Policy Brief
BRICS, cooperation for development and
the Busan 4th High Level Forum on
Aid Effectiveness
December, 2011
Research Group of Technical Cooperation and Science and Technology
BRICS Policy Center / Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa BRICS
Policy Brief
BRICS, cooperation for development and
the Busan 4th High Level Forum on
Aid Effectiveness
December, 2011
Research Group of Technical Cooperation and Science and Technology
BRICS Policy Center / Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa BRICS
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
Authors: Paulo Esteves; Fernando Neves da Costa Maia;
Aline Fernandes Vasconcelos de Abreu; Amir Niv and Manaíra Assunção.
Translated by Carlos Frederico Pereira da Silva Gama.
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan
4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
1 Executive Summary
set of external pressures made their
presence
visible.
Those
pressures
This Policy Brief deals with the
stem from new donors, in particular
outcomes of the 4th High Level Forum
BRICS countries, whose practices are
on Aid Effectiveness (HLF-4), held in
not consistent with CAD principles.
Busan,
South
Korea,
Busan’s
between
agenda
comprised
November 29th and December 1st
CAD internal dilemmas and external
2011. The Forum, which discussed the
pressures. BRICS figured prominently
future of cooperation for development,
during Busan debates, in special in
is
the
what regards the recognition of South-
Committee on Aid to Development
South cooperation (SSC) practices as a
(CAD)
relevant
one
of
of
the
the
initiatives
of
Organization
for
feature
in
the
field
of
and
international development. The major
Development (OECD) which, since the
outcome of the Busan Forum was the
early 2000s, has tried to debate and to
Global
improve the effectiveness of aid to
Development
development
includes both North-South and South-
Economic
Cooperation
offered
by
developed
countries. Such initiatives comprised
Partnership
for
Effective
Co-operation,
which
South cooperation.
principles, goals and indicators that
should
inform
donor
countries
in
matters of official aid to development
2
CAD-OECD
(OAD). In this sense, the Busan
tensions
and
its
internal
agenda had as central features the
difficulties faced by donors in fulfilling
the goals agreed within the scope of
CAD. Besides CAD debates, during the
debates of the 4th High Level Forum, a
Since the 1990s, CAD tried to
establish
a
set
of
patterns
and
principles of action that make more
effective the policies of donor countries,
3
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
in
what
regards
development
official
(OAD)
i.
aid
The
to
Paris
Declaration (2005), engendered by the
using
adequate
relevant
knowledge
information
to
and
improve
decision-making processes
outcomes of debates in the 3rd High
Level Forum, is a landmark in such
5. Mutual responsibility: donors
process, once it established a set of
and recipients are responsible for the
five
principles
–
local
ownership,
outcomes
of
international
aid
to
alignment, harmonizing, management
development, as well as for being
by results and mutual responsibility –
accountable
which have guided aid to development
populations.
to
their
respective
among CAD countries. In sum, the
principles comprise:
Besides those principles, the
Paris Declaration established 12 goals
1. Local ownership: right and
that,
fulfilled
by
2010,
would
responsibility of recipient countries of
demonstrate the growing effectiveness
establishing a development agenda
of assistance mechanisms. However,
based on their own national strategies,
according to OECD data gathered in 32
aimed
countries, by 2010 only 1 out of 12
at
poverty
reduction
and
economic growth ii.
goals was achieved. (OECD, 2010). In
general, donors made no great leaps in
2. Alignment: donors’ actions
terms to facilitate aid to development iii.
should be oriented by the priorities of
Only four donors reported a 100% of
recipient developing countries. It also
their bilateral aid programs as non-
included the efficient use of national
attached as of 2008. Three donors
systems
recipient
increased the share of non-attached
countries, as well as the development
aid in 10% or more between 2005 and
of such systems, when necessary.
2009, whereas four others saw their
and
policies
at
share of non-attached aid decline by
3.
between
Harmonizing:
donors
to
coordination
avoid
10% or more during the same period.
effort
Donors, as envisioned, are using more
duplication, to simplify proceedings and
intensively the national systems of
to optimize the division of labor.
developing countries, but falling short
of the Paris goals.
4.
