. Together with the international environment this is the most important factor which shapes the policy space for donor recipient negotiations and the bargaining power on both sides. Inseparable from these considerations, a more open debate on competing interests from various other policy fields is rather needed. This analysis aims at challenges of development partnerships by drawing on discrepancies between ownership and accountability mechanism in the every-day business of development policy. Raising and grinding awareness on problems connected with these challenges is the main purpose of this paper. The concluding remarks section finally shall provide orientation for approaching them

Collaborative capacity building as an approach to more effective development cooperation: Lessons from the nation building experience in Burundi (2002-2008)

Kapazitätsentwicklung ist eine wichtige Entwicklungsstrategie und -methode der bi- und multilateralen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Bei Kapazitätsentwicklung handelt es sich in der Regel um Programme von Gebern, die westliche Demokratien als Blaupausen für ideale Entwicklungsstrategien für Entwicklungsländer sehen. Davon werden sogenannte best practice-Maßnahmen abgeleitet, die beispielsweise darauf abzielen Demokratie oder kompetitive Märkte in Entwicklungsländern zu etablieren. Die Wirksamkeit dieser Ansätze ist bislang nicht überzeugend. Dies hat insbesondere zwei hervorzuhebende Ursachen. Erstens, das Oktroyieren von best practice untergräbt die ownership von eigenen Entwicklungsstrategien der Partnerländer. Dabei gilt: Was in einem Kontext funktioniert oder gewollt ist, muss nicht in einem anderen Kontext funktionieren oder gewollt sein. Zweitens haben empirische Untersuchungen gezeigt, dass Geber in der Vergangenheit zu viel Augenmerk auf die Entwicklung von kompetitiven Institutionen (z.B. Wahlen) gelegt haben und dabei die notwendigen kooperativen Aspekte, die ein entwicklungsfreundliches institutionelles Umfeld benötigt, vernachlässigt haben. Diese blinden Flecken der Kapazitätsentwicklung sind problematisch, wenn man bedenkt, dass sehr viele Entwicklungsländer bereits stark unter internen, häufig gewalttätigen Konflikten leiden. [...

Good governance and ownership: A mismatch in the new EU development policy agenda

The new EU development agenda is an adaptation of an old mismatch in development policy, which is the effort to join, on the one hand, donor-driven demand for good governance and democracy, and on the other hand, a commitment to the ownership of development strategies by the recipient countries. This is an ambiguity because the two approaches oppose each other. We recommend to dissolve this mismatch by promoting a new global partnership with a specific emphasis on ownership. This entails context-sensitive analyses of the political and economic environment of the transition process in partner countries

The conceptual flaws of the new EU development agenda from a political economy perspective, or why change is problematic for a donor-driven development policy

The European Union (EU) recently presented a new development policy agenda that centers on the subject of change. We first assess the approach of the EU policy by discussing change in the sense of how it is used within the EU agenda. Second, we relate it to two recently published political economy frameworks (North et al. 2009, and Acemoglu/Robinson 2012), which discuss the mechanisms of political and economic changes within societies, as well as their subsequent problems. Consideration of critiques of their works and alternative approaches (for example, Reinert 2007, Rodrik 2011a, Chang 2011a) provides deeper insights into the mechanisms of change and answers some open questions. From there, we discuss their implications for foreign aid approaches, then use the findings to uncover some conceptual flaws in the EU Agenda for Change. Finally, we extract five guiding recommendations for development policy makers in the EU

Locating Local Education Funds: A Conceptual Framework for Describing LEFs' Contribution to Public Education

With support and leadership from the Public Education Network (PEN), local education funds (LEFs) have worked for two decades to 1) educate and mobilize their communities so that citizen voices are influential in education policy discussions; and 2) support effective partnerships between school district insiders and outsiders to improve the quality of children's education. However, as Useem's study of local education funds points out, it has been difficult to identify the many roles that LEFs play in their communities, the work that they undertake, the obstacles that they encounter, and the contributions that they make. Useem also suggests why the work of LEFs defies simple description. As brokers, LEFs work behind the scenes and in partnership with others, which contributes to their invisibility as catalysts and supporters of educational improvement. LEFs also are highly adaptive organizations that typically customize their change strategies to particular communities. Such attention to local context results in tremendous variation in the organization, work, and accomplishments of LEFs. At the same time, the highly individual nature of each LEF often obscures the overarching values, purposes, and goals that these organizations share, thus obscuring a collective identity.As they mark 20 years of work in public education, LEF and PEN leaders are prescient in their insistence on further research into the role and accomplishments of local education funds in shaping the landscape of public schooling. In August 2003, at the request of PEN, Research for Action (RFA) began work on developing a conceptual framework for: 1) understanding the role and work of LEFs and the many factors that influence what they do and how they do it; and 2) assessing their contributions to public education.This framework will be used to guide future empirical research on LEFs and to develop tools that LEFs themselves can use in a process of self-assessment. Continued research and assessment will provide public education stakeholders with credible evidence and a deeper understanding about how LEFs carry out their missions and demonstrate successes. At the same time, it will provide firm ground for LEF and PEN leaders to chart the next generation of work. This report was prepared for Public Education Network by Research for Action

Strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas and nitrogen emissions in Swiss agriculture: the application of an integrated sector model

Environmental impacts of agricultural production, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) and nitrogen emissions, are of major concern for scientists and policy makers throughout the world. Global agricultural activities account for about 60% of nitrous oxide and about 50% of methane emissions. From a global perspective, methane and nitrous oxide constitute crucial GHGs. They contribute substantially to climate change due to their high potential for effecting global warming compared to carbon dioxide. Emissions of these gases depend on the extent of agricultural production and applied technologies. Therefore, analysis of potential mitigation opportunities is challenging and requires an integrated approach in order to link agricultural economic perspectives to environmental aspects. In view of this, a mathematical programming model has been developed which enables assessment of cost-effective strategies for mitigating GHG and nitrogen emissions in the agricultural sector in Switzerland. This model is applied to improve understanding of the agricultural sector and its behavior with changing conditions in technology and policy. The presented recursive-dynamic model mimics the structure and inter- dependencies of Swiss agriculture and links that framework to core sources of GHG and nitrogen emissions. Calculated results for evaluation and application indicate that employed flexibility constraints provide a feasible approach to sufficiently validate the described model. Recursive-dynamic elements additionally enable adequate modeling of both an endogenous development of livestock dynamics and investments in buildings and machinery, also taking sunk costs into account. The presented findings reveal that the specified model approach is suitable to accurately estimate agricultural structure, GHG and nitrogen emissions within a tolerable range. The model performance can therefore be described as sufficiently robust and satisfactory. Thus, the model described here appropriately models strategies for GHG and nitrogen abatement in Swiss agriculture. The results indicate that there are limits to the ability of Swiss agriculture to contribute substantially to the mitigation of GHG and nitrogen emissions. There is only a limited level of mitigation available through technical approaches, and these approaches have high cost.resource use, environmental economics, greenhouse gas emission, nitrogen emission, integrated modeling