The record of aid to fragile and poorly-performing states is the real test of aid effectiveness. Rich countries can justify aid to fragile states both through altruism and self-interest. But, with some exceptions, donors have appeared at the wrong times and with the wrong attitudes, even sometimes undermining development progress. The World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) was established by the United Nations University (UNU) as its first research and training centre and started work in Helsinki, Finland in 1985. The Institute undertakes applied research and policy analysis on structural changes affecting the developing and transitional economies, provides a forum for the advocacy of policies leading to robust, equitable and environmentally sustainable growth, and promotes capacity strengthening and training in the field of economic and social policy making. Work is carried out by staff researchers and visiting scholars in Helsinki and through networks of collaborating scholars and institutions around the world.

The United Nations and other multilateral organizations have always been prominent in the health field. UN agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO), however, have come increasingly under the influence of major individual donors which provide earmarked funding. Since 2000, two major vertical funds in the health field -the Global Fund and the GAVI Allianceprovide new models of multilateralism and their funding patterns, together with those of WHO, are examined in some detail. We review the extent to which the two new funds and WHO conform to traditional definitions of multilateralism by reference to several test areas: degrees of concentration of funding sources; the influence of individual funders; sustainability; and transparency. We also draw lessons from the analysis for the UN development organizations. Policy Implications• Patterns of funding in international organizations are a principal determinant of multilateralism.• The earmarking of donor funding in international organizations undermines multilateral principles.• New funding mechanisms in the health field compete with the operational roles of UN organisations, but can provide lessons for the UN's operational role.

No abstract

No abstract

The government, along with the Building Research Establishment, recognizes that there is considerable scope for reducing energy consumption by addressing the environmental performance of public buildings, such as schools and universities. It is acknowledged that substantial savings in terms of energy consumption and gaseous emissions can be realized through the construction of low‐energy design or ‘green’ buildings. These low‐energy designs should have produced relatively low annual energy running costs. However, in England alone, it is estimated that in 1997 universities spent £200 million on fuel. The increase in the construction of low‐energy design buildings has not witnessed a subsequent reduction in the energy consumption of these buildings. A detailed study of the electrical consumption of the Queen's Building at Anglia Polytechnic University was undertaken, using the Building Research Establishment's latest environmental School Tool‐Kit. Surprisingly, the actual electrical consumption of the building was found to be 2.5 times greater than the amount originally forecast. Poor housekeeping measures were identified as the most likely reason for this. The education of the occupants of buildings in good housekeeping is the key to successfully reducing electricity consumption and hence, enabling the buildings to function as intended. When occupants display good housekeeping techniques, buildings will perform in an environmentally benign and efficient manner. So, green buildings need green occupants. Technology alone cannot and will not save the environment; it needs to be complemented and supplemented by a change in people's lifestyles and attitudes towards the environment. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.