Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The establishment of the United Nations Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) is widely regarded as a major challenge for the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. While many observers expect the DAC’s development role in international development to be diminishing to the benefit of the DCF, no studies have been devoted to this topic. This article addresses the impact of the establishment of DCF on the DAC. Through a combination of semi-structured interviews, document analysis and participatory observations, we conduct a comparative analysis of both institutions to asses their input, output and throughput legitimacy. Our findings show that the DCF does not pose a threat to the DAC. We argue that (i) the debate has neglected the effectiveness and decision-making cultures of both institutions and (ii) the gap between the DAC and DCF in terms of inclusiveness has become less pronounced than is often suggested.

Abstract

La création du Forum pour la coopération en matière de développement des Nations Unies (FCD) est considérée par beaucoup comme un défi majeur pour le Comité d’aide au développement (CAD) de l’Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques. Bien que de nombreux observateurs s’attendent à ce que le rôle du CAD dans le développement international diminue au profit de le FCD, aucune étude n’a été consacrée à ce sujet. Cet article traite de l’impact de la création du FCD sur le DAC. Grâce à une combinaison d’entretiens semi-structurés, l’analyse de documents et d’observations participatives, nous procédons à une analyse comparée des deux institutions afin d’évaluer les investissements qu’elles demandent et leurs produits ainsi que leur légitimité. Nos résultats montrent que le FCD ne représente pas une menace pour le CAD. Nous soutenons que ( i ) le débat a négligé l’efficacité et les cultures de prise de décision des deux institutions et ( ii ) l’écart entre le CAD et FCD en termes d’inclusion est devenu moins prononcé que ce que l’on suggère souvent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The DAC is currently composed of 29 members: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom.

  2. As most officials were only willing to share their views on condition of absolute anonymity, all interviews are indicated by a general reference. A detailed overview of the affiliation and expertise of the interviewees can be found in the reference section.

  3. For reasons of feasibility, a majority of respondents originate from DAC member states. While ideally we should have included a larger number of responds of DCs, we are confident about the validity of our findings. First, we did not base our claims about the legitimacy of the DAC and DCF on the personal opinions of these interviewees, but relied on the factual information obtained through these interviews to achieve a better understanding of the functioning and decision making of both institutions. Second, the information obtained through these interviews was cross-checked through triangulating, assuring the validity of these findings (Olsen, 2003; Swanborn, 2010).

  4. Unlike other OECD committees, the DAC has its own membership criteria, stemming from the fact that it was established before the OECD and was only adopted by the latter afterwards (Verschaeve and Takacs, 2013). In recent years, however, the DAC has been bringing its membership in line with that of the rest of the OECD, which explains why non-DAC OECD members take part in its work (OECD/DAC, 2012b).

  5. We also calculated absence rates for other countries, however, which are not included in this article as they did not show important findings.

References

  • APDev. (2011) Final draft African Consensus and position on development effectiveness. Busan: Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness.

  • Ashoff, G. (2000) The OECD’s Development Assitance Committee and German Development Cooperation: A relationship under scrutiny. Bonn: GDI Briefing Paper, 1.

  • Ashoff, G. (2008) Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration: Case Study German. Bonn: BMZ Evaluation Reports, 032.

  • Ashoff, G. (2013) 50 Years of Peer Reviews by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee: An Instrument of Quality Assurance and Mutual Learning. Bonn: DIE Briefing Paper, 2.

  • Barder, O., Gavas, M. and Maxwell, S. (2010) Governance of the aid system and the role of the EU. Paper presented at the Conference on development cooperation in times of crisis anc achieving the MDGs, Madrid, Spain.

  • Ben-Artzi, R. (2013) International organizations and peer pressure: An examination of the development assistance committee. Paper presented at the 8th Pan European Conference on International Relations, Warsaw, Poland.

  • Besada, H. and Kindornay, S. (2013) Multilateral Development Cooperation in a Changing Global Order. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Birdsall, N. (ed.) (2006) Rescuing the World Bank. Baltimore, Maryland: Centre for Global Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. (1999) The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law? American Journal of International Law 93(3): 596–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. and Morton, B. (2008) Reforming aid and development cooperation: Accra, Doha and beyond. Ottowa: North-South Institute, Policy Note, August.

  • Buchanan, A. and Keohane, R. (2006) The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs 20(4): 405–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, P. and Kellow, A. (2011) The OECD. A Study of Organisational Adaptation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, P. and Kellow, A. (2012) The OECD. In: K.E. Jorgensen and K.V. Laatikainen (eds.) Routledge Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, L. and Kharas, H. (2011) Why can’t we all just get along? The practical limits to international development cooperation. Journal of International Development 23(5): 739–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colin, S. (2014) A matter of high interest: Assessing how loans are reported as development aid Brussels:EURODAD.

  • Cooper, A. (2012) The Group of Twenty: Input and Output Legitimacy, Reforms, and Agenda. Tokyo: ADBI Working Paper Series, 372.

  • Davies, P. (2008) Aid effectiveness and non-DAC providers of development assistance. Paper presented at the HLF-3, Round Table 9: The Changing Aid Architecture: Implications for Aid Effectiveness, Accra, Ghana.

  • Dreher, A., Fuchs, A. and Nunnenkamp, P. (2013) New donors. International Interactions 39(3): 402–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECOSOC (2007) A/RES/61/16 – Strengthening of the Economic and Social Council. New york.

  • ECOSOC (2008) International Development Cooperation Report: Trends and progress in international development cooperation. New york.

  • ECOSOC (2010) International Development Cooperation Report: Trends and progress in international development cooperation. New york.

  • ECOSOC (2012a) http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/dcf/index.shtml, consulted at 12 May 2014.

  • ECOSOC (2012b) International Development Cooperation Report: Trends and progress in international development cooperation. New York.

  • ECOSOC (2013) DCF Support Strategy: Preparation for the Development Cooperation Forum Phase IV: 2012–2014. New York.

  • Eyben, R. (2013) Struggles in Paris: The DAC and the purposes of development aid. European Journal of Development Research 25(1): 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyben, R. and Savage, L. (2012) Emerging and submerging powers: Imagined geographies in the new development partnership at the Busan fourth high level forum. Journal of Development Studies 49(4): 457–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J.D. (1998) Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization 52(02): 269–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster, J. and Stokke, O. (1999) Policy Coherence in Development Co-Operation. Abingdon, UK: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Führer, H. (1996) The Story of Official Development Assistance: A History of the Development Assistance Committee adn the Development Co-Operation Directorate in Dates, Names and Figures. Paris, France: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. and Burrall, S. (2008) Developing a Long-Term and Influential Role for the UN Development Cooperation Forum. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Secretariat Workshop on the DCF, New York.

  • Haas, P. (1992) Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. and McCarthy, T. (1985) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Hammad, L. and Morton, B. (2009) Non-DAC donors and reform of the international aid architecture. Ottowa: North-South Institute, Issues Brief.

  • Heiner, J., Klingebiel, S. and Mahn, T. (2014) How to Shape Development Cooperation? The Global Partnership and the Development Cooperation Forum. Bonn: DIE Briefing Paper, 3.

  • Hibben, M. (2013) Coalitions of change: Explaining IMF low-income country reform in the post-Washington consensus. Journal of international Relations and Development 18: 202–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, I. (1999) Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization 53(2): 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, I. (2002) Legitimacy, power, and the symbolic life of the UN. Global Governance 8: 35–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, W. and Carroll, P. (2013) Engaging with Arab donors: The DAC experience. Dublin: IIIS Discussion Paper, 424.

  • Kim, S. and Lightfoot, S. (2011) Does ‘DAC-ability’ really matter? The emergence of non-DAC Donors: Introduction to policy Arena. Journal of International Development 23(5): 711–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindornay, S. and Yiagadessen, S. (2013) Establishing a legitimate development co-operation architecture in the post-Busan era. In: H. Besada and S. Kindornay (eds.) Multilateral Development Cooperation in a Changing Global Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kragelund, P. (2011) Back to BASICs? The rejuvination of non-traditional donor’s development cooperation with Africa. Development and Change 42(2): 585–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, D. and Leech, R. (2009) Reforming the IMF and World Bank Governance: In Search of Simplicity, Transparency and Democratic Legitmacy in the Voting Rules. Warwick: The Warwick Economic Paper Series, 914.

  • Lieberherr, E. (2013) The role of throughput in the input-output legitimacy debate. Paper presented at the International Conference on Public Policy, Grenoble, France.

  • Mahon, R. and McBride, S. (eds.) (2008) The OECD and Transnational Governance. Toronto, Canada: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, R. (2008) The DAC as a Central Actor in Development Policy Issues: Exeperiences over the Past Four Years. Bonn: DIE Discussion Paper, Vol. 7.

  • Masujima, K. (2004) Good governance and the development assistance committee: Ideas and organizational constraint. In: M. Boas and D. McNeill (eds.) Global Institutions and Devleopment: Framing the World?. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. and Schoenstein, A. (2013) The United Nations Development Cooperation Forum Through a Women’s Right Lense. New York: UN-DCF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina, N. (2008) Can the UN Development Cooopeation Forum replace the OECD-DAC as the place for global aid negotiations? Brussels: EURODAD.

  • Moravcsik, A. and Sangiovanni, A. (2003) On Democracy and ‘Public Interest’ in the European Union. Lasi: CES Working Paper, 93, pp. 122–148.

  • Muhlen-Schulte, A. and Weinlich, S. (2011) Busan and the United Nations. Is it time to strenghten the ties? Bonn: GDI Policy Paper, November.

  • NEPAD (2014) 2014–2017 Strategic Plan – NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. Johannesburg.

  • OECD/DAC (1996) Shaping the 21st century: The contribution of development co-operation. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2005) DCD/DAC(2005)18/REV1. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2006) Aid for Trade: Making it Effective. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD/DAC (2007a) Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD/DAC (2007b) Trade Related Assistance – What do Recent Evaluations Tell us? Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD/DAC (2010a) Improving Governance Through Tax Reform. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD/DAC (2010b) Inside the DAC: A guide to the development assistance committee. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2011a) DCD/DAC(2011)36/Final: DAC Global Relations Strategy. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2011b) Managing Risks in Fragile and Transitional Contexts: The Price of Success?. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

  • OECD/DAC (2011c) Statistical reporting by the Bill & Melinda gates foundation to the OECD DAC. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2012a) DCD/DAC(2012)22: Statistical Reporting Issues. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2012b) DCD/DAC(2012)57: Work plan for DAC Global Relations in 2013. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2013a) DCD/DAC(2013)15/Final: Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the Annual DAC Questionnaire. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2013b) A Toolkit of Policy Options to Support Inclusive Green Growth. Paris, France: OECD.

  • OECD/DAC (2014a) The 2014 Arab-DAC dialogue on development. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2014b) DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics: DCD/DAC/STAT(2014)2. Paris, France.

  • OECD/DAC (2014c) DCD/DAC/STAT(2014)15. Paris, France.

  • Olsen, W. (2003) Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. In C. New and B. Carter (eds.) Critical Realism and Empirical Research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulo, S. and Reisen, H. (2010) Eastern donors and western soft law: Towards a DAC donor peer review of China and India? Development Policy Review 28(5): 535–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. (2010) Bureaucracy and democracy. Public Organization Review 70(4): 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto, R. (2011) The Multilateral Dimension of Development Effectiveness. Ottowa: North-South Institute: Canadian Development Report.

  • Quadir, F. (2013) Rising donors and the new narrative of ‘South – South’ cooperation: What prospects for changing the landscape of development assistance programmes? Third World Quarterly 34(2): 321–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2000) ‘Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54(01): 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2004) Transnational governance and legitimacy, http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~atasp/texte/tn_governance_benz.pdf, accessed 11 May 2012.

  • Risse, T. and Kleine, M. (2007) Assessing the legitimacy of the EU’s treaty revision methods. Journal of Common Market Studies 45(1): 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, D. (2012) Individual BRICS or a collective bloc? Convergence and divergence amongst ‘emerging donor’ nations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(4): 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruckert, A. (2008) Making neo-gramscian sense of the development assistance commitee. In: R. Mahon and S. McBride (eds.) The OECD and Transnational Governance. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1998) Demokratie in der transnationalen Politik. In: W. Streeck (ed.) Internationale Wirtschaft, nationale Demokratie Herausfonderungen für die Demokratietheorie. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1999) Governing in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A., Palazzo, G. and Seidl, D. (2013) Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies 50(2): 260–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. (2013) Democracy and legitimacy in the European union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies 61(1): 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, J.A. (2012) A more inclusive global governance? The IMF and civil society in Africa. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 18(2): 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., Fordelone, T.Y. and Zimmermann, F. (2010) Beyond the DAC: The Welcome Role of Other Providers of Development Co-operation. Paris: OECD: DCD Issues Brief – May.

  • Suchman, M. (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanborn, P. (2010) Case Study Research: What, Why and How?. New York: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2005) A/RES/60/1: General Assembly. 2005 World Summit Outcome New York.

  • UN (2014) The State of the Global Partnership for Development – MDG Gap Task Force Report 2014. New York: UN Publications.

  • Verschaeve, J. and Takacs, T. (2013) The EU’s international identity: The curious case of the OECD. In: H. Dewaele and J.-J. Kuipers (eds.) The Emergence of the European Union’s International Identity. Views from the Global Arena. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • vom Hau, M., Scott, J. and Hulme, D. (2012) Beyond the BRICs: Alternative strategies of influence in the global politics of development. European Journal of Development Research 24(2): 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walz, J. and Rachmandran, V. (2010) Brave New World: A Literature Review of Emerging Donors and the Changing Nature of Foreign Assistance. Washington: CGD Working Paper, 273.

  • Weber, M. (1920/1978) Economy and society. In: G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds.) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology Vol. 1. Los Angeles, CA: California University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. (2008a) Governing the Global Economy. New York: International Peace Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, N. (2008b) Whose aid? Whose influence? China, emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance. International Affairs 84(6): 1205–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, R. (2009) The Organization for Economic Development and Coordination. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaoyun, L. and Carey, R. (2014) The BRICS and the international development system: Challenge and convergence? IDS Evidence Report, Rising Powers in International Development(58).

  • Zimmermann, F. and Smith, K. (2011) More actors, more money, more ideas for international development co-operation. Journal of International Development 23(5): 722–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, M. (2000) Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations 6(2): 183–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Interviews

  • MS=Member State Official.

  • (1) MS donor country (expertise: DAC), Ghent, 22 December 2011.

  • (2) OECD-DAC Official, Paris, 16 January 2012.

  • (3) MS donor country (expertise: DAC), Paris, 16 January 2012.

  • (4) MS donor country (expertise: DAC, DCF), Paris, 17 January 2012.

  • (5) OECD-DAC Official, Paris, 17 January 2012.

  • (6) MS donor country (expertise: DAC), Paris, 18 January 2012.

  • (7) OECD-DAC Official, Paris, 19 January 2012.

  • (8) MS recipient country (expertise: DAC, DCF), Paris, 19 January 2012.

  • (9) MS donor country (expertise: DAC, DCF), Brussels, 24 April 2012.

  • (10) MEP donor country (expertise: DAC, DCF), Brussels, 24 April 2012.

  • (11) NGO representative (expertise: DAC, DCF), Brussels, 24 April 2012.

  • (12) UN-ECOSOC Official, telephone, 14 May 2012.

  • (13) OECD-DAC Official, Paris, 11 June 2012.

  • (14) MS donor country (expertise: DAC), Paris, 11 June 2012.

  • (15) MS donor country (expertise: DAC, DCF), Paris, 12 June 2012.

  • (16) MS donor country (expertise: DAC, DCF), Paris, 13 June 2012.

  • (17) UN-ECOSOC Official, telephone, 26 June 2012.

  • (18) OECD-DAC Official, London, 4 December 2012.

  • (19) MS recipient country (expertise: DCF), London, 4 December 2012.

  • (20) MS recipient country (expertise: DAC, DCF), London, 5 December 2012.

  • (21) NGO representative (expertise: DAC, DCF), London, 6 December 2012.

  • (22) UN-ECOSOC Official, telephone, 19 February 2013.

  • (23) UN-ECOSOC Official, telephone, 15 October 2013.

  • (24) MS donor country (expertise: DCF), Paris, 21 October 2013.

  • (25) MS donor country (expertise: DAC), Paris, 22 October 2013.

  • (26) MS recipient country (expertise: DAC, DCF), Paris, 22 October 2013.

  • (27) OECD-DAC Official, Paris, 30 October 2013.

  • (28) OED-DAC Official, Paris, 5 November 2013.

  • (29) MS donor country (expertise: DCF), Paris, 6 November 2013.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Martinus Desmet, the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their exceptionally helpful comments on this article. Any errors that remain are the author’s alone.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University, Gent, Belgium

    Joren Verschaeve & Jan Orbie

Authors
  1. Joren Verschaeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Orbie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joren Verschaeve.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verschaeve, J., Orbie, J. The DAC is Dead, Long Live the DCF? A Comparative Analysis of the OECD Development Assistance Committee and the UN Development Cooperation Forum. Eur J Dev Res 28, 571–587 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.27

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.27

Keywords

Search

Navigation