Syndicate content

Is South-South Cooperation Really Different? New Development Partners in Busan

Philip E. Karp's picture

Much of the discussion at the HLF-4 in Busan last week, as well in the months leading up to the event, was focused on forging consensus around a new global development cooperation partnership framework that would accommodate the interests and unique cooperation modalities of new partners such as China, Brazil, and India. The agreement by these and other new development actors to sign on to the HLF-4 Outcome Document is an important achievement and key step towards such a partnership.

 

The need for a new framework stems from a growing recognition and acceptance that it is not politically feasible (and some have argued not even desirable) to apply the same architecture and principles that have governed the development cooperation activities of OECD-DAC members (often collectively referred to as “traditional donors”) and of multilateral development institutions to the new partners, who operate in a very distinct manner under the banner of South-South Cooperation.

 

Take China for example. While China has become a contributor to IDA and has increased its bilateral assistance, the bulk of its development cooperation falls outside of the narrow definition of Official Development Assistance. Cooperation is provided instead through an integrated package of aid, trade, and investment, combining features of both development and economic cooperation, and focused in particular on the infrastructure sector, where China has become the number one source of financing for many countries. Examples of this unique approach are the multi-billion dollar infrastructure for resources deals that China has signed with several countries.  

 

China’s development cooperation also differs from that of traditional donors in that it rarely involves financial transfers or budget support, but instead involves turn-key provision (by Chinese contractors) of facilities (schools, hospitals, government buildings, sports stadiums) or infrastructure.  Furthermore, China stresses the concepts of mutual benefit and “win-win” outcomes as fundamental principles of its cooperation, stressing that both China and the recipient countries should benefit from economic relationships. And finally China’s assistance is provided without policy conditionality. 

 

Looking at this approach, it is not difficult to see the incompatibility with several aspects of the Paris/Accra principles and commitments (e.g. untying of aid), nor to understand why China and other new development partners have resisted attempts to bring their development cooperation under the Paris/Accra framework.  Some recipient countries are also wary of such attempts, for fear that holding the new partners to Paris/Accra principles would constrain the very characteristics (flexibility, speed of delivery, no-strings-attached) that they so much value in the cooperation these partners provide. However other recipient countries have expressed concern about increased fragmentation of aid arising from failure of some of the new partners to join established coordination mechanisms.

 

A key achievement of HLF-4 is that it moves discussion of development cooperation modalities away from the dichotomy of North-South versus South-South to the recognition of a continuum of vertical, horizontal and triangular partnership modalities, with each offering positive benefits and opportunities for achieving shared objectives.  This is a view that is very much in keeping with the World Bank’s vision of the democratization of development

The HLF-4 process and outcomes also highlight the opportunities for mutual learning, both in terms of sharing of development experience,  and in terms of modalities and approaches to aid delivery. Indeed, there is a lot that traditional providers of development cooperation/assistance can learn from new partners on aspects such as speed and efficiency of project implementation, and effective integration of trade, aid, and investment, while new partners can learn lessons – both positive and negative – from the decades-long experience of traditional development partners, particularly on issues such as evaluation, capacity development, and monitoring of results. 

 

The HLF-4 Outcome Document is also notable in identifying a set of shared principles, while accepting the need for a differentiated approach to commitments, given the variance in circumstances of the traditional and new development partners.  

 

One over-arching principle on which there seems to be consensus among traditional donors and new development partners alike is that of country ownership – recognizing that development priorities and programs need to be driven by the recipient countries themselves.

 

On the other hand, there is less of a consensus on the principle of transparency and mutual accountability, as some development partners are reluctant to commit to making a full range of information about their development cooperation activities publicly available. 

 

This is unfortunate, as I believe that country ownership and transparency/accountability are closely linked, around a principle of informed choice.  One of the important benefits of the emergence of new development partners (in addition to their important financial and knowledge contributions) is that they offer recipient countries a wider range of options, both in terms of development solutions and modalities of cooperation. However, in order for recipient countries to take full advantage of the choices available, and to be fully in the driver’s seat in their relations with development partners, it will be important for them to have more complete information about what is on offer in terms of levels and conditions of assistance, and on the real terms of the various deals that are brought to the table. 

 

Let’s hope that the new global partnership forged in Busan will lead to greater mutual understanding among old and new partners, and ultimately to improved development outcomes. This ultimately will be HLF4’s true measure of success.

Comments

Submitted by Talita Yamashiro Fordelone on
Interest post, Philip. Working on promoting collaboration with non-DAC members, I constantly ask myself the same question. However, it is surprising to see that North-South and South-South cooperation have more in common than we usually think. Including in the objective of promoting greater transparency. See a paper recently published by one of my colleagues in the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/43/49245423.pdf

Urgent Call for High Level Forum on the Science of Human Population Dynamics. Everywhere we look there are virtual mountains of evidence to be found of the clever manipulation of human intellect by ‘the brightest and best’, usually for the purpose of securing selfish interests. Self-proclaimed masters of the universe, their many highly educated sycophants and absurdly enriched minions are established experts at ignoring ‘reality’ when it serves their pragmatic desires. The step that makes it possible for human beings with feet of clay to subordinate personal interests so as to see what is before their eyes, is not an easy one. All of us get use to seeing the world in certain ways, according to what is logically contrived, politically correct, economically expedient, socially agreeable, religiously tolerable, culturally prescribed and ubiquitously shared through the mass media. Most of the time popular ways of viewing the world are sufficiently reality-oriented. But occasionally advances in science disturb even the most widely held and consensually validated understandings with regard to the way the world we inhabit works as well as about the placement of the human species within the natural order of living things. Perhaps we are witnesses to such a scientific advance, or maybe not. Whatever the case, whatever the ‘reality’ of human population dynamics, let us make sure that our Circle of Friends is not simply and plainly just one more academic bastion of intellectual cowardice. When the subject is human population dynamics, it seems to me that there are currently enough “ivory towers”, professional societies and international organizations whose members favor intellectual dishonesty, hysterical blindness, willful deafness and elective mutism. Steven Earl Salmony AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001 Chapel Hill, NC http://www.panearth.org/

Add new comment