Advertisement

The provision of ODA

Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Abstract

A variety of events in the new Millennium (international conflicts, terrorist acts, natural disasters) have altered the landscape for ODA. Not only did they pave the way for increased strategically directed foreign aid and emergency assistance. The recent years have also witnessed a substantial increase in ODA, after a decade of “aid pessimism”, “donor fatigue” and almost continuous reductions in net disbursements. “Aid is back on the agenda”. The major bilateral donors have agreed at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey (2002) to expand their ODA in order to reach the Millennium Development Goals set by the UN for 2015. Under the motto “halving poverty by doubling aid”, it has been proposed from various sides (multilateral organizations, bilateral do-nors, politicians, economists, NGOs, well-known individuals) to signifi-cantly increase ODA flows, especially to least developed countries (LDCs). The development ministers of some donor countries demanded the year 2005 to be the turning year of development finance.

Keywords

International Monetary Fund United Nations Development Finance Recipient Country Donor Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 13.
    Heller (2005), p. 9.Google Scholar
  2. 14.
    See, for example, the suggestions of the High-Level Panel on Financing for Development, also known as Zedillo-Report (UN 2001), the Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey (UN 2002) and the United Nations Millennium Project (2005), also referred to as Sachs-Report. The High-Level Panel has estimated that an additional $50 billion is needed annually to meet the MDG in 2015; the Millennium Project proposes an additional $135 billion per year.Google Scholar
  3. 15.
    See, for example, Wieczorek-Zeul (2005).Google Scholar
  4. 18.
    See Paul (2002), p. 10 and IMF (2000a).Google Scholar
  5. 19.
    See IMF (2004), p. 16.Google Scholar
  6. 23.
    European Commission (2005a), p. 8.Google Scholar
  7. 25.
    Other Official Flows (OOF) are defined as transactions by the official sector with countries on the List of Aid Recipients which do not meet the conditions for eligibility as ODA or OA, either because they are not primarily aimed at development, or because they have a grant element of less than 25 per cent. See DAC (2005).Google Scholar
  8. 26.
    This list includes more than 50 UN agencies and funds, 5 of the European Commission, 2 of the IMF, 5 of the World Bank, 2 of the WTO, 8 of the Regional Development Banks, 103 of other multilateral institutions, 35 main nongovernmental and 13 other institutions. Multilateral development banks do not apply the grant element concept for their market-based lending operations. See DAC (2005).Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    See Round and Odedokun (2004).Google Scholar
  10. 32.
    See also Lensink and White (1998) for a formal model of access to international capital markets. The authors confirm that many LDCs are unable to obtain private capital.Google Scholar
  11. 36.
    For a detailed description of NGO’s development assistance activities, see World Bank (2004c), pp. 119–123.Google Scholar
  12. 38.
    See Micklewright and Wright (2005) on private donations for economic development.Google Scholar
  13. 39.
    Whether or not remittances are a stable source of capital for development, is discussed in Chami et al. (2003), Solimano (2003), Buch et al. (2002) and Ratha (2003).Google Scholar
  14. 40.
    See European Commission (2005b).Google Scholar
  15. 41.
    See G8 (2005).Google Scholar
  16. 43.
    See UN (2001), p. 21.Google Scholar
  17. 46.
    See Reddy and Heuty (2004), p. 6.Google Scholar
  18. 47.
    For estimates of growth rates required for the MDG, see Hanmer et al. (1999) and Hanmer and Naschold (2001).Google Scholar
  19. 48.
    For Sub-Saharan African countries, Hanmer and Naschold (2001), p. 16 forecasts an average annual real growth in GDP per capita of 5.9 percent needed to reach the MDG, assuming that no policies will be put in place that additionally favour the poor. Only very few Asian countries were able to accomplish such a growth rate for a longer period of time.Google Scholar
  20. 49.
    See also Gottschalk (2000) for such an approach. This method is widely applied because of its relative simplicity, data availability and feasibility, but has been heavily criticized, most notably by Easterly (1997).Google Scholar
  21. 50.
    See also Brownbridge (2004) on this thought.Google Scholar
  22. 51.
    See Reddy and Heuty (2004), pp. 10–12 for a detailed review on the main methodological problems associated with cost estimates. The authors instead suggest a more comprehensive approach to goal-oriented learning and decisionmaking, called MDG Institutionalized Financing and Learning Mechanism (IFLM).Google Scholar
  23. 52.
    See UN (2001), p. 20.Google Scholar
  24. 53.
    See for some details Poston et al. (2003), p. 5.Google Scholar
  25. 54.
    Reisen (2004), p. 3.Google Scholar
  26. 55.
    The authors suggest a doubling of current ODA-to-GNP ratios of donor countries to 0.5% and above.Google Scholar
  27. 56.
    See United Nations Millennium Project (2005).Google Scholar
  28. 57.
    Ghana needs annual public investment of $80 per capita in 2006, scaling up to $124 in 2015 (with current levels of approx. $38 per capita). For Uganda, Brownbridge (2004), p. 42 estimates that the funding gap to reach the MDG range between 6.4 and 13.6 per cent of Uganda’s GDP.Google Scholar
  29. 58.
    See Moss (2005), p. 5.Google Scholar
  30. 59.
    See Clemens et al. (2004).Google Scholar
  31. 60.
    See IMF and IDA (2005), pp. 40–41. See there for further assumptions on interest and discount rates.Google Scholar
  32. 61.
    See IDA (2005) ibid., p. 60.Google Scholar
  33. 63.
    Although on the rise, the role of private donations will not be analyzed here. See Micklewright and Wright (2005) for more details on private donations for international development.Google Scholar
  34. 64.
    See Sandmo (2003), p. 5.Google Scholar
  35. 66.
    Proposed already in 1972 and referring to Keynes, the first published forms appear in Tobin (1974, 1978). His real intention, however, was to increase the leeway for national policy, not to put a restraint on exchange rate volatility.Google Scholar
  36. 67.
    Wahl (2005), p. 5.Google Scholar
  37. 68.
    See Tobin (1974, 1978).Google Scholar
  38. 69.
    See for example, Sen (2001).Google Scholar
  39. 70.
    See Wehrheim and Schmitz (2003), p. 650.Google Scholar
  40. 71.
    Dornbusch’s overshooting model can serve as one explanation for such fluctuations. See Dornbusch (1976).Google Scholar
  41. 72.
    See Aschinger (1998).Google Scholar
  42. 73.
    See also Menkhoff and Michaelis (1995), Haq et al. (1996), Reinhart (2000) and Grahl and Lysandrou (2003) for reviews.Google Scholar
  43. 74.
    See Davidson (1997).Google Scholar
  44. 75.
    See Spahn (2002). Spahn’s conceptions go back to works of Tornell (1990) and Kenen (1996).Google Scholar
  45. 76.
    See Spahn (2002), p. ii.Google Scholar
  46. 77.
    For both methods and a detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, see Spahn (2002), p. 48ff. While the first approach is also favored by Kenen (1996), Schmidt (1999) and also Landau (2004) opt for the second approach.Google Scholar
  47. 78.
    See Spahn (2002), p. 12.Google Scholar
  48. 79.
    See Mende and Menkhoff (2003).Google Scholar
  49. 80.
    See Menkhoff (2003) ibid., p. 229. Their analysis on the spread of interbank dealings indicates that 94% of this trade still takes place with a spread lower than 0.05%. Assuming a stock market elasticity of-1, a CTT of 0.1% would reduce the trade by more than 80%; a CTT of 0.01 would still reduce trade by one third. See ibid., p. 241.Google Scholar
  50. 81.
    Ibid., p. 244.Google Scholar
  51. 82.
    See Fendel and Stadtmann (2003), p. 280.Google Scholar
  52. 83.
    See the two scenarios in Fendel and Stadtmann (2003), p. 281–282.Google Scholar
  53. 84.
    See Zee (2000). See also Dornbusch (1997).Google Scholar
  54. 85.
    For further details, see Zee (2000) and Spahn (2002), pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
  55. 87.
    See Spahn (2002), p. 69. See also p. 5 for a critical note on the different modes of calculation.Google Scholar
  56. 88.
    See Bank for International Settlement (2005). London is the largest center for currency transactions, accounting for more transactions than New York and Tokyo.Google Scholar
  57. 89.
    Nissanke (2005), p. 81.Google Scholar
  58. 90.
    See Eichengreen et al. (1995).Google Scholar
  59. 91.
    For such a proposal, see Cecil (2001).Google Scholar
  60. 92.
    See Kenen (1996).Google Scholar
  61. 93.
    Spahn cites the case of London, which inhabits a natural monopoly in the trade with foreign exchanges and provides market actors with positive network effects. Differentiating between different time zones reveals that a change of the market place within the same time zone lacks alternatives (if the EU plus Switzerland decides to impose a CTT, there is no professional trading place available where investors could flee); a move to another time zone is feasible, but will lead to a loss of the “time zone specific” advantages. See Spahn (2002), pp. 52–53.Google Scholar
  62. 94.
    See Spahn (2002), p. 65 and Tobin (1996).Google Scholar
  63. 95.
    The European Commission estimates the administrative costs of a tax introduction to be less than 1 percent. See European Commission (2002).Google Scholar
  64. 96.
    See Patomäki and Denys (2002).Google Scholar
  65. 97.
    See Brandt Commission (1981).Google Scholar
  66. 98.
    See Landau (2004).Google Scholar
  67. 99.
    See Brzoska (2004).Google Scholar
  68. 100.
    See SIPRI (2004).Google Scholar
  69. 101.
    See Jha (2002), p. 12. In mid 2005, France and Germany have committed themselves to introduce an air travel tax. At the international conference on innovative sources of development finance in February 2006 in Paris. The proposal has been put into action by 12 countries and was launched in July 2006.Google Scholar
  70. 102.
    Here, high income countries are referred to as countries with a per capita income higher than $9,361 in 1996. See Clunies-Ross (2003). Sandmo corrects this figure slightly downward by estimating the quantitative effect of the tax, assuming a long-run price elasticity of-1. See Sandmo (2003), p. 15.Google Scholar
  71. 103.
    See Landau (2004).Google Scholar
  72. 104.
    See Bleijenberg and Wit (1998), for example, estimate the price elasticity of holiday travels to be-1.1 per cent.Google Scholar
  73. 105.
    A 5% tax rate on First and Second Class tickets could result in $8 billion revenue. See Landau (2004).Google Scholar
  74. 106.
    For a calculation, see Brockhagen and Lienemeyer (1999).Google Scholar
  75. 107.
    Sandmo (2003), p. 16.Google Scholar
  76. 108.
    See Desai (2003).Google Scholar
  77. 109.
    See Schöb (2003) and Bovenberg (1999).Google Scholar
  78. 110.
    Kanbur and Sandler (1999), p. 5.Google Scholar
  79. 111.
    Jakobeit (2001) estimates this tax to generate roughly $20 million annually.Google Scholar
  80. 113.
    See UN (1999), p. 66. Part of the intensive political protest is due to the economic boom time in which this proposal occurred (the “E-conomy”). For further interest, see Soete (1999).Google Scholar
  81. 116.
    See Jha (2002), p. 17.Google Scholar
  82. 117.
    See Wahl (2005), p. 17.Google Scholar
  83. 118.
    See also Jakobeit (2001), p. 67.Google Scholar
  84. 119.
    Childers and Urquhart (1994), p. 155.Google Scholar
  85. 121.
    See Ahde et al. (2002). Their proposal is also known under the “Crisis Management Initiative”.Google Scholar
  86. 122.
    See Addison and Chowdhury (2003), p. 5.Google Scholar
  87. 126.
    See Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (2003).Google Scholar
  88. 127.
    See, for example, Reno (1997).Google Scholar
  89. 128.
    See Fekjoer (2002). Fekjoer cites the example of a Florida state lottery introduced to assist in the financing of schools. After five years, the proportion of the budget allocated to schools was lower than before.Google Scholar
  90. 129.
    See Addison and Chowdhury (2003), p. 47 for such characteristics of national lottery markets.Google Scholar
  91. 131.
    See Addison and Chowdhury (2003), p. 16.Google Scholar
  92. 132.
    See Chowdhury (2003) ibid., p. 17.Google Scholar
  93. 133.
    See HM Treasury (2005).Google Scholar
  94. 134.
    HM Treasury (2003a), p. 7.Google Scholar
  95. 135.
    HM Treasury (2003b), slide 11.Google Scholar
  96. 136.
    See Thien (2003), p. 636. However, some supporting countries such as Italy have been downgraded to AA-recently.Google Scholar
  97. 137.
    See Moss (2005), p. 5.Google Scholar
  98. 139.
    See Brazilian Ministry of External Relations (2005).Google Scholar
  99. 140.
    See Moss (2005), p. 6.Google Scholar
  100. 141.
    See Albin (2005), p. 4.Google Scholar
  101. 142.
    See Deen (2004).Google Scholar
  102. 143.
    See HM Treasury (2003c).Google Scholar
  103. 144.
    HM Treasury (2005), p. 18. On the one side, it is argued that people living in extreme poverty deserve help as soon as possible. On the other hand, frontloading puts a burden on future generations of donor countries.Google Scholar
  104. 145.
