Procurement and Aid Effectiveness: The Journey so far

Multidimensionality of Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP)—Exploring Concepts and Effects in Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe

“…The economic dimension of sustainability has always been featured prominently in the Global North, where public procurement policies have long been associated with support for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and for national companies. Even in liberal countries such as the United States of America (USA), the 'buy America' approach has featured consistently in procurement legislation, and is now emerging assertively in the Global South as well, pushed perhaps also by that same neoliberal agenda that has placed great emphasis on the economic significance of public procurement and has pushed for reforms of the public procurement systems in the south as part of an essential step to development [6]. The other two dimensions of sustainability, namely the social and the environmental, have developed differently in SSA and the EU.…”

Using foreign aid contracts to pursue participatory approaches to development within large foreign aid agencies

“…These controls manifest as incentives embedded in the aid delivery system to: (1) guarantee goal alignment between donor and the contractor, (2) implement and show results efficiently and quickly, and (3) ensure accountability and responsible use of funds, through administrative procedures and information flow requirements (Biggs and Smith, 2003; Chambers, 1997; Cleaver, 1999; Cooke et al., 2001; Gibson et al., 2005; Korten, 1980; Martens et al., 2002; Mosse, 2005). Various scholars find these donor agency incentives lead to more “hamstrung” aid delivery, and decrease a donor's ability to effectively decentralize, share, or delegate decision‐making power (Cornielle et al., 2004; Dreher et al., 2017; Gulrajani, 2017; Honig, 2020; LaChimia and Trepte, 2019; Marchesi and Masi, 2020).…”

“…Yet, many of the large foreign aid donors deliver project assistance through top‐down, highly controlled, bureaucratic systems that may constrain the flexibility needed to delegate decision‐making power to project beneficiaries, including the US, UK and UN development agencies, among others (Dietrich, 2016; LaChimia and Trepte, 2019). These limiting factors include political priorities, existing institutions and requirements for policy delivery, pressure to maximize efficiency, and regulations geared toward ensuring high levels of accountability (Gibson et al., 2005; Gulrajani, 2014; LaChimia and Trepte, 2019; Martens et al., 2002; Mosse, 2005). Despite the seemingly prohibitive constraints, proclamations of support for participatory approaches and their ability to increase development outcomes abound (USAID Forward, 2014; White, 1999; Atwood, 1993), and scholarship on the presence and potential of decentralized decision‐making power within aid work is growing (Dreher et al., 2017; Eckhard and Parizek., 2020; Gulrajani, 2017; Hermano et al., 2012; Honig, 2018, 2020; Marchesi and Masi, 2020).…”

“…Contracts are the primary mechanism through which many top‐down aid donors deliver foreign assistance (Berrios, 2000; Dietrich, 2016; Honig, 2020; LaChimia and Trepte, 2019; Nagaraj, 2015; Roberts, 2014), and are shown to impact beneficiary engagement and influence over aid activity decisions during project implementation (Harris, n.d.). Focusing on contract specifications for beneficiary decision‐making during project implementation allows me to explore whether and how these donors specify decision‐making power for project beneficiaries, including the extent to which this specified delegation occurs, the variation in specifications for decision‐making, and the conditions under which it occurs.…”

“…The U.S. is both the largest global development aid donor and the largest bilateral aid donor (OECD, 2020a). In addition, the U.S. bilateral aid agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), is considered a ‘difficult case’ (Goertz, 2012) for participation (Honig, 2020; Honig et al., 2018; LaChimia and Trepte, 2019; Swedlund, 2017), where we would expect to see low levels of decision‐making power delegated to beneficiaries. A recent study notes that, “USAID stands out with regards to its top‐down control of aid” (Honig, 2020, p. 47).…”