Abstract
Transformations of the global economic and geo-political orders brought on at the dawn of the twenty-first century have affected development assistance (DA). Many emerging economies (EEs), among them those of the BRICS, have come to aspire to global recognition. By becoming players in the development assistance marketplace, they assert themselves as emerging nations in their own right and leaders in their regions, both sources of soft power. While some countries assert their identity on nationalistic grounds, enhanced by DA on a bilateral basis, others seek to harness the dividends of globalization as a vehicle to assist lagging countries by bringing them into the global community and marketplace. Established rules of international relations among nation states drive the approach to DA by the former, whereas the latter are driven by the emerging and still imperfect global governance (Kumar & Messner, 2010, pp. 8–9).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In addition to being an active member of the BRICS club, Brazil had earlier sought—under a separate cluster—an association with India and South Africa, known as IBAS, covering a menu of topics for cooperation among them, which suits their shared technological and scientific aspirations (Iglesias, 2010).
- 2.
Phillips (2013) compiles illustrations of the shortcomings of Official Development Assistance (ODA). David A. Philips (Eds.). Development without aid: the decline of development aid and the rise of the diaspora. London: Anthem Press/Wimbledon Publishing Co., 2013.
- 3.
These refer to health, security, climate change, poverty, refugees and immigration, among others.
- 4.
On the case for public goods, see for example, World Bank Development Committee (2007).
- 5.
Also known as “rising states”, “emerging powers” or “great peripheral countries”. Together they represented in 2009 6.4% of total ODA. While none of the BRICS are members of the OECD, Brazil has recently (May 30, 2017) applied to accede. OECD estimates that in 2014 EEs contributed 17% of total global DA or approximately US$32 billion. Although heavily weighted by contributions of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, if a broader concept of contribution to DA is used, this figure might grow tenfold.
- 6.
Not included in the BRICS, yet meeting some of the emerging donor criteria are Turkey, Mexico, Chile and South Korea (OECD/non-DAC). Non-OECD and falling in no other categories are Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia.
- 7.
- 8.
The principles are ownership, alignment, harmonization, management for results and mutual accountability.
- 9.
Interview with ABC senior official in 2017.
- 10.
A program of welfare payments to very-low-income families.
- 11.
In the country’s interest, not of a given administration’s.
- 12.
Policy domains with the largest number of technical assistance projects are agriculture, health, education, environment and public administration, availed of by over 100 countries, mostly in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, but also including Asia and the Middle East, with which Brazil has been cooperating. Of late, favored areas are bio-fuels and energy. The availability of specialized technical units within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has facilitated this topical diversity.
- 13.
Agência Brasileira de Cooperação (Brazilian Cooperation Agency).
- 14.
In the 1980s, prior to the creation of ABC, Brazil had multiyear DA plans.
- 15.
A number of significant providers of development cooperation do not report their development finance flows to the OECD. OECD conservatively estimates that total gross concessional development finance by non-reporting countries, including two OECD members (Chile and Mexico), two OECD accession candidates (Colombia and Costa Rica), and OECD key partners Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, amounted to US$6.9 billion in 2015.
- 16.
COBRADI, op.cit.
- 17.
Between 2011 and 2013 Brazil funded a total of R129,588,409 of educational cooperation projects, or 5% of its DA budget, COBRADI, op.cit.
- 18.
Between 2011 and 2013 Brazil funded a total of R378,234,793 worth of scientific and technological cooperation projects, or 13% of its DA budget, COBRADI, op.cit.
- 19.
Between 2011 and 2013 Brazil funded a total of R382,799,884 of humanitarian cooperation projects, or 13% of its DA budget, COBRADI, op. cit.
- 20.
Between 2011 and 2013 Brazil funded a total of R3,931,500 worth of refugee protection projects, or 1% of its DA budget, COBRADI, op.cit.
- 21.
Between 2011 and 2013 Brazil funded a total of R129,964,200 worth of peace maintenance missions, or 5% of its DA budget, COBRADI, op. cit.
- 22.
Between 2011 and 2013 Brazil funded a total of R1,594,901,097 (an estimated US$531,633,699) in contributions, or 56% of its DA budget, COBRADI, op.cit.
- 23.
William Luijkx and Julia Benn “Emerging Providers” report that among EEs, Brazil’s contribution to DA in 2013 (when data available) amounted to US$316 million (varying from official data), less than Kuwait, Mexico, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, all oil exporters, China, India and Turkey. Among the BRICS Brazil ranked only below China in contributions to UN funds and specialized agencies. In regards to contributions to regional development banks and the World Bank, Brazil ranks third after China and Russia.
- 24.
These figures suggest that ABC delivers only a fraction of what Brazil spends on all these categories, and that the bulk is carried out via contributions to international organizations.
- 25.
Interview by telephone with ABC official in March 2016.
- 26.
