The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 160–175 | Cite as

The Evolution of South-South Development Cooperation: Guiding Principles and Approaches

  • Sandra H Bry
Original Article


South-South Cooperation (SSC) has attracted the attention of the development community in terms of both its ‘impact’ on traditional aid and the integration of its values into the work of multilateral institutions, making it the new ‘buzzword’ of the aid community. However, few studies have been carried out to understand the rationale of SSC and how it influences the approaches followed in its development assistance activities or ‘South-South Development Cooperation’ (SSDC). Therefore, this article explores the origins and development of the SSC concept from the perspectives of southern countries and shows how they affect the narrative related to the implementation model of SSDC. The research uses a narrative literature review focusing on southern countries’ understandings of both SSC and SSDC, thus enabling two sets of categorization: one for the conceptual elements in the definition of SSC outside its geographical component and the other for the guiding principles and approaches of SSDC.


south-south cooperation south-south development cooperation traditional aid non-DAC countries southern countries’ narrative aid effectiveness 


La Coopération Sud-Sud (CSS) a attiré l’attention de la communauté internationale du développement, soit à cause de son impact sur l’aide au développement traditionnelle, soit grâce à l’intégration de ses valeurs dans le travail des organisations multilatérales; tant que « Coopération Sud-Sud » est maintenant la nouvelle « expression à la mode » dans les débats sur l’aide internationale. Cependant, bien peu d’études ont été faites sur le raisonnement du concept CSS, et sur comment ce concept influence cette coopération dans ses activités d’assistance en matière de développement ou « Coopération au Développement Sud-Sud » (CDSS). Cet article explore les origines et le développement du concept CSS du point de vue des pays du Sud, et démontre comment ils influencent la narrative sur l’implémentation du model SSDC. L’analyse documentaire se concentre sur la compréhension que les pays du Sud ont des concepts de SSC et SSDC, créant deux catégorisations: l’une pour les éléments conceptuels qui définissent la CSS hors son component géographique; et l’autre pour les principes directeurs et les approches de la CDSS.


  1. Actionaid International (2006) Real aid 2: Making technical assistance work,, accessed 11 June 2012.
  2. Altemani, H. and Lessa, A.C. (2006) Relações internacionais do Brasil: temas e agendas, 1st edn. São Paulo, Brazil: Saraiva.Google Scholar
  3. Ashe, J.W. (2014) Remarks by H.E. Mr. John W. Ashe, President of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Opening of the 18th session of the High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation, New York, 19 May.Google Scholar
  4. Assie-Lumumba, N. (2015) Behind and beyond Bandung: Historical and forward-looking reflections on South-South cooperation. Bandung: Journal of the Global South 2(11),
  5. Ayllón, B. (2009) Cooperación Sur-Sur: innovación y transformación en la cooperación internacional. Editorial Siglo XXI. Madrid, Spain: Fundación Carolina.Google Scholar
  6. Ayllon, B. (2012a) Contribuciones de Brasil al desarrollo internacional: coaliciones emergentes y cooperación Sur-Sur. Revista CIDOB d’afers internacionals, April, 97–98: 189–204.Google Scholar
  7. Ayllón, B. (2012b) Desafíos del diálogo entre cooperaciones. In: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto (ed.) Encuentro Argentina-Unión Europea: Por la construcción del diálogo Sur-Norte en la Cooperación Internacional al Desarrollo. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, pp. 21–49.Google Scholar
  8. Bandung Conference (1955) Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference, Asia-Africa speak from Bandung. Djakarta: THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Republic of Indonesia, pp. 161–169.Google Scholar
  9. Betancourt, M. and Schulz, N.S. (2009) South-South cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Ways ahead following Accra. Comment, FRIDE, March.Google Scholar
  10. Better Aid (2010) Policy paper on South-South development cooperation. Better Aid coordinating group,, accessed 11 June 2012.
