Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Bilateral Donor Bureaucracies and Development Cooperation Pluralism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Fragmentation of Aid

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

  • 708 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter highlights the role of diverse donor bureaucracies in a transforming development cooperation landscape. The participation of donor bureaucracies beyond foreign affairs and development agencies in international cooperation presents both challenges and opportunities. Positive aspects of diverse bureaucratic engagement include the mobilisation of additional financial resources for development, the contribution of thematic expertise, and the enlargement of policy networks relevant for international cooperation. At the same time, differences in bureaucratic interests and approaches can contribute to the coordination and policy coherence deficits known to limit aid and development effectiveness. The chapter elaborates on these prospects and concerns and provides an overview of bureaucratic engagement in international cooperation across donor contexts.

This chapter is a revised version of (Lundsgaarde 2013a). The author thanks Stephan Klingebiel, Adolf Kloke-Lesch, James Mackie, Sebastian Paulo and Imme Scholz as well as participants of the DIE conference “Fragmentation or Pluralism? The Organisation of Development Cooperation Revisited” in October 2013 for helpful comments on earlier versions of the chapter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

  • Birdsall, N., and H. Kharas. 2010. Quality of official development assistance assessment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution/Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brombacher, D. 2009. Geberstrukturen in der Entwicklungspolitik SWP-Studie. Berlin: Stiftiung Wissenschaft und Politik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay, E.J., M. Geddes, L. Natali, and D. Willem te Velde. 2008. The development effectiveness of untied aid: Evaluation of the Paris Declaration. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. 2011. Toward a new development cooperation dynamic Canadian development report 2011. Ottawa: The North-South Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W., and T. Pfutze. 2008. Where does the money go? Best and worst practices in foreign aid. Journal of Economic Perspectives 22: 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, M.H., P.A. Clapp, and A. Kanter. 2006. Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    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 

  • Hong, Z. 2012. China’s evolving aid landscape: Crossing the river by feeling the stones. In Development cooperation and emerging powers: New partners or old patterns, ed. S. Chaturvedi, T. Fues, and E. Sidiropoulos, 134–168. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keijzer, N., and J. Oppewal. 2012. Learn to walk before you can run? Review of methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation. ECDPM Discussion Paper. Maastricht: European Centre for Policy Analysis and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindornay, S. 2011. From aid to development effectiveness: A working paper. Ottawa: The North-South Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloke-Lesch, A. 1998. Funktionale Positionsbestimmung der Entwicklungspolitik. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 3: 324–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., and A. Rahman. 2007. Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients. Journal of Development Economics 83(1): 176–197. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundsgaarde, E. 2013a. Bureaucratic pluralism and the transformation of development cooperation. DIE Discussion Paper 16/2013. Bonn: German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundsgaarde, E. 2013b. The domestic politics of foreign aid. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, B. 2008. Why do aid agencies exist? In Reinventing foreign aid, ed. W. Easterly, 285–310. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson-Crotty, J., and S.M. Miller. 2012. Bureaucratic effectiveness and influence in the legislature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 347–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2006. Whole of government approaches to fragile states. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008e. Is it ODA? Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008f. Policy coherence for development–Lessons learned. OECD Briefing Paper. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009c. 2009 OECD report on division of labour – Addressing fragmentation and concentration of aid across countries. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009d. Austria. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009e. Building blocks for policy coherence for development. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009f. Managing aid: Practices of DAC member countries. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010a. The increasing importance of the South to the South. In Perspectives on global development 2010: Shifting wealth, ed. OECD. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010d. Japan: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010e. Portugal. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010f. United Kingdom. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. The Netherlands. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2012. Canada. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, S., and K. Brown. 2007. Greater than the sum of its parts? Assessing “whole of government” approaches to fragile states. CGD Brief. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • OPM (Oxford Policy Management) and IDL (the IDL Group). 2008. Evaluation of the implementation of the Paris Declaration: Thematic study–The applicability of the Paris Declaration in fragile and conflict-affected situations, Oxford Policy Management and The IDL Group, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, J, Skovgaard, J, Kim, S, Roberts, JT, Rossati, D, Stadelmann, M & Reich, H 2015, ‘Acting on climate finance pledges: Inter-agency dynamics and relationships with aid in contributor states’, World Development, vol. 68, pp. 149-162

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M. 2012. Mexico: Linking Mesoamerica. In Development cooperation and emerging powers: New partners or old patterns? ed. S. Chaturvedi, T. Fues, and E. Sidiropoulos, 190–215. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severino, J.M., and O. Ray. 2009. The end of ODA: Death and rebirth of a global public policy. CGD Working Paper. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severino, J.M., and O. Ray. 2010. The end of ODA (II): The birth of hypercollective action. CGD Working Paper No. 218. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slob, A., and A.M. Jerve. 2008. Managing aid exit and transformation: Lessons from Botswana, Eritrea, India, Malawi, and South Africa: Synthesis report. Stockholm/The Hague/Copenhagen/Oslo: SIDA/Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs/DANIDA/NORAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2006. The global development alliance. Washington, DC: USAID Office of Global Development Alliances.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanheukelom, J., S. Migliorisi, A.H. Cangas, N. Keijzer, and E. Spierings. 2012. Reporting on development: ODA and financing for development. Maastricht: ECDPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, B. 2012. Towards a new aid paradigm: South Africa as African development partner. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(4): 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, C.R. 2010. Exploring the failure of foreign aid: The role of incentives and information. Review of Austrian Economics 23(1): 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J.Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2013. World development indicators. http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=3&id=4. Accessed 12 Sept 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Erik Lundsgaarde

Authors
  1. Erik Lundsgaarde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn, Germany

    Stephan Klingebiel

  2. German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, Bonn, Germany

    Timo Mahn

  3. The World Bank German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn, USA

    Mario Negre

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lundsgaarde, E. (2016). Bilateral Donor Bureaucracies and Development Cooperation Pluralism. 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_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation