South-South Development Cooperation

ESSAY TOPIC

Critically reexamine