  11. Bilal, S. (2012) The Rise of South-South Relations: Development Partnerships Reconsidered. Brussels, Belgium: European Centre for Development Policy Management.Google Scholar
  12. Birdsall, N. (2004) Seven Deadly Sins: Reflections on Donor Failings. Center for Global Development, Working Paper No. 50, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  13. Birdsall, N. (2012) The Global Financial Crisis: The Beginning of the End of the ‘Development’ Agenda? Center for Global Development, CGD Policy Paper (3), Washington DC.Google Scholar
  14. Bobiash, D. (1992) South-South Aid: How Developing Countries Help Each Other. London: St Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cabral, L. and Shankland, A. (2013) Narratives of Brazil-Africa Cooperation for Agriculture Development: New Paradigms? CBAA Working Paper 51, March, Future Agricultures.Google Scholar
  16. Cabral, L., Russo, G. and Weinstock, J. (2014) Brazil and the shifting consensus on development co-operation: Salutary diversions from the ‘aid-effectiveness’ trail? Development Policy Review 32(2): 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chahoud, T. (2007) South-South Cooperation: Opportunities and Challenges for International Cooperation. German Development Institute, Briefing Paper (09/2007), Bonn.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chaturvedi, S., Fues, T. and Sidiropoulos, E. (2012) Development Cooperation and Emerging Powers: New Partners or Old Patterns?. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  20. Chin, G. and Quadir, F. (2012) Introduction: Rising states, rising donors and the global aid regime. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25(4): 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clay, E.J., Geddes, M., Natali, L. and te Velde, D.W. (2008) Thematic Study, The Developmental Effectiveness of Untied Aid: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration and of the 2001 DAC Recommendation on Untying ODA to the LDCs, Phase I Report. Copenhagen, Denmark: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).Google Scholar
  22. Comisión del Sur (1991) Desafío para el Sur. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  23. Corbin, G. (2006) South-South cooperation defies the north. Global envision,, accessed 13 March 2012.
  24. Costa Vaz, A. and Inoue, C.Y.A. (2007) Emerging Donors in International Development Assistance: The Brazil Case. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  25. CUTS (Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment) (2005) Trilateral Development Cooperation: An Emerging Trend. CUTS Briefing Paper 1, Jaipur.Google Scholar
  26. Davies, P. (2008) Aid Effectiveness and Non-DAC Providers of Development Assistance. Consultative Findings Document, Informal Working Group on non‐DAC Providers of Development Assistance, Background Document to Round Table 9: ‘The Changing Aid Architecture: Implications for Aid Effectiveness’, of the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Accra, Ghana, 2–4 September.Google Scholar
  27. Davies, P. (2010) South-South cooperation: Moving towards a new aid dynamic. In: IPC-IG (ed.) Poverty in Focus (20). Brasilia, Brazil: International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth.Google Scholar
  28. de Mello e Souza, A. (2012) A cooperação para o desenvolvimento Sul-Sul: os casos do Brasil, da Índia e da China. Boletim de Economia e Política Internacional 9(Jan-March): 89–99.Google Scholar
  29. Development Committee (2010) Communiqué, April 25. Washington, DC,, accessed 6 July 2012.
  30. Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P. and Thiele, R. (2011) Are ‘new’ donors different? Comparing the allocation of bilateral aid between nonDAC and DAC donor countries. World Development 39(11): 1950–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Easterly, W. (2006) The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  32. Eurodad (2006) World Bank and IMF Conditionality: A Development Injustice. Eurodad Report (June). Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  33. Eyben, R. (2013) Building Relationships in Development Cooperation: Traditional Donors and Rising Powers. IDS Policy Briefings. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  34. Fordelone, T.Y. (2009) Triangular Co-Operation and Aid Effectiveness: Can Triangular Co-Operation Make Aid More Effective? Paris, France: OECD–DAC.Google Scholar
  35. Fukuda-Parr, S. (2011) Theory and policy in international development: Human development and capability approach and the millennium development goals. International Studies Review 13(1): 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. G77 and China (2009) Ministerial declaration of the 33rd annual meeting of the ministers of foreign affairs of the member states of the group of 77 and China, 25 September, New York,
  37. Gore, C. (2000) The rise and fall of the Washington consensus as a paradigm for developing countries. World Development 28(5): 789–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gray, K. and Murphy, C.N. (2013) Introduction: Rising powers and the future of global governance. Third World Quarterly 34(2): 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IPEA (2010) Cooperação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Internacional: 2005–2009. Brasilia, Brazil.Google Scholar
  40. Jepma, C.J. (1991) The Tying of Aid. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  41. Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L. and Lacey, F.M. (2011) Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Kaplinsky, R. and Farooki, M. (2009) Africa’s Cooperation with New and Emerging Development Partners: Options for Africa’s Development. New York: Office of the Special Advisor on Africa, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.Google Scholar
  43. Konijn, P. (2013) The Emergence of South-South Cooperation. Views from Brazil and India, Knowing Emerging Powers.Google Scholar
  44. Ladd, P. (2010) Between a rock and a hard place: LDCs in a G-20 world. In: IPC-IG (ed.) Poverty in Focus (20). Brasilia, Brazil: International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth.Google Scholar
  45. Lechini, G. (2009) La cooperación Sur-Sur y la búsqueda de autonomía en América Latina: Mito o realidad? South-South Cooperation and the search for autonomy in Latin America: Myth or Reality? Relaciones Internacionales, No. 12, Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
  46. Manning, R. (2006) Will ‘emerging donors’ change the face of international co-operation? Development Policy Review 24(4): 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mawdsley, E. (2012) The changing geographies of foreign aid and development cooperation: Contributions from gift theory. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37(2): 256–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mawdsley, E., Savage, L. and Kim, S. (2013) A ‘post-aid world’? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan high level forum. The Geographical Journal 180(1): 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morais de Sá eSilva, M. (2010) How did we get here? The pathways of South-South cooperation. In: IPC-IG (ed.) Poverty in Focus (20). Brasilia, Brazil: International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth.Google Scholar
  50. Naim, M. (2007) Rogue aid. Foreign Policy 159(March/April): 95–96.Google Scholar
  51. NeST AFRICA (2015) Developing a conceptual framework for South−South co-operation. Working Document, September, Johannesburg,
  52. OECD (1996) Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Co-Operation. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  53. Ojeda, T. (2010) La cooperación sur-sur y la regionalización en América Latina: el despertar de un gigante dormido|South-South Cooperation and regionalization in Latin America: The awakening of the asleep giant. Relaciones Internacionales, No. 15.Google Scholar
  54. Park, K. (2011) New development partners and a global development partnership. In: H. Kharas, W. Jung and K. Makino (eds.) Catalyzing Development. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34(3): 380–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pickup, M. (2012) South-South cooperation: A rights-based approach to aid effectiveness? e-International Relations,, accessed 6 July 2012.
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rani, D.M. (2014) IDCR Report: The State of Indian Development Cooperation. Spring, Indian Development Cooperation Research (IDCR), New Delhi.Google Scholar
  60. Ranis, G. (2007) Toward the Enhanced Effectiveness of Foreign Aid. Research Paper No. 42, World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER), Helsinki.Google Scholar
  61. Riddell, R. (2007) Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Rowlands, D. (2008) Emerging Donors in International Development Assistance: A Synthesis Report. Ottawa: Partnership and Business Development Division, IDRC.Google Scholar
  63. Roy, R. (2010) Editors foreword. In: IPC-IG (ed.) Poverty in Focus (20). Brasilia, Brazil: International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth.Google Scholar
  64. Sanahuja, J.A. (2007) ¿Más y mejor ayuda? La Declaración de París y las tendencias en la cooperación al Desarrollo. In: M. Mesa (ed.) Guerra y conflictos en el Siglo XXI: Tendencias globales. Madrid, Spain: CEIPAZ, pp. 71–101.Google Scholar
  65. Sanahuja, J.A. (2010) Post-liberal regionalism: S-S cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean. In: IPC-IG (ed.) Poverty in Focus (20). Brasilia, Brazil: International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth.Google Scholar
  66. Saraiva, M.G. (2007) South-South cooperation strategies in Brazilian foreign policy from 1993 to 2007. Revista Brasileira De Politica Internacional 50(2): 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sato, J., Shiga, H., Kobayashi, T. and Kondoh, H. (2011) Emerging donors from a recipient perspective: Institutional analysis of foreign aid in Cambodia. World Development 39(12): 2091–2104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schläger, C. (2007) New powers for global change? Challenges for international development cooperation: The case of Brasil. Berlin, Germany: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Briefing Paper No. 3.Google Scholar
  69. Schulz, N.S. (2008) De Accra al 2011: Perspectivas para la gobernanza global de la ayuda. FRIDE, Comentario (September).Google Scholar
  70. SEGIB (2009) Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en Iberoamérica 2009. Estudios (4),
  71. SEGIB (2010) Informe de la Cooperación Sur-Sur en Iberoamérica 2010. Estudios (5),
  72. SEGIB (2011) Report on South-South Cooperation in Ibero-America 2011. Estudios (6),
  73. SEGIB (2012) Report on South-South Cooperation in Ibero-America 2012. Estudios (7), Madrid.Google Scholar
  74. SEGIB (2014) Report on South-South Cooperation in Ibero-America 2013-2014. Estudios (8). Madrid: SEGIB,, accessed 29 January 2015.
  75. Six, C. (2009) The rise of postcolonial states as donors: A challenge to the development paradigm? Third World Quarterly 30(6): 1103–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Soares de Lima, M.R. and Hirst, M. (2006) Brazil as an intermediate state and regional power: Action, choice and responsibilities. International Affairs 82(1): 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. South Centre (2005) South-South cooperation: The challenge of implementation. Background policy paper submitted to the eleventh meeting of the intergovernmental follow-up and coordination committee on economic cooperation among developing countries (G77/IFCC-XI/3), Havana, Cuba, 21–23 March,
  78. SU-SSC (Special Unit for South-South Cooperation) (2009a) Enhancing South-South and Triangular Cooperation: Study of the Current Situation and Existing Good Practice in Policy, Institutions and Operation of South-South and Triangular Cooperation. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  79. SU-SSC (Special Unit for South-South Cooperation) (2009b) South Report 2009. Perspectives on South-South Cooperation for Development. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  80. Tejasvi, A. (2007) South-South capacity development: The way to grow? World Bank Institute, Capacity Development Briefs (20), Washington DC.Google Scholar
  81. TT-SSC (Task-Team on South-South Cooperation) (2010) Boosting South-South Cooperation in the Context of Aid Effectiveness: Telling the Story of Partners Involved in More Than 110 Cases of South-South and Triangular Cooperation. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  82. Ul Haq, M. (1980) Beyond the slogan of South-South cooperation. World Development 8(10): 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. UNCTAD (2010) South‐South Co‐Operation: Africa and the New Forms of Development Partnership. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  84. UN-CTCDC (United Nations Conference on Technical Co-operation for Developing Countries) (1978) Buenos Aires plan of action,
  85. UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) (2010) International Development Cooperation Report 2010. Development Cooperation for the MDGs: Maximizing Results. New York: United Nations,
  86. UNDP (2009) Enhancing South-South and Triangular Cooperation. Study by UNDP Special Unit South-South Cooperation. New York.Google Scholar
  87. UNDP (2013) 2014–2017 Strategic Plan, ‘Changing with the World’. New York.Google Scholar
  88. UNDP (2014) International Development Evaluation: Comparing DAC and Non-DAC Approaches. Prepared for: Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation (CAITEC). United Nations Development Programme, China and Goss Gilroy Inc. Consultants, December.Google Scholar
  89. UN-ECOSOC (2008) Trends in South-South and Triangular Development Cooperation. Background Study for the Development Cooperation Forum. New York.Google Scholar
  90. U.N. General Assembly (1977) 32nd session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. United Nations Conference on Technical co-operation among developing countries.(A/RES/32/183) 19 December, New York.Google Scholar
  91. Vaes, S. and Huyse, H. (2013) New Voices on South-South Cooperation Between Emerging Powers and Africa – African Civil Society Perspective. 11.11.11 Research chair on Development Cooperation, HIVA-KU, Leuven.Google Scholar
  92. Vieira, M.A. and Alden, C. (2011) India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA): South-South cooperation and the paradox of regional leadership. Global Governance 17(4): 507–528.Google Scholar
  93. Vigevani, T. and Cepaluni, G. (2007) A política externa de Lula da Silva: A estratégia da autonomia pela diversificação. Contexto Internacional 29(2): 273–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. vom Hau, M., Scott, J. and Hulme, D. (2012) Beyond the BRICs: Alternative strategies of influence in the global politics of development introduction. European Journal of Development Research 24(2): 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Walz, J. and Ramachandran, V. (2011) A Literature Review of Emerging Donors and the Changing Nature of Foreign Assistance. Center for Global Development, Working Paper (273), Washington DC.Google Scholar
  96. Woods, N. (2008) Whose aid? Whose influence? China, emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance. International Affairs 84(6): 1205–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations