Skip to main content

How Serious Is the EU on Aid Fragmentation?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Fragmentation of Aid

Part of the book series: Rethinking International Development series ((RID))

  • 718 Accesses

Abstract

The EU’s 2007 Code of Conduct on Complementarity and Division of Labour (DoL) seeks to improve the way the EU member states and institutions work together on development cooperation. This agreement is the cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to reduce aid fragmentation. Mackie uses available data to assess the EU’s efforts to implement the Code. Focussing on three particular methods to reduce fragmentation: (i) pooling of aid through common mechanisms, (ii) concentration by reducing the number of partner countries, and (iii) coordination and complementarity of donor support in one country, he concludes that overall progress on the Code is poor. However, there is a slow but detectable trend of the EU institutions managing an increasing proportion of collective EU aid over the past dozen years.

The author thanks his colleagues at ECDPM, including in particular Greta Galeazzi, Florian Krätke, Brecht Lein, Jan Vanheukelom, and Sebastian Grosse-Puppendahl for their comments and suggestions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). (2008). Endorsed at the third high-level forum on aid effectiveness, Accra, Ghana, 2–4 September 2008. www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm

  • Bigsten, A., J.P. Platteau, and S. Tengstam. 2011. The aid effectiveness agenda: The benefits of going ahead. Final Report. Brussels: Soges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürcky, U. 2011. Trends in in-country aid fragmentation and donor proliferation. An analysis of changes in aid allocation patterns between 2005 and 2009. Report on behalf of the OECD Task Team on Division of Labour and Complementarity. Paris: OECD/DAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B.T., C.B. Schubert, and S. Robinson. 2009. The aid effectiveness agenda: Benefits of a European approach. Hemel Hempstead/Brussels: HTSPE/European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • DFID (Department for International Development). 2011. Annual report and accounts 2010. London: DFID.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission). 2011a. EU accountability report 2011 on financing for development, VOL III, Annex 5: Third monitoring report and progress review of the fast track initiative on division of labour. SEC(2011)502 final. Brussels: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission). 2011b. Communication from the Commission: Increasing the impact of EU development policy: An agenda for change. COM(2011)637 final. Brussels: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission). 2012. EU accountability report 2012 on financing for development: Review of the progress of the EU and its member states. SWD(2012)199. Brussels: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission). 2013. EU accountability report 2013 on financing for development: Review of progress by the EU and its member states. SWD (2013) 273. Brussels: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (European Commission). 2014. EU accountability report 2014 on financing for development: Review of progress by the EU and its member states. SWD (2014) 235. Brussels: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECA (European Court of Auditors). 2011. The Commission’s management of general budget support in the ACP, Asian and Latin American countries. Special Report No. 11/2010. Luxembourg: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECDPM (European Centre for Development Policy Management). 2012. Differentiation in ACP-EU cooperation: Implications of the EU’s agenda for change for the 11th EDF and beyond. Discussion Paper 134. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • EP EAVU (European Parliament – European Value Added Unit). 2013. The cost of Non-Europe in development policy: Increasing coordination between EU donors. DG IPOL. Brussels: Secretariat of the European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faust, J., and S. Zaija. 2012. German aid allocation and partner country selection: Development orientation, self-interests and path dependency. Discussion Paper 7/2012. Bonn: German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, D. 2008. The European Union’s development policy: A personal view of 50 years of international cooperation. PMR15. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galeazzi, G., D. Helly, and F. Krätke. 2013. All for one or free for all: Early experiences in EU joint programming. ECDPM Briefing Note No 50. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • HLF (High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness). 2011. Busan partnership for effective development cooperation. 4th HLF Final Outcome Document. Paris: HLF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilnes, U., N. Keijzer, J. van Seters, and A. Sherriff. 2012. More or less? A financial analysis of the 11th European Development Fund. Briefing Note No. 29. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiderer, S. 2010. Budget support as an aid instrument – Neither pandemonium nor panacea. DIE Briefing Paper 9/2010. Bonn: German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lister et al. 2006. Joint evaluation of general budget support 1994–2004. IDD Associates, DFID on behalf of the Steering Group. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, J., S. Görtz, and Q. de Roquefeuil. 2011. Questioning old certainties: Challenges for EU-Africa relations in 2012. Policy & Management Insights No. 3. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mürle, H. 2007. Towards a division of labour in European development co-operation: Operational options. Discussion Paper 6/2007. Bonn: German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Narea, L.A., and M. Christensen. 2004. Development of Swedish general budget support 1990–2003. UTV Working Paper 2004:3. Stockholm: SIDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011a. 2011 OECD report on the division of labour: Addressing cross-country fragmentation of aid. Report for the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011b. Aid orphans: a collective responsibility? Improving identification and monitoring of under-aided countries (Paris: OECD).

    Google Scholar 

  • OJ-EU (Official Journal of the European Union). 2006. The European consensus on development. 2006/C 46/01. Brussels: OJ-EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiltz, J.-L., and M. Bichler. 2009. Who is afraid of budget support?. ECDPM Discussion Paper No. 88. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severino, J.M. 2013. La Belle et la Bête – Transmutations et reformulations dans les politiques globales. ERD2013 Background Paper. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavakoli, H. 2012. Hands on or hands off for budget support?. ODI blogs. www.odi.org.uk/opinion/6585. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mackie, J. (2016). How Serious Is the EU on Aid Fragmentation?. In: Klingebiel, S., Mahn, T., Negre, M. (eds) The Fragmentation of Aid. Rethinking International Development series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55357-7_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics