The DAC is Dead, Long Live the DCF? A Comparative Analysis of the OECD Development Assistance Committee and the UN Development Cooperation Forum

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

“…More specifically, the way in which PCD made its way up the agenda of the DAC was detrimental to its internal legitimacy. 10 While, traditionally, the DAC has always derived a great deal of its internal legitimacy from the fact that it offers its members a unique forum to deliberate on what collective actions to taken (Manning, 2008;Masujima, 2004;Verschaeve & Orbie, 2016a), this case illustrates how the EU structure is eroding this decision-making culture. More specifically, due to the strong overlap in membership, internal EU dynamics constitute a magnifying impact on the DAC.…”

“…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).…”

“…Furthermore, its work on establishing the Millennium Development Goals—most notably through its influential report ‘Shaping the 21 st century’ (OECD, )—and its efforts on aid effectiveness (for example, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (OECD, )) had a strong impact on the way in which the delivery of aid is currently structured (Kim & Lightfoot, ; Manning, ; Ruckert, ). Finally, when it comes to measuring resource flows to developing countries, the DAC is a global quasi‐legislative body, defining, monitoring and reporting ODA from both its members and non‐members since the 1960s (Hynes & Scott, ; Verschaeve & Orbie, ).…”

“… It has to be noted, though, that in recent years the DAC has become more inclusive by expanding its membership, as well as including non‐members, such as the Arab donors, in its work. Furthermore, the Committee “outsourced” its work on aid effectiveness to the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co‐operation, motivated by the fact that the latter is a more legitimate venue for discussing these issues due to its global membership (see for example, Verschaeve & Orbie, ). …”

The Normative Distinctiveness of the European Union in International Development: Stepping Out of the Shadow of the World Bank?

“…In the early 2000s, a series of global initiatives were initiated to improve the effectiveness of aid. Following the UN Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development (2002) which emphasized the need for more but also better aid, the international development community gathered at the High Level Forums (HLFs) in Rome (2003), Paris (2005), Accra (2008) and Busan (2011) to reflect upon how to improve the effectiveness of aid (Verschaeve and Orbie, ). At the heart of the international aid effectiveness agenda – which has been shaped and endorsed by both the EU and WB – are the principles of ownership and donor coordination (Delputte and Orbie, ).…”