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

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.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Source based on data coded by the authors from OECD (2017a) for multi-bi aid and OECD (2016) for multilateral aid. CEE donors in black

Fig. 2

Source authors’ coding based on OECD (2016, 2017a)

Fig. 3

Source authors, based on OECD (2017a)

Fig. 4

Source authors, based on OECD (2017a)

Fig. 5

Source authors, based on OECD (2017a)

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hauck, V., A. Knoll, and A. Herrero Cangas. 2015. EU Trust Funds—Shaping more comprehensive external action? ECDPM Briefing Note 81.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  13. Jacoby, W. 2001. Tutors and pupils: International organizations, Central European elites, and Western models. Governance 14 (2): 169–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jervis, R. 2017. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McLean, E.V. 2012. Donors’ preferences and agent choice: Delegation of European development aid. International Studies Quarterly 56 (2): 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McLean, E.V. 2015. Multilateral aid and domestic economic interests. International Organization 69 (1): 97–130.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Panke, D. 2012. Small states in multilateral negotiations. What have we learned? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (3): 387–398.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reinsberg, B. 2017. Trust funds as a lever of influence in international organizations. Global Policy 8 (5): 85–95.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Szent-Iványi, B., and S. Lightfoot. 2015. New Europe’s new development aid. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Interviews

  1. INT#01: Former UNDP expert, 05/10/2017, Skype.

  2. INT#02: UNDP expert, 05/10/2017, Skype.

  3. INT#03: UNDP expert, 11/10/2017, Skype.

  4. INT#04: Czech MFA senior official, 13/11/2017, Prague.

  5. INT#05: group interview, two Czech MFA officials, 13/11/2017, Prague.

  6. INT#06: group interview, three Czech MFA officials, 13/11/2017, Prague.

  7. INT#07: group interview, three Czech Ministry of Finance officials, 14/11/2017, Prague.

  8. INT#08: Czech NGO expert, 18/12/2017, Skype.

  9. INT#09: Slovenian MFA official, 29/05/2017, email.

  10. INT#10: group interview, two Slovenian Ministry of Finance officials, 05/12/2017, Skype.

  11. INT#11: Lithuanian MFA official, 24/05/2017, email.

  12. INT#12: Hungarian MFA official, 10/12/2017, phone.

  13. INT#13: Slovenian expert on development cooperation, 02/06/2018, Ljubljana.

  14. INT#14: Slovenian NGO expert, 30/01/2018, email.

  15. INT#15: Lithuanian MFA senior official, 04/05/2018, Vilnius.

  16. INT#16: Lithuanian NGO expert, 04/05/2018, Vilnius.

  17. INT#17: UNDP expert, 13/06/2018, Bucharest.

  18. INT#18: Lithuanian MFA official, 15/06/2018, phone.

  19. INT#19: Slovakian MFA official, 15/06/2018, presentation.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Balázs Szent-Iványi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szent-Iványi, B., Reinsberg, B. & Lightfoot, S. Small Donors in World Politics: The Role of Trust Funds in the Foreign Aid Policies of Central and Eastern European Donors. Eur J Dev Res 31, 663–683 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-018-0175-y

Download citation

Keywords

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