Management
by
results:
management and implementation of aid
focusing on the desired outcomes, by
Apart
from
the
difficulty
in
fulfilling their own goals, other elements
4
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
complicate the figure. Such is the case
differs
of CAD’s internal standoff – a dissent
implementing autonomous strategies.
regarding the meaning of its principles
In this sense, the concept of local
(MENOCAL et al, 2006). In spite of its
ownership ignores the imbalances that
centrality, the principle of the local
mark the power relationships between
ownership remains a divisive issue
development
among donor countries. The possibility
between
of multiple interpretations regarding this
allowing some analysts to consider
principle and the effects of its eventual
local
application
buying-in
engender
series
of
from
formulating
agents,
donors
ownership
especially
and
a
and
recipients,
euphemism
processes
and
for
external
difficulties, which impact negatively the
impositions (GIRVAN, 2007(a) apud
effectiveness of aid to development,
TUJAN, 2008).
impinging on other principles in the
process. Emphasis on proceedings
Additionally,
needed for conceding assistance, as
conditionalities
well as on assistance management,
conceding assistance would reinforce
can
the
depoliticize
the
development
as
institutionalizing
impositive
prerequisites
bias
in
to
such
agenda, casting a blind eye to, on the
interpretation of the concept of local
one side, the sovereignty of donors
ownership.
and, on the other hand, public and
governments
democratic control over social and
development model of donor countries,
economic
processes
in this context, reads as conditionalities
standoff
by any other name. The aid system can
development
(GROFF,
2011)
v.
Such
The
presupposition
aligned
incidentally
ownership means local control or, in
recipient countries defining their own
contrast,
development models in the future
internalization
institutionalization,
by
and
recipient
the
the
unveils a conceptual problem: local
the
halt
to
of
possibility
of
(RENZIO, 2008).
countries, of programs and policies
countries?
Donors’ grip on the field of
Different usages of the concept of local
policy formulation places considerable
ownership
created
burdens on the administrative systems
possible
relationships
formulated
by
donor
a
specter
of
between
of
recipient
countries,
leading
recipients and donor, including more or
governments to spend a considerable
less unequal relationships. Accepting
amount of resources to fulfill donors’
and
demands (Ibid.) vi.
institutionalizing
policies
formulated by donor countries greatly
5
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
The contradictions that attend
10 to 15% of the aggregate amount of
the concept of local ownership get
OAD. Figure 1 presents the gross
reproduced in the remaining principles
financing for OAD in 2009.
of the Paris Declaration vii. Moreover,
we can conclude that the principles
established by the Declaration include:
Figure 1: Gross financing for OAD in
(i)
2009 (US$ millions).
the
internalization
institutionalization
of
and
policies
formulated by donors; (ii) the adoption
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
parameters formulated by donors; and
(iii) the availability of political elites
committed to the development model of
donors.
In
this
sense,
aid
to
development’s effectiveness lays on
the degree to which recipient countries
are remodeled at the image of donor
ones.
3 External pressures on CAD-OECD:
South-South cooperation and BRICS
Source: Walz & Ramachandran
The agenda and outcomes of
the Busan Forum were conditioned not
only
by
the
above-mentioned
dilemmas,
but
also
by
(2011)
World
the
transformations that the very field of aid
to development experienced along the
last decade. It is important, therefore,
to recognize the rise of “new donors” in
the field viii. In what regards financing
the international aid to development,
“new donors”, in terms of South-South
cooperation (SSC) represent roughly
Bank
data
regarding
BRICS indicates that their total amount
of loans to LICS’ ix between 2000 and
2008
amounted
to
US$26
billion
(including non-concessional loans), a
modest sum in terms of CAD’s US$296
billion
(IMF,
concessional
2011).
financing
In
by
2007
BRICS
(subsidies and concessional loans)
represented only 3% of concessional
6
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
resources to low-income countries (see
Figure 2).
Figure
2:
Global
Concessional
Assistance to Development for LICs,
2007 (in%).
Source:
UNCTAD
Database,
WIR 2010 and IMF estimates
Beyond aid to development,
BRICs x also play a relevant role in
terms of Foreign Direct Investment.
UNCTAD data (Figure 3) allows us to
envision the increasing volume of
BRICs’ FDI between 1991 and 2009.
In spite of its modest outlook,
“new donors” contributions to the field
* Donors which didn’t supply
OECD official data were excluded from
statistics. Sources: Brautigam (2010),
DAC
database
(2010),
German
Development Institute database (2009),
and IMF estimates.
of aid to development are not merely a
matter
of
financing.
heterogeneous
Investment of BRIC’s, 1991-2009 (in
US$ billions).
group;
is
a
accordingly,
SSC has been practiced in a variety of
modes
–
including
economic
integration,
bloc
multilateral
institutions,
alliances,
Figure 3: Annual flux of Direct Foreign
BRICS
cultural
formation
in
military
interchange,
humanitarian
assistance,
cooperation
and
technical
financing
for
development projects (SOUTH-SOUTH
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION: A
CHALLENGE TO THE AID SYSTEM?,
7
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
2011). Such diversity implicates great
difficulties
for
standardizing
identifying
BRICS’
and
particular
China
frame
and
their
India
in
relations
as
to
partnerships for development, neither
development – in sharp contrast with
donation nor aid. They emphasize
CAD. That doesn’t mean the absence
mutual benefits and trade interchange
of attempts at summarization. Ever
without
since the 1970s attempts to provide a
conditionalities. Other feature of SSC is
general definition for SSC have been
the emphasis placed on infrastructure
made. In the Buenos Aires Plan of
financing
Action
technical
contributed to reduce infrastructure
developing
gaps, particularly in the areas of
(PABA
cooperation
-
aid
Brazil,
1978),
among
imposing
(IMF,
2011).
political
SSC
countries has been defined as “a
energy,
conscious process, systematic and
telecommunication in LICs xii.
transportation
has
and
politically motivated” aiming at fostering
development in accordance with the
principles
of
non-interference
We can, therefore, identity a
in
cleavage in the field of international
domestic affairs, equality of partners to
development, polarized by CAD and
development and respect for their
SCC. Such cleavage become more
independences and local development
pronounced across the 1990s and
contents (XALMA, 2011).
reared its head during the Busan
A key factor for identifying SSC
has
been
the
constant
effort
is
Forum. On the one hand, CAD regards
the
donor-receptor
divide
as
a
emerging donors (Brazil, China, India
cornerstone of the “aid logic”, whereas
and
SSC
South
Africa)
to
draw
lines
fosters
symmetry
between
between their assistance programs and
development partners in the spirit of
CAD donors, especially what regards
“mutual assistance”. SCC abides by the
the donor-receptor relationship. South-
principle of non-interference, which
South engagement is presented as
challenges the principle of the local
mutual assistance, not an aid modality.
ownership central to the CAD-OECD
SCC has a “horizontal” dimension in
system. The growing protagonism of
contrast with CAD’s “vertical” logic,
BRICS in the international system
where
provide
highlights even further the differences
resources and knowledge to poor
between CAD and SCC. A brief exam
receptors.
of
developed
donors
BRICs-led cooperation practices
brings
those
differences
to
the
forefront.
8
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
prioritizes
China defines SSC as mutual
the
Portuguese-speaking
countries of CPLP – as Angola (Centre
aid oriented by non-interference. Eight
for
principles instituted by Prime Minister
Development) and Mozambique (Bolsa
Zhou Enlai in the 1960s guide China’s
Escola)
cooperative practices, among which the
between conceptions and practices of
equality between partners and mutual
SSC are relevant. BRICS could lose
benefit figure prominently (ESTEVES et
their flexibility by adhering to the aid
al, 2011; MAIA et al, 2011). China
system as signatory donors. SCC is all
avoids
“aid”,
about differentiation from – if not
favoring “external assistance”, in order
opposition to – the traditional aid to
to avoid a verticalized approach (WALZ
development model.
employing
the
term
Training
and
(Ibid.).
Enterprise
Such
differences
e RAMACHANDRAN, 2011). By its
turn, India, a country engaged in
The creation of autonomous
external aid programs since 1950,
agencies,
follows one of the pillars of the Non-
principles, is another divisive issue. For
Aligned Movement. The (Indian) state
BRICS,
promotes cooperation and partnerships
associated with traditional donors. xiii
with Third World countries aiming at
(SOUTH-SOUTH
mutual
self-
COOPERATION: A CHALLENGE TO
(SOUTH-SOUTH
THE AID SYSTEM?, 2010). Instead,
DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION: A
BRICS favor a handful of cooperative
CHALLENGE TO THE AID SYSTEM?,
practices; only infrequently coalescing
2010). China and India engage in
into coherent “BRICS patterns”. China
projects of distinctive natures: the
and
former emphasizes infrastructure and
partnerships. China in particular is less
the latter, economic and technical
inclined to cooperate with other South
cooperation under the aegis of the
donors and international organizations,
Indian
as the country stresses its political
benefit
founded
determination
Technical
and
on
Economic
envisioned
such
India
in
agencies
the
would
CAD
be
DEVELOPMENT
usually
favor
bilateral
Cooperation (ITEC), founded in 1964,
autonomy
whose goals include capaciting and
RAMACHANDRAN,
empowering
countries.
other hand, South Africa and Brazil
Differing from both China and India,
have collaborated in a variety of
Brazil invests in cooperation in the
projects, which more than often include
areas
and
also multilateral organizations. South
agriculture as main SSC vectors and
Africa channels more than 75% of its
of
developing
education,
health
(WALZ
2011).
e
On
the
9
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
aid to development budget through
considering
multilateral
external pressures to CAD.
organizations,
especially
internal
tensions
and
African ones. There is a growing
movement
proposing
resources
be
development
that
channeled
organizations
such
through
4 The Busan agenda and the Busan
of
Declaration
the
South, instead of traditional Western
ones such as the World Bank and IMF
(Ibid.).
Forum of Aid Effectiveness (HLF-4),
Finally,
criticism
there
of
motivations
is
the
of
development.
widespread
underpinning
South-led
In
aid
regional
to
levels,
political gains would get the upper
hand.
In
a
systemic
level,
trade
interests. In the latter case, aid to
development
usually
by
gets
South
countries
entangled
with
governmental acquisitions and favors
to suppliers from donor countries. 70%
of Chinese projects are run by stateowned enterprises and joint-ventures
with
The agenda of the 4th High Level
Chinese
companies
SOUTH
(SOUTH-
DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION: A CHALLENGE TO
THE AID SYSTEM?, 2010) .
held in Busan, South Korea, between
November 29th and December 1st
2011,
CAD’s
was
largely
internal
conditioned
tensions,
in
by
what
regards principles and goals of aid to
development,
as
aforementioned.
However, besides the debate on aid
effectiveness, the growing relevance of
South-South cooperation seemed an
inescapable
trend
in
the
field
of
development. In this sense, in Busan,
the field faced dilemmas inherent to
CAD’s principles whereas, on the
outside, it was under pressure by the
emergence
of
spearheaded
by
new
practices
emerging
states
which, up to the 1990s, were aid
recipients xiv. The combination of
A
summary
of
BRICS-led
South-South cooperation brings to the
forefront a set of practices that, across
internal tension and external pressure
signalized the singularity of Busan
(KHARAS, 2011) .
the last decade, challenged and put
pressure on the CAD-OECD system
and its foundations. The next section,
thus, analyses the agenda and the
outcomes
of
the
Busan
Forum
In what regards external pressure,
especially
arriving
from
emerging
powers, it is possible to observe the
increasing relevance of new Southern
10
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
partners, as well as the emergence of
It was the beginning of the process of
new
the
building a new architecture for aid to
categories
development, one that includes the
challenges
environment)
(preserving
and
aid
(South-South
cooperation).
diverse
practices
that
proliferated
Understandably, Busan, apart from
during the last decade. The partnership
reinforcing
rests on a presupposition: modalities
the
Paris
principles,
dedicated more attention than initially
and responsibilities
thought
of
cooperation differ from the ones in
international cooperation, including new
North-South cooperation, due to the
emerging partners from the South.
specificities
to
emerging
aspects
of
in South-South
different
groups
of
countries. However, both modalities are
Such shifts are noticeable in the Final
integral
Declaration of the 4th High Level
agenda for development, and they
Forum, as well as on debates during
share the same goals and principles. In
the conference. In sum, the final
this
document (i) recognizes the increasing
actions enrolled in the final document
role of South-South cooperation in
of the Busan forum address Southern
international aid to development; (ii)
partners on a voluntary basis (Busan
holds in high esteem new practices of
Partnership For Effective Development
cooperation for development; and (iii)
Co-operation). The goal is to set a
proposes the constitution of a Global
partnership
Partnership for Effective Development
principles that address all modalities of
Co-operation,
the
cooperation for development, able to
scope of a new global partnership for
make them converge to fulfill the
development. In the terms of the
Millennium
document:
(MDGs). In this sense, old and new
inscribed
within
parts
sense,
of
the
the
international
commitments
based
on
Development
and
common
Goals
agents are called upon to work together
In Busan, we forged a new global
– the former should learn from the
partnership for development, one that
experiences, conquests and individual
embraces the diversity and recognizes
achievements of the latter, each set of
the distinct roles that all partners in
countries
development can play in supporting
features and respective merit.
development (our translation, FOURTH
Although the institutional architecture of
HIGH
the Global Partnership for Development
LEVEL
FORUM
EFFECTIVENESS, 2011).
ON
AID
endowed
with
unique
remains a point in debate among
agents of the development field, the
11
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
Busan conference had at least three
and UNDP) take part in such a
substantive outcomes: (i) putting into
partnership. Additionally, the United
question
Nation
the
relationship
patterns
Development
Cooperation
between donors and recipients typical
Forum (DCF) was also invited to
of CAD; (ii) recognizing the diversity of
participate
practices
implementing processes of agreements
related
to
assistance
to
through
reached
field; and (iii) stressing the limits of the
Adopting the ideal “global light, country
club structure that, since the 1960s,
heavy”, the new global partnership for
characterized aid to development’s
development
dynamics. In the first case, the vertical
accountability for implementation of
structure of relationships typical of CAD
Busan agreements at the political level
is
horizontal
(KHARAS, 2011). In other words, the
rhetoric’s of South-South cooperation.
new global partnership shall provide an
The second effect reopens the debate
open platform that embraces diversity
on principles that shall underpin the
and promote a forum for knowledge
assistance to development – if not its
exchange between the many agents
very nature, as addressed in the next
that
section of this Policy Brief. Such effect
development.
by
the
practice
Busan
across
of
development already present in the
challenged
in
consulting
shall
the
2012.
assure
cooperation
for
is clearly displayed as Busan’s final
document, simultaneously, affirms the
principles of the Paris Declaration and
5 Conclusion
emphasizes the voluntary character of
the adherence of new donors to such
The Busan 4th High Level
principles. Additionally, the specificity of
Forum on Aid Effectiveness is, without
South-South cooperation is highlighted.
a doubt, is a benchmark. The Busan
Finally, the third effect questions the
Declaration recognized, pioneeringly, a
legitimacy of the club structure that
variety of cooperative practices for
comprises the donor countries from
development,
transcending
CAD-OECD,
development
as
committed
to
aid
conducted
to
by
homogenous patterns and principles of
developed countries. The effects of the
aid to development, even though it calls
Declaration can be summarized in two
upon for a truly multilateral mechanism
dimensions:
for development assistance.
It is in sense that the participation of
UN agencies and forums (as ECOSOC
12
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
1.
Recognition of a variety
Those two dimensions allow us
that
to understand one of the most – maybe
comprise the field of cooperation for
the most – salient features of the
development. Such variety included not
Busan Forum: the recognition of a
only SSC, but as well the actions of
variety of development models in the
organized civil society and private
contemporary
agents, such as foundations. Among
Such recognition made possible an
the outcomes of this 1st dimension the
advance in the debate on cooperation
following shall be kept in mind:
for
of
practices
and
modalities
international
–
development
system.
simultaneously,
transcending the confines of CADa.
North-South cooperation
OECD and inserting such debate in a
is now treated as a modality only, no
multilateral setting. In spite of the
longer a model whose principles shall
fragile articulation of BRICS countries,
be
their presence in Busan was pivotal to
observed
by
all
agents
of
cooperation for development;
b.
partnership
space
The
and
with
decentering
concepts
cooperation
notions
of
of
share
aid
and
assistance;
the
development
cooperation
agenda.
for
Internal
dilemmas of CAD, alongside with the
pressure
stemming
for
burgeoning
cooperation practices centered around
c.
The verticalized model
donor-receptor is put under question;
d.
The
debate
BRICS engendered an emerging space
in
on
which
practices
emulating
has
traditional
become
aid
increasingly
effectiveness is relocated – from “aid
problematic. From the standpoint of
effectiveness”
developed nations, Busan represented
from
“development
effectiveness”
an opportunity for co-opting emerging
nations – including BRICS – for CADThere is a pronounced
OECD’s orbit. For BRICS, the Forum
need for a more inclusive institutional
was, at the same time, an opportunity
structure in the field of cooperation for
to
development. In this sense, CAD-
development as well as a calling card
OECD, which nearly monopolized the
for South-South cooperation.
2.
broaden
their
cooperation
for
field, becomes just an agent among
others
in
a
broader
practices and agents.
universe
of
In
this
sense,
the
“global
partnership for development” inherits
the dilemmas and pressures felt well
before Busan. Such legacy will inform
13
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
further moves in the next few months.
case of loans, at least 25% should
Whereas developed countries will put
comprise
pressure on emerging ones, BRICS in
loans and credits for military purposes
particular, in order for the latter to adopt
are excluded. Transfers to particulars
principles and patterns closer to those
(pensions, indemnizations, etc.) are
formulated and reformulated in Paris,
generally excluded” (DAC GLOSSARY
Accra and Busan, BRICS will insist on
OF KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
the
apud ESTEVES et al, 2011).
specificities
cooperation,
of
South-South
resisting
such
a
new
set
of
Subventions,
co-opt
moves. For BRICS, the Busan Forum
meant
donations).
challenges,
ii
Such
principle
comprises
three main functions: (1) to determine
including the debate on principles
development
backing their respective cooperation
implementation design of programs and
policies, the construction of transparent
plans
proceedings for promoting cooperation
coordination of donors’ practices. It is
and,
own
presupposed
their
implicates a democratic process of
Therefore,
policy formulation and development
finally,
elaborating
mechanisms
for
cooperative
practices.
their
evaluating
and
policies;
(3)
that
(2)
management
local
combining
and
ownership
South-South cooperation is also put
strategies,
democratic
under question: self-reflection and self-
decision-making
definition are tasks that remain on the
transparent technical proceedings.
processes
and
horizon.
iii Attached aid corresponds to
foreign aid that imposes an obligation
6 Notes
in terms of the amount to be spent by
the recipient country. The developed
i According to OECD, official aid
country will provide a bilateral loan of
to development included: “donations,
subsidy to the developing country – the
subsidies or loans to countries and
latter should import goods and services
territories in CAD’s and multilateral
from the donor country.
agencies’ lists, which are: (a) made by
public sector; (b) which have as main
goals
the
promotion
of
economic
iv Among the specifications of
the Paris Declaration regarding the
(c)
principle of national ownership, donor
concessional in financial terms (in the
countries should prioritize the use of
development
and
well-being;
national systems and institutions of
14
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
recipient countries, in implementation
ownership presupposes (even though it
of development programs.
remains
in
the
background)
that
countries share OECD’s development
v The very Paris Declaration is
conception;
(ii)
the
principle
of
ambivalent in this regard. It affirms that
harmonizing implicates mechanisms to
goals
monitor
can
be
limited
to
the
aid,
mechanisms
which
governmental leadership and donors’
engender patterns and indications of
coordination, if national processes of
the effectiveness of aid to development
other governmental institutions and civil
modeled after the experience of donor
society institutions are undermined.
countries, ignoring the national systems
(VALDERRAMA, 2007 apud TUJAN,
of recipient countries; (iii) “management
2008).
by
results”
presupposes
commitment
vi Renzio proposes that, instead
collecting
to
and
mutual
improving
data
statistic
data
of calling the benefitted governments to
management, which face challenges
action, the donors’ attitude should
such
change in order to take those principles
recalcitrant political systems, weak and
seriously,
under-motivated
as
well
to
modify
the
as
governmental
inefficiency,
bureaucracies;
and
incentives of governments regarding
(iv) mutual responsibility implicates that
aid (RENZIO, 2008). For many African
governments and agencies be held
countries,
responsible
for
example,
fostering
infrastructure if pivotal for sustainable
development
–
but
it
remains
policies
for
–
their
which
common
development
presupposes
development
model.
systematically rejected by traditional
Additionally,
donors (BOOTH, 2011). BRICS, as
advanced
major donors of infrastructure projects,
accountable
become preferential partners, more
ideologically
sensitive to the necessities of recipient
questionable on empirical grounds.
countries’
governments
and
the
statement
that
democracies
to
their
a
are
citizens
motivated
is
and
less
stringent in what regards the principle
of local ownership.
viii
Four
groups
of
donors
remain outside CAD’s scope: (1) OECD
members which didn’t join CAD; (2)
vii On such standoffs, Booth
European Union countries which are
(2011) sheds light on the manifold
not members of CAD; (3) Middle
dilemmas that result from the Paris
Eastern and OPEC countries, and (4)
principles: (i) the principle of local
”others”
not
included
in
the
15
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
aforementioned
(MANNING
three
categories
apud
e
engendered a spillover effect, in which
RAMACHANDRAN, 2011). The fourth
the economic growth of the former
group is considerably heterogeneous,
directly influenced the economic growth
including
that
of the latter (IMF, 2011). According to
practice SSC and that are generally
the Fund, the emergents’ specialization
considered
leaders
in financing infrastructure complements
(ZIMMERMANN e SMITH apud WALZ
CAD’s policies, which have focused
e RAMACHANDRAN, 2011).
governance and institutional reform
BRICS,
WALZ
between emerging countries and LICs
countries
regional
(Ibid.).
ix LIC´s (Low Income Countries)
are
countries
conditional
allowed
financing
to
receive
from
January
xiii Brazil and South Africa have
their
own
cooperation
agencies
(Agência Brasileira de Cooperação –
2010 on.
ABC, e South African Development
x The acronym BRICs refers to
Partnership
Agency,
respectively).
a group of countries comprising Brazil,
Such agencies are associated to the
Russia, India and China before April
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of each
2011, when South Africa joined the
country and their have limited control
group.
over political and budgetary decisions.
xi Such efforts include: the
xiv Although not the focus of
Resolution of the United Nations 32nd
this Policy Brief, Busan also signalized
General
Such
another pressing issue for development
resolution was a preliminary effort of
cooperation: the emergence of private
defining
agents.