    Mavrotas (2003), p. 23.Google Scholar
  105. 146.
    See IMF (2003) and Kersting and Riedel (2005).Google Scholar
  106. 147.
    Using some off-market/buyback transactions, the IMF in 1999 and 2000 nevertheless managed to sell gold to Mexico and Brazil at the prevailing market price, and immediately accepted the gold back at the same price to settle repayments due from them. In this process, the value increased from $38 to $285 per ounce. Fur further details, see Sanford (2004), p. 37.Google Scholar
  107. 148.
    See Sanford (2004), p. 31.Google Scholar
  108. 150.
    See IMF (2005a).Google Scholar
  109. 151.
    See Clark and Polak (2002).Google Scholar
  110. 152.
    See Aryeetey (2005) for an overview.Google Scholar
  111. 154.
    See Soros (2002). See also Stiglitz (2003) for a more radical approach that involves reforms of the entire global financial system.Google Scholar
  112. 155.
    See Torsvik (2005), p. 504.Google Scholar
  113. 156.
    Ibid, p. 514.Google Scholar
  114. 158.
    Among the multilateral donors are the EU, 9 international financial institutions (World Bank, IMF and regional development banks), approx. 15 UN agencies and several global funds. The bilateral donors include 22 OECD/DAC members, 6 OECD members not part of the DAC and 9 non-OECD members. See Ashoff (2004), p. 1.Google Scholar
  115. 159.
    Ashoff (2004), p. 1.Google Scholar
  116. 160.
    See Acharya et al. (2006) for the role of transaction costs in aid cooperation. In fact, thousands of quarterly project reports are submitted to multiple oversight agencies „[and] [h]undreds of missions monitor and evaluate these projects and programs annually in many recipients.“ Acharya et al. (2006), p. 1–2.Google Scholar
  117. 161.
    See Knack and Rahman (2004).Google Scholar
  118. 162.
    Rogerson (2005), p. 531.Google Scholar
  119. 163.
    Following Ashow (2004), p. 3.Google Scholar
  120. 164.
    See Ashoff (2004), p. 3.Google Scholar
  121. 165.
    Fischer (2004).Google Scholar
  122. 166.
    See Akyüz (2005), p. 5–7.Google Scholar
  123. 167.
    Ibid., p. 6.Google Scholar
  124. 168.
    See Eberlei and Siebold (2002), p. 44, providing case study evidence for Ghana and Burkina Faso.Google Scholar
  125. 169.
    See Birdsall and Williamson (2002).Google Scholar
  126. 170.
    See Shultz (1998) and Burnham (1999).Google Scholar
  127. 171.
    See Akyüz (2005), p. 7.Google Scholar
  128. 172.
    See Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003), p. 6.Google Scholar
  129. 173.
    See Nnedu (2005) who points to the assessment of country performance, which is nearly identical to that of the World Bank.Google Scholar
  130. 174.
    Kuroda (2000). See also Rojas-Suarez (2002), p. 25 and Culpeper (1994).Google Scholar
  131. 175.
    Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003), p. 7 [emphasis left out].Google Scholar
  132. 176.
    See Bull and Boas (2003), p. 245.Google Scholar
  133. 177.
    See Mascarenhas and Sandler (2005).Google Scholar
  134. 179.
    See Meltzer (2000).Google Scholar
  135. 180.
    See European Commission (2005b), p. 9.Google Scholar
  136. 181.
    See also a report on the implications of enlargement for European development policy by the European Commission (2003).Google Scholar
  137. 182.
    Maxwell and Engel (2003), p. 13.Google Scholar
  138. 183.
    See Ashoff (2004), p. 4.Google Scholar
  139. 184.
    See Martens et al. (2002) for more details on institutional economic and principal-agent relations of foreign aid.Google Scholar
  140. 185.
    See Hanlon (2004), p. 187 and Shikwati (2006) pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
  141. 186.
    See Gibson et al. (2005) for an analysis of the political economy of foreign aid.Google Scholar
  142. 187.
    This idea was first introduced by Kanbur and Sandler (1999).Google Scholar
  143. 188.
    See Kanbur and Sandler (1999), p. 38.Google Scholar
  144. 189.
    See The Global Fund (2004).Google Scholar
  145. 192.
    Aiyar et al. (2005).Google Scholar
  146. 193.
    Clemens et al. (2004), p. 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Personalised recommendations