According to the ABC site, Project expenditures for 2016 were US$6,553,052.37.
- 27.
Focal countries in South America have been Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia. In the Caribbean and Central America: Cuba, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala. In Africa: Angola, Mozambique, São Tome and Principe, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau and Namibia.
- 28.
EMBRAPA, the Brazilian Company for Agricultural Research, is by far the most active project implementer, representing 5.5% of all expenditures on TCDC between 2011 and 2013, with R11.6 million spent on staff time. Lately, it implemented some 12 projects in Africa and Latin America with a total budget of approximately US$78 million. The Cotton-4 project in Togo is by far the largest one.
- 29.
The Economist stated on July 5, 2010, that “the value of all Brazilian development aid broadly defined could reach $4 billion a year. That is less than China, but similar to generous donors such as Sweden and Canada”. A table in that article clarified that only US$1.2 billion is “direct aid”; the rest consists of commercial loans from BNDES. However, even the US$1.2 billion is well above the figure published by the Brazilian government itself of US$923 million, not to mention the OECD estimates that indicate that US$500 million out of the US$923 million would be eligible for reporting as ODA.
- 30.
Ministério das Relações Exteriores.
- 31.
With the caveat that outgoing assistance is in the form of development cooperation on the model of TCDC.
- 32.
This brief case study did not delve into DA incoming to Brazil.
- 33.
Because of its strong official advocacy of the TCDC modality of DA, official respondents do not see Brazil as a “donor” and resent this designation. Furthermore, donor countries bring substantially more resources to the table than Brazil has. TCDC is a way to do DA economically for the donor. However, as TCDC involves numerous missions, it only adds to the costs of recipient countries, as they have to entertain such missions, tying up valuable local government and partner staff resources that could have been dedicated to other, more productive activities.
- 34.
ABC Portaria 212 of 2008 (ABC, op.cit.).
- 35.
While this brief case study cannot assess the consistency and effectiveness of such elaborate institutional and legal frameworks, they appear to be potentially redundant and cumbersome in application.
- 36.
Only large projects are subject to independent evaluation, while small ones are evaluated internally.
- 37.
The distribution of implementation time for projects was: <1 year, 17.2%; 1–2 years, 34.9%; 2–3 years, 33.3%; 3–4 years, 8.8%; >4 years, 5.7%.
- 38.
From 1995–2005 budgets averaged approximately 1.27 million US$ yearly. ABC’s budget for 2016 was US$6,553,052.37.
- 39.
In 2015 ABC spent approximately US$10 million on project execution, equivalent to 2.4% of the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; in 2016 approximately US$10 million; and in 2017 approximately US$6 million. In 1995–2005 expenditure averaged approximately US$1.27 million yearly.
- 40.
Contributions made to international organizations, programs and salaries of staff of technical entities and other government agencies and ministries mobilized for ABC projects, absorbed by these agencies were not included.
- 41.
Phillips, op.cit.
References
COBRADI. (2011–2013). Cooperação Brasileira de Assistencia Assistência ao Desenvolvimento Internacional. Brasília: IPEA.
Corrêa, M. L. (2017). Quantification of South-South Cooperation and Its Implications to the Foreign Policy of Developing Countries. Policy Brief, 41.
Gulrajani, N. (2015). Dilemmas in Donor Design: Organisational Reform and the Future of Foreign Aid Agencies. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 152–164.
Iglesias Puente, Carlos Alfonso. (2010). A Cooperação Técnica Horizontal Brasileira como Instrumento da Politica Externa: a evolução da cooperação técnica com países em desenvolvimento-CTPD- no período 1995–2005. Brasilia: FUNAG.
Kumar, A., & Messner, D. (Eds.). (2010). Power Shifts and Global Governance: Challenges from South and North. London: Anthem Press.
Luijkx, W., & Benn, J. (2016). Emerging Providers – International Cooperation for Development (No. 33). OECD Development Cooperation Working Paper.
Phillips, D. A. (2013). Development Without Aid: The Decline of Development Aid and the Rise of the Diaspora. London: Anthem Press.
Pinto, R. F., & De Oliveira, J. A. P. (2011). Institutional and Policy Implementation of International Public Goods: The Case of Global Commons. In A. Kumar & D. Messner (Eds.), Power Shifts and Global Governance: Challenges from South and North. London: Anthem Press.
World Bank. Net Official Development Assistance and Official Aid (Current US$) [Data file]. Retrieved August 12, 2017, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.ODA.ALLD.CD
World Bank Development Committee. (2007). Global Public Goods: A Framework for the Role of the World Bank. Washington, DC: IMF and World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pinto, R.F. (2020). International Development Assistance: A Case Study of Brazil. In: Jing, Y., Mendez, A., Zheng, Y. (eds) New Development Assistance. Governing China in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7232-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7232-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7231-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7232-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)