Assembly
the
Cooperation
goals
(1977).
of
among
Technical
Developing
Countries (TCDC). It was established
xv There is no reference to
as a mechanism to promote national
South-South cooperation in the Paris
and collective capacity of developing
Declaration. The Accra Agenda for
countries and to reinforce their own
Action, by its turn, only briefly mentions
resources, in order to solve their
such practices. nder question: self-
development problems.
reflection and self-definition are tasks
that remain on the horizon.
xii
According
to
IMF,
the
growing trade and financial bonds
16
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
7 References
assistance.
United
Nations
Development
Policy Horizons Canada, set. 2011. 3
Programme/International
p.
Centre for Inclusive Growth. 18 ago.
Retrieved
from:<http://www.horizons.gc.ca/page.
2008.
asp?pagenm=2011_0085_01.
from:<http://www.ipc-
Access
19
p.
Policy
Retrieved
in: 9 Nov. 2011>. Access in: 10 Dec.
undp.org/publications/southlearning/pe
2011.
nny.pdf>. Access in: 10 Dec. 2011.
ARSHAD, I. Shifting players in the aid
DEVELOPMENT Cooperation Forum.
game: the old boys club and the new
In: United Nations/Economic and
kids on the block. Conference Chatter.
Social
Council.
Retrieved
from:<http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/ne
BOOTH,
D.
Aid
effectiveness:
bringing country ownership (and
wfunct/develop.shtml>. Access in: 22
Jan. 2012.
politics) back in. London: Overseas
Development Institute, ago. 2011.
ESTEVES, Paulo Luiz M. L.; MAIA,
(ODI Working Paper, 336). Retrieved
Fernando N. da C.; ABREU, Aline F. V.
from:<http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/
de Abreu; FONSECA, João Moura M.
download/4928.pdf>. Access in: 10
da; NIV, Amir Clementino; CAPTIVO,
Dec. 2011.
Rhenan. A cooperação sino-africana:
tendências e impactos para a ajuda
Effective
oficial ao desenvolvimento. BRICS
Development Co-Operation. Fourth
Policy Center / Centro de Estudos e
High
Pesquisa BRICS, maio 2011. 13 p.
BUSAN
Partnership
Level
for
Forum
On
Aid
Effectiveness, Busan, Republic Of
(Policy
Korea,
from:<http://bricspolicycenter.org/homol
29
November-1
December
Brief)
Retrieved
2011. Retrieved from:
og/uploads/trabalhos/152/doc/8518227
<http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busan
28.pdf>. Access in: 11 Dec. 2011
hlf4/images/stories/hlf4/OUTCOME_D
OCUMENT_-_FINAL_EN.pdf>. Access
GROFF, S. P. Getting value for
in: 10 Dec. 2011.
money:
effective
Aid,
effective
development, global Asia. A Journal
DAVIES, P. Aid effectiveness and
of the East Asia Foundation, v. 6, n. 2,
non-DAC providers of development
2011.
Retrieved
from:<http://www.globalasia.org/V6N2_
17
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
Summer_2011/Stephen_P._Groff.html?
KHARAS, H. Coming together: how a
w=Groff>. Access in: 15 Dec. 2011.
new
global
development
partnership
on
cooperation
was
L.
forged at the Busan High Level
Diversity in donorship: the changing
Forum on Aid Effectiveness. Real
landscape of official humanitarian
Instituto
aid. London: Overseas Development
from:<http://www.realinstitutoelcano.or
Institute, Humanitarian Policy Group,
g/wps/wcm/connect/0f1e7700497d5f75
2005.
ba66ba9437ec6e7e/ARI164-
HARMER,
A.;
COTTERRELL,
Retrieved
from:<http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/
Elcano.
2011.
Retrieved
2011_Kharas_Busan-
docs/275.pdf> Access in: 13 Dec.
2011.
Summit_Global_Partnership_Developm
ent_Cooperation.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.
&CACHEID=0f1e7700497d5f75ba66ba
New growth drivers for low-income
9437ec6e7e>. Access in: 6 Jan. 2012.
countries:
the
role
of
BRICs.
Prepared by Strategy, Policy, and
KRAGELUND, P. Back to BASIC´s:
Review Department in collaboration
the rejuvenation of non-traditional
with the African Department, 2011.
donor´s development cooperation in
Retrieved
Africa.
from:<http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp
Institute of Social Studies, Haia, 2011.
