Establishing a Legitimate Development Cooperation Architecture in the Post-Busan Era

Busan and Beyond: South Korea and the Transition From Aid Effectiveness to Development Effectiveness

“…increases in development resources were not necessarily leading to enhanced performance in poverty reduction and economic development (Atwood, 2012). Alarmed by this evidence on the lack of effective use of foreign aid, a series of discussions among aid recipients and aid donors was initiated, building on the work of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Task Force on Donor Practices, which had begun in 2000, with developing country participation, to follow up on the partnership principle established in the landmark DAC publication 'Shaping the 21st Century: the Role of Development Cooperation' (Kindornay and Samy, 2012). These discussions were to become institutionalized as the HLF process.…”

“…There was a sense of disappointing progress since the Paris and Accra HLFs due to lack of sustained political will to improve aid effectiveness. The WP-EFF focused on establishing a broad political consensus in Busan, moving away from the technical approach taken in previous HLFs (Kindornay and Samy, 2012). The level of high-level representatives-that is UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, President Lee Myung-bak of the Republic of Korea, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Queen Rania of Jordan, as well as Ministers, heads of bilateral and multilateral agencies, representatives from NGOs, foundations, parliamentarians and private sector participants-buttressed the sense that the HLF-4 was indeed a high-level process with strong political will at the global and national levels.…”

“…Even though the engagement of emerging donors has been the focus of attention, their representatives were rarely featured in thematic and parallel sessions at the Busan HLF-4 (Eyben and Savage, 2013). Also, the donor/recipient seat in the Steering Committee is currently held by Peru because the most influential emerging donors such as China and Brazil were reluctant to join the Committee (Kindornay and Samy, 2012).…”

“…The global monitoring framework is likely to be the most sensitive issue for the SSC providers (Kindornay and Samy, 2012). Their participation will be on a voluntary basis as indicated in the outcome document, and therefore, the extent of their participation in the monitoring process is unclear.…”

Ignoring the elephant in the room? Assessing the impact of the European Union on the Development Assistance Committee's role in international development

“…the proliferation of new development actors and ideas-calls into question the legitimacy of the existing aid architecture, including the role of the DAC in governing development issues (Besada & Kindornay, 2013;Kragelund, 2011;McEwan & Mawdsley, 2012;Woods, 2008b). This sparked much debate among scholars and development practitioners on whether the DAC will remain a relevant forum for global aid negotiations (Besada & Kindornay, 2013;Bräutigam, 2011;Brown & Morton, 2008;Eyben, 2013;Kim & Lightfoot, 2011;Kindornay & Yiagadessen, 2013;Verschaeve & Orbie, 2016a). More specifically, literature distinguishes between two major challenges for the DAC, (1) its lack of inclusiveness, referring to the fact that only traditional donors take part in its work 2 (Besada & Kindornay, 2013;Brown & Morton, 2008;Eyben, 2013) and (2) the proliferation of "new" providers of aid (for example, BRICs, philanthropic foundations, private sector), challenging its pre-eminent status in defining donor norms and principles (Dreher, Fuchs, & Nunnenkamp, 2013;Kim & Lightfoot, 2011;Quadir, 2013;Zimmermann & Smith, 2011).…”