This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/60355/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output. WHAT DETERMINES THE SUSPENSION

Aid fragmentation is a maddening problem in the aid business. NGOs are part and parcel of this fragmentation problem; hence calls for more complementarity between Northern NGOs and (their) governments have led to a series of co‐funding reforms. This article analyses the co‐funding reforms of the Nordic+ donors and situates them within the broader evolutions that have taken place in donor‐NGO relations in these countries. It finds that these donors have interpreted complementarity in very different and even contradictory ways. Where some require NGOs to develop activities within the confines of the official bilateral strategy (intensive complementarity), others allow NGOs to do very different things (extensive complementarity).

This article presents a new, publicly available data set covering all budget support (BS) suspensions in the period 1999-2014. The data set covers 239 BS suspensions, involving 18 donors and 40 recipient countries. This article shows an aggregate picture of these suspensions, including the reasons why donors suspended, which donors have been active in suspending their BS, and which countries have been undergoing these aid sanctions. From this aggregate picture some patterns drawn out, substantiate a couple of things that have surfaced in the literature already. With 42% of BS suspensions in the Democracy and Human Rights category, it is clear that democratic governance has been a pertinent reason to legitimize BS suspensions. The large number of suspensions in some countries also indicates the unpredictability of budget support. The data set and the user guide can be downloaded at www.uantwerp.be/budget-support-suspensions.