Development
and
Change,
/eng/
2011/011211.pdf>. Access in: 15 Jan.
MAIA, Fernando; ESTEVES, Paulo;
2011.
ABREU, Aline F. Vasconcelos de; NIV,
Amir C.; Marques, João Moura E. O
GLENNIE, Jonathan. Busan has been
FOCAC
e
a
ajuda
chinesa
an expression of shifting geopolitical
desenvolvimento na África. BRICS
realities. The Guardian, 2 Dec. 2011.
Policy Center / Centro de Estudos e
Retrieved
Pesquisa
from:<http://www.guardian.co.uk/global
from:<http://bricspolicycenter.org/homol
-development/poverty-
og/uploads/trabalhos/1415/doc/104527
matters/2011/dec/02/busan-shifting-
7571.pdf>. Access in: 13 Dec. 2011.
BRICS.
ao
Retrieved
geopoliticalrealities?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487>.
MANNING, R. Will emerging donors
Access in: 13 Dec. 2011.
change the face of international cooperation?
Development
Policy
18
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
Preview, v. 24, year 4, p. 371-385,
from:<http://www.aideffectiveness.org/b
2006.
usanhlf4/images/stories/hlf4/Partner_C
Retrieved
from:<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35
ountry_Position_Paper_-_Final.pdf>.
/38/36417541.pdf>. Access in: 5 Dec.
Access in: 22 Nov. 2011.
2011.
RENZIO, P. Reforming foreign aid
MENOCAL, A. R.; MAXWELL, S.;
practices: what country ownership
ROGERSON, A. The future of aid: user
is and what donors can do to
perspectives
the
support
In:
Governance Programme, Department
Commonwealth Secretariat and La
of Politics and International Relations,
Francophonie
Dhaka,
University of Oxford, 2008. Retrieved
Institute,
from:<http://www.globaleconomicgover
on
international
Overseas
reform
aid
of
system,
Workshop,
Development
Londres,
2006.
Retrieved
it.
Global
Economic
nance.org/wp-
from:<http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organi
cntent/uploads/Reforming%20Aid%20P
za%C3%A7%C3%A3o_para_a_Coope
ractices,%20final.pdf>. Access in: 5
ra%C3%A7%C3%A3o_e_Desenvolvim
Dec. 2011.
ento_Econ%C3%B3mico>. Access in:
SOUTH-SOUTH
10 Dec. 2011.
development
cooperation: a challenge to the aid
ORGANIZAÇÃO
PARA
COOPERAÇÃO
DESENVOLVIMENTO
A
system? Special report on south-
E
south cooperation. The Reality of aid
ECONÔMICO
Management
Committee.
2010.
(OCDE). Aid Effectiveness 2005-10:
Retrieved
progress in implementing the Paris
from:<http://www.realityofaid.org/roa-
Declaration. OECD Publishing, 2010.
reports/index/secid/373/South-South-
Retrieved from:
Development-Cooperation-A-
<http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busan
challenge-to-the-aid-system>.
hlf4/images/stories/hlf4/Progress_Since
in: 10 Dec. 2011.
Access
_Paris_Part_I.pdf>. Access in: 22 Nov.
2011.
TUJAN,
A.
Southern
voices
on
conditionality and ownership: towards
PARTNER
GROUP.
COUNTRY
Position
CONTACT
paper:
partner
achieving authentic national ownership.
In: Forum On The Future Of Aid:
countries. Vision and Priority Issues
southern
for
international aid system. Promoting
HLF-4,
2011.
Retrieved
voices
for
change
in
19
BRICS POLICY CENTER – POLICY BRIEF
BRICS, cooperation for development and the Busan 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness
Ownership
and
Reforming
Conditionality:
Strategic
Planning
Workshop,
2008.
Retrieved
from:<http://www.futureofaid.net/files/sy
nthesis.pdf>. Access in: 11 Dec. 2011.
WALZ, J.; RAMACHANDRAN V. Brave
new world: a literature review of
emerging donors and the changing
nature of foreign assistance, 2011.
Retrieved
from:<http://www.cgdev.org/files/14256
91_file_Walz_Ramachandran_Brave_N
ew_World_FINAL.pdf>. Access in: 3
Jan. 2012.
XALMA, C. Relatório da Cooperação
Sul-Sul na Ibero-América. Secretaria
Geral Ibero-Americana, 2011. (Estudos
SEGIB,
n
6).
Retrieved
from:<http://segib.org/news/files/2011/1
1/Coop-Sul-Sul-2011.pdf>. Access in: 3
Jan. 201
20