Advertisement

Small Donors in World Politics: The Role of Trust Funds in the Foreign Aid Policies of Central and Eastern European Donors

  • Balázs Szent-IványiEmail author
  • Bernhard Reinsberg
  • Simon Lightfoot
Original Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

The Central and Eastern European (CEE) EU member states have emerged as new donors of international development assistance since the turn of the millennium. The literature has tended to focus on the bilateral components of these policies, and neglected CEE multilateral aid. This paper contributes to filling this gap by examining how and why CEE donors contribute to trust funds operated by multilateral donors. The aim of the paper is twofold: First, it provides a descriptive account of how CEE countries use trust funds in the allocation of their foreign aid. Second, it explains this allocation using data from qualitative interviews with CEE officials. CEE countries make much less use of trust funds than might be expected. This is due not only to the loss of visibility and control over their resources, but also to how CEE companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) rarely achieve funding successes at multilateral organisations.

Keywords

Foreign aid Trust funds Multi-bi aid Central and Eastern Europe New donors International organisations 

Résumé

Les États membres d’Europe centrale et orientale (ECO) sont devenus de nouveaux bailleurs de l’aide internationale au développement après le tournant du millénaire. La littérature a eu tendance à se concentrer sur les composantes bilatérales de ces politiques et à négliger l’aide multilatérale de l’Europe centrale et orientale. Cet article contribue à combler cette lacune en examinant comment et pourquoi les bailleurs de l’Europe centrale et orientale contribuent aux fonds fiduciaires gérés par des organisations internationales. L’objectif de ce document est double: premièrement, il fournit un compte-rendu descriptif de la manière dont les pays d’Europe centrale et orientale utilisent les fonds fiduciaires pour l’affectation de leur aide publique au développement. Deuxièmement, il fournit une explication sur cette répartition à l’aide de données provenant d’entretiens qualitatifs avec des fonctionnaires des pays d’Europe centrale et orientale. Les pays d’Europe centrale et orientale utilisent beaucoup moins les fonds fiduciaire que ce qui était anticipé. Cela est dû non seulement à la perte de visibilité et de contrôle sur leurs ressources, mais également au fait que les entreprises et les ONG des pays d’Europe centrale et orientale rarement réuississent à gagner des contrats d’aide des organisations multilatérales.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Yoshi Kobayashi and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Addison, T., M. McGillivray, and M.O. Odedokun. 2004. Donor funding of multilateral aid agencies: Determining factors and revealed burden sharing. The World Economy 27 (2): 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annen, K. and S. Knack. 2016. On the delegation of aid implementation to multilateral agencies. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7455.Google Scholar
  3. Carbone, M. 2011. Development policy in a changing Europe—more donors, new challenges? In The frontiers of Europe: A transatlantic problem?, ed. F. Bindi and I. Angelescu, 151–165. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  4. CONCORD. 2015. Looking to the future, don’t forget the past. Aid beyond 2015. Brussels: CONCORD.Google Scholar
  5. Dietrich, S., B. Reinsberg, and M. Steinwand. 2018. Network governance in international organizations: Lessons from World Bank trust funds. Presented at PEIO conference, Madison, WI, 6–8 February.Google Scholar
  6. Eichenauer, V.Z., and B. Reinsberg. 2017. What determines earmarked funding to international development organizations? Evidence from the new multi-bi aid data. Review of International Organizations 12 (2): 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graham, E.R. 2017. The institutional design of funding rules at international organizations: Explaining the transformation in financing the United Nations. European Journal of International Relations 23 (2): 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hauck, V., A. Knoll, and A. Herrero Cangas. 2015. EU Trust Funds—Shaping more comprehensive external action? ECDPM Briefing Note 81.Google Scholar
  9. Hawkins, D.G., D.A. Lake, D.L. Nielson, and M.J. Tierney, eds. 2006. Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Horký, O. 2012. The transfer of the central and Eastern European ‘transition experience’ to the South: Myth or reality? Perspectives on European Politics and Society 13 (1): 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horký-Hlucháň, O., and S. Lightfoot (eds.). 2015. Development cooperation of the ‘New’ EU member states. Beyond europeanization. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2017. Jelentés Magyarország 2016. évi nemzetközi fejlesztési és nemzetközi humanitárius segítségnyújtási tevékenységéről (Report on Hungary’s international development and humanitarian aid actvities in 2016). Budapest: MFAT.Google Scholar
  13. Jacoby, W. 2001. Tutors and pupils: International organizations, Central European elites, and Western models. Governance 14 (2): 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jervis, R. 2017. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kajnč, S. 2011. Slovenia: Searching for a foreign policy identity via the EU. In National and European Foreign Policies: Towards Europeanization, ed. R. Wong and C. Hill, 189–209. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Kersting, E., and C. Kilby. 2018. Do domestic politics shape U.S. influence in the World Bank? The Review of International Organizations.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9321-8.Google Scholar
  17. Knack, S., and A. Rahman. 2007. Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients. Journal of Development Economics 83 (1): 176–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kentikelenis, A.E., and L. Seabrooke. 2017. The politics of world polity: Script-writing in international organizations. American Sociological Review 82 (5): 1065–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLean, E.V. 2012. Donors’ preferences and agent choice: Delegation of European development aid. International Studies Quarterly 56 (2): 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McLean, E.V. 2015. Multilateral aid and domestic economic interests. International Organization 69 (1): 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Michaelowa, K., B. Reinsberg, and C. Schneider. 2017. Multi-bi aid in European development assistance: The role of capacity constraints and member state politics. Development Policy Review 35 (4): 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milner, H., and D. Tingley. 2013. The choice for multilateralism: Foreign aid and American foreign policy. Review of International Organizations 8 (3): 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niemann, A., and N. Zaun. 2018. Introduction: European migration and refugee policies and politics in times of crisis: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD. 2016. Development: DAC1 table. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE 1. Accessed 2 Jan 2016.
  25. OECD. 2017a. Development: Creditor Reporting System. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CRS1. Accessed 31 Dec 2017.
  26. OECD. 2017b. OECD Development co-operation peer reviews: Slovenia 2017. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Panchuk, D., F. Bossuyt, and J. Orbie. 2017. The substance of EU democratic governance promotion via transgovernmental cooperation with the Eastern neighbourhood. Democratization 24 (6): 1044–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Panke, D. 2012. Small states in multilateral negotiations. What have we learned? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (3): 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2015. The multiannual development cooperation programme 2016–2020. Warsaw: MFA.Google Scholar
  30. Reinsberg, B., K. Michaelowa, and V.Z. Eichenauer. 2015. The rise of multi-bi aid and the proliferation of trust funds. In Handbook on the economics of foreign aid, ed. M. Arvin and B. Lew, 527–554. Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinsberg, B., K. Michaelowa, and S. Knack. 2017. Which donors, which funds? The choice of multilateral funds by bilateral donors at the World Bank. International Organization 71 (4): 767–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reinsberg, B. 2016. The implications of multi-bi financing on multilateral agencies: The example of the World Bank. In The fragmentation of aid: concepts, measurements and implications for development cooperation, ed. T. Mahn, M. Negre, and S. Klingebiel, 185–198. Palgrave: Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reinsberg, B. 2017. Trust funds as a lever of influence in international organizations. Global Policy 8 (5): 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth, M. 2011. Poland as policy entrepreneur in European external energy policy: Towards greater energy solidarity vis-à-vis Russia? Geopolitics 16 (3): 600–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider, C.J. and J.L. Tobin. 2011. Eenie, meenie, miney, moe? Institutional portfolios and delegation to multilateral aid institutions. World Bank CFP Working Paper Series, No. 5.Google Scholar
  36. Schneider, C.J., and J.L. Tobin. 2013. Interest coalitions and multilateral aid allocation in the European Union. International Studies Quarterly 57 (1): 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Szent-Iványi, B., and A. Tétényi. 2013. The East-Central European new donors: mapping capacity building and remaining challenges. Journal of International Development 25 (6): 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Szent-Iványi, B., and S. Lightfoot. 2015. New Europe’s new development aid. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szent-Iványi, B., Z. Végh, and S. Lightfoot. 2018. Branding for business? Hungary and the sustainable development goals. Journal of International Relations and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0127-8.Google Scholar
  40. Timofejevs Henriksson, P. 2013. The Europeanisation of Foreign Aid Policy: Slovenia and Latvia 1998–2010. Umea: Umea University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Törő, C., E. Butler, and K. Grúber. 2014. Visegrád: The evolving pattern of coordination and partnership after EU enlargement. Europe-Asia Studies 66 (3): 364–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tortora, P., and S. Steensen. 2014. Making earmarked funding more effective: Current practices and a way forward. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  43. UNDP. 2013. Czech-UNDP Trust Fund Fact Sheet. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbec/docs/Czech-UNDP%20Trust%20Fund%20factsheet%20.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
  44. Verschaeve, J., and J. Orbie. 2018. Ignoring the elephant in the room? Assessing the impact of the European Union on the Development Assistance Committee’s role in international development. Development Policy Review 36 (S1): O44–O58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Interviews

  1. INT#01: Former UNDP expert, 05/10/2017, Skype.Google Scholar
  2. INT#02: UNDP expert, 05/10/2017, Skype.Google Scholar
  3. INT#03: UNDP expert, 11/10/2017, Skype.Google Scholar
  4. INT#04: Czech MFA senior official, 13/11/2017, Prague.Google Scholar
  5. INT#05: group interview, two Czech MFA officials, 13/11/2017, Prague.Google Scholar
  6. INT#06: group interview, three Czech MFA officials, 13/11/2017, Prague.Google Scholar
  7. INT#07: group interview, three Czech Ministry of Finance officials, 14/11/2017, Prague.Google Scholar
  8. INT#08: Czech NGO expert, 18/12/2017, Skype.Google Scholar
  9. INT#09: Slovenian MFA official, 29/05/2017, email.Google Scholar
  10. INT#10: group interview, two Slovenian Ministry of Finance officials, 05/12/2017, Skype.Google Scholar
  11. INT#11: Lithuanian MFA official, 24/05/2017, email.Google Scholar
  12. INT#12: Hungarian MFA official, 10/12/2017, phone.Google Scholar
  13. INT#13: Slovenian expert on development cooperation, 02/06/2018, Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  14. INT#14: Slovenian NGO expert, 30/01/2018, email.Google Scholar
  15. INT#15: Lithuanian MFA senior official, 04/05/2018, Vilnius.Google Scholar
  16. INT#16: Lithuanian NGO expert, 04/05/2018, Vilnius.Google Scholar
  17. INT#17: UNDP expert, 13/06/2018, Bucharest.Google Scholar
  18. INT#18: Lithuanian MFA official, 15/06/2018, phone.Google Scholar
  19. INT#19: Slovakian MFA official, 15/06/2018, presentation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aston Centre for EuropeAston UniversityBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Institute of World EconomyCorvinus University BudapestBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Centre for Business ResearchUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  5. 5.School of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations