Abstract
“Absorptive capacity” is a frequently used term amongst development practitioners in education. It is adopted by some as a reason for caution over scaling up aid. Others are of the view that absorptive capacity is an excuse by some donors for not delivering on their Education for All financing commitments. Drawing on interviews with representatives from NGOs, development agencies and international consultants, the paper highlights that there are a variety of ways in which the term is understood. Overall, it finds that absorptive capacity should not be seen as a reason for not increasing aid. Rather there is a need to unpack the concept to ensure that bottlenecks can be identified and addressed. In breaking “absorptive capacity” down into component parts, it then becomes possible to identify alternative strategies that donors and national governments need to address to ensure that increased aid reaches schools and improves educational outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Several attempts have been made to measure the resource gap for achieving universal primary completion at acceptable levels of quality with estimates ranging from $7 billion to $17 billion per year (see for example Bruns et al. 2003; UNESCO 2002; DFID and HM Treasury 2005). Even the highest of these is considered to be an underestimate if appropriate learning outcomes and the demands on secondary schooling are also taken into account (World Bank 2006).
The findings are based on a review of economics and education literature and interviews with 46 stakeholders from a range of agencies. The paper was commissioned by the Global Campaign for Education, UK Department for International Development and Ministry of Foreign Affairs France, on behalf of the Fast Track Initiative, Finance Working Group. Many thanks to Gaurav Siddhu for his support to the research. The findings, interpretations and conclusions are those of the author, and do not reflect those of the FTI Partnership or agencies funding the study. The full report is available from author.
Gupta et al. (2005, p. 10) define AC more specifically, differentiating between aid and domestic resources, such that “Aid absorption is defined as the extent to which a country’s nonaid current account deficit widens in response to an increase in aid flows”. This definition is adopted by Foster and Killick (2006), in assessing the impact of doubling aid on macroeconomic management in Africa. However, the definition results in a relatively narrow focus on macroeconomic aspects of AC.
All interviews with the 46 stakeholders are anonymous.
References
Bevan, D. L. (2005). An analytical overview of aid absorption: Recognizing and avoiding macroeconomic hazards. Paper presented at the Seminar on Foreign Aid and Macroeconomic Management, Maputo, March 14–15, 2005.
Bourguignon, F., & Sundberg, M. (2006). Absorptive capacity and achieving the MDGs. United Nations University Research Paper No. 2006/47. World Institute for Development Economics Research, UNU–WIDER.
Bruns, B., Mingat, A., & Rakatomalala, R. (2003). Achieving universal primary education by 2015. A chance for every child. Washington DC: World Bank.
Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, policies and growth. American Economic Review, 90(4), 847–868.
Chapman, D. (2002). Corruption and the education sector. Sectoral perspectives on corruption. USAID, rapid response task. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/ac/sector/education.doc.
Clemens, M., & Radelet, S. (2003). The millennium challenge account: How much is too much, how long is long enough? Centre for Global Development Working Paper No. 23.
Collier, P. (2005). Is aid oil? An analysis of whether Africa can absorb more aid. Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2002). Aid, policy, and growth in post-conflict societies. European Economic Review, 48(5), 1125–1145.
Commission for Africa. (2005). Our common interest. Report of the Commission for Africa. UK Government: London.
De Renzio, P. (2005). Increased aid vs absorptive capacity: Challenges and opportunities towards 2015. IDS Bulletin, 36(3), 20–27. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
DeStefano, J., Balwanz, D., Schuh Moore, A. M., & Hartwell, A. (2006). Meeting EFA; reaching the underserved through complementary models of effective schooling. Washington DC: USAID.
Development Committee. (2004). Statements submitted to the seventieth meeting of the development committee on the transfer of real resources to developing countries. World Bank: Washington DC.
DFID & HM Treasury. (2005). From commitment to action: Education. London: Department for International Development.
Dyer, C., & Rose, P. (2005). Decentralisation for educational development: An editorial introduction. Compare, 35(2), 105–114.
Foster, M., & Keith, A. (2003). The case for increased aid, Vol. 1, report for Department for International Development, London.
Foster, M., & Killick, T. (2006). What would doubling aid do for macroeconomic management in Africa? Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 264. ODI, London.
Freeman, T., & Faure, S. (2003). Local solutions to global challenges. Towards effective partnership in basic education. The Netherlands: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Global Campaign for Education, ActionAid International. (2005). Contradicting commitments: How the achievement of education for all is being undermined by the International Monetary Fund. London: GCE.
Gomanee, K., Girma, S., & Morrissey, O. (2003). Searching for aid threshold effects. School of Economics, University of Nottingham: CREDIT Research Paper 03/15.
Gupta, S., Powell, P., & Yang, Y. (2005). The macroeconomic challenges of scaling up aid to Africa. IMF Working Paper 05/179. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.
Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (1999). Aid effectiveness disputed. School of economics, University of Nottingham: CREDIT Research Paper 99/10.
Hanson, K., Ranson, M. K., Oliveira-Cruz, V., & Mills, A. (2003). Expanding access to priority health interventions: A framework for understanding the constraints to scaling up. Journal of International Development, 15, 1–14.
Killick, T. (2005). Don’t throw money at Africa. IDS Bulletin, 36(3), 14–19. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Murphy, P. (2005). Education, educators and financing modalities: Reflections on experiences in Uganda. Journal of International Development, 17, 131–147.
Rajan, R. (2005). Aid and growth: The policy challenge. Finance and Development: A Quarterly Magazine of the IMF, 42 (4). http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/12/straight.htm.
Reimers, F., DeShano Da Silva, C., & Trevino, E. (2006). Where is the “education” in conditional cash transfers in education? UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal.
UNDP. (2005). Human development report 2005. UNDP, New York. Available at hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR05_complete.pdf.
UNESCO. (2002). Education for all global monitoring report: Is the world on track? UNESCO: Paris.
UNESCO. (2009). Education for all global monitoring report: Overcoming inequality: Why governance matters. UNESCO: Paris.
White, H. (2005). The case for doubling aid. IDS Bulletin, 36(3), 8–13. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
World Bank. (2005). Global monitoring report: Millennium development goals: From consensus to momentum. World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank. (2006). From schooling access to learning outcomes: An unfinished agenda. An evaluation of World Bank support to primary education. Washington DC: World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Rose, P. Scaling-up aid to education: Is absorptive capacity a constraint?. Prospects 39, 109–122 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9115-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9115-0