Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from ODI Working Papers for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. As copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. iii Contents 1 Introduction and rationale behind the study 2 The new aid landscape: trends in TDA and NTDA 2.1 Defining TDA and NTDA 2.2 A first-cut global estimate of development assistance flows 3 Case study theoretical framework and methodology 4 Introduction to the country case studies 4.1 Why these countries? Case study selection 4.2 Contextual information about the case study countries 5 Case study findings 5.1 All countries are receiving flows from NTPs, and the volume has increased significantly over the past decade 5.2 Partner countries welcome more choice and more finance 5.3 Ownership, alignment and speed are key priorities 5.4 Ethiopia and Cambodia are taking a strategic approach to the division of labour between traditional and non-traditional providers 5.5 Ethiopia and Cambodia show limited interest in including NTPs in aid coordination mechanisms; this is less true for Zambia 5.6 Philanthropic and social impact investment flows are small and not yet changing the aid landscape significantly 5.7 Countries' ability to attract and manage climate finance appears to depend heavily on their own strategy 6 Conclusions and policy recommendations 6.1 Key findings on government priorities 6.2 Policy recommendations References Annex 1: Comparing economic and governance contexts in Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Zambia Annex 2: TDA and NTDA, by country ($ millions, current) case study and conducted the in-country research. Thanks are also owed to interviewees in Cambodia, Ethiopia and Zambia, who generously gave up their time to contribute to this report. We would also like to thank the Council for the Development of Cambodia, which facilitated interviews and helped frame the research in Cambodia; and Mohammed Mussa and Chrispin Matenga, who provided very valuable research support in Ethiopia and Zambia, respectively. Finally, we would like to thank Andrew Norton and Edward Hedger at the Overseas Development Institute, who provided very valuable peer review comments on the report.

The article presents findings from nine country case studies in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, mapping the expanding access of partner country governments to external development finance beyond official development assistance. The article analyzes governments' priorities for the terms and conditions of development finance flows they would like to access. The analysis finds that (1) Chinese official finance is the largest component of external development finance flows beyond official development assistance (ODA) in the countries analyzed, far larger than global figures would suggest, (2) partner countries welcome more choice and more finance, (3) countries identify ownership, alignment with national priorities, speed of project delivery, portfolio diversification as key priorities, and (4) the rise of providers such as China has increased the potential bargaining power of recipient countries visà-vis more traditional donors. K E Y W O R D S Aid, country ownership, development co-operation, future of development co-operation, official development assistance, South-South co-operation O30 | PRIZZON et al.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract Elaborating on Pasinetti (1998), the`Geometry of Debt Sustainability' GDS represents a simple analytical tool for the analysis of the long-run sustainability of foreign debt. GDS provides a simple analysis of three aspects of debt sustainability. It points up how the`structural' aspect NICA, the non-interest current account is closely interlinked with the purely`nancial' aspect. The paper focuses on low-income countries, LICs, which face several daunting tasks at once: economic growth, human development and regular debt service. Therefore GDS is also used to analyse the`human development' aspect of debt sustainability. By considering the three aspects together it emerges that there might be a very stringent trade-o between regular debt service and human development expenditures. All the more so because most LICs suer from structural NICA decits and GDS highlights the fact its improvement is a necessary condition to achieve long-run debt sustainability. However, export diversication and the building of stronger trading capacities take time. GDS shows why both debt cancellation and additional aid are necessary to give indebted low-income economies a chance to improve both human development and long-run economic viability. JEL classication numbers: E60, H60, O11 Terms of use: Documents in

No abstract

pdf. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is a leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Its mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries by locking together high quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. The Center for Global Development works to reduce global poverty and inequality through rigorous research and active engagement with the policy community to make the world a more prosperous, just, and safe place for us all. The conclusions and recommendations of this publication are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect the views of the Institutions, their management, or their other scholars. Support for this publication was generously provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation. Brookings, CGD, and ODI recognize that the value they provide is in the absolute commitment to quality, independence, and impact. Activities supported by their donors reflect this commitment.