Tracking sectoral allocation of official development assistance: a comparative study of the 29 Development Assistance Committee countries, 2011–2018

Abstract

Background : Official development assistance (ODA) is one of the most important means for donor countries to foster diplomatic relations with low- and middle-income countries and contribute to the welfare of the international community. Objective : This study estimated the sectoral allocation of gross disbursements of ODA of the 29 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the duration of 2011 to 2018, by aid type (bilateral, multilateral, and both aids). Methods : Data from the OECD iLibrary were used. The sector definition was based on the OECD sector classification. For core funding to multilateral agencies that do not specialize in each aid sector, we estimated ODA and its flows based on the OECD methodology for calculating imputed multilateral ODA. Results : For all 29 countries, during the period of 2014–2018 where data were available for all the countries, the sector with the highest average annual ODA contribution was health at 20.34 billion USD (13.21%), followed by humanitarian aid at 18.04 billion (11.72%). Humanitarian aid has increased in the sectoral share rankings in both bilateral and multilateral aid, and the sectoral share for refugees in donor countries has increased in bilateral aid. While the 29 countries show relatively similar trends for sectoral shares, some countries and sectors display unique trends. For instance, infrastructure and energy sectors in bilateral aid of Japan are particularly high accounts for 48.48% of the total bilateral ODA of the country in 2018. Conclusions : This paper evaluated ODA trends by major donors of DAC countries in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic periods. We hope that our estimates will contribute to the review of the strategic decision-making and the effective implementation of future ODA policy discussions in the DAC countries while ensuring transparency.

How did COVID-19 impact development assistance for health? – The trend for country-specific disbursement between 2015 and 2020

“…Sector and program area: The aid sectors were based on the OECD's purpose codes for sector classification (17). The sectors of these purpose codes were grouped into broad three-digit sector categories further classified into five-digit purpose codes.…”

“…However, there are some limitations. One study that tracked the sectoral allocation of ODA from 2011 to 2018 among 29 DAC countries identified health as the sector with the highest average annual ODA contribution at USD 20.3 billion (17). In the previous study, the volume of DAH was larger because the aforementioned study included the estimation for core funding to multilateral agencies.…”

What motivates South Korean Official Development Assistance?

“…As Nomura et al (2021, p. 8) note, “It is an extremely challenging task to have measurable common indices among countries that quantitatively assess the diplomatic, political, security, and economic factors.” While quantitative data provides insights into the “what” of Korean ODA (see Table 1), analysis of that data cannot directly tell us about goals or intentions. As such, while Korean donor motives have ostensibly received considerable attention from studies relying on econometric methods, these are not able to conclusively answer the question of what motivates South Korean ODA at an ideational level because they do not measure ideas.…”

China’s Evolving Approach to Foreign Aid

“…127 From 2011 to 2020, a sizeable portion of ODA by DAC donor countries-an average 46 per cent-went to social development areas such as education, gender equality, health, and water and sanitation, while only about 20 per cent went to infrastructure and manu facturing. 128 In this regard, China's ability and willingness to offer development finance to Africa has presented challenges to traditional models of foreign aid while also providing alternative sources of funding to meet the development needs of African countries, including infrastructure, manufacturing and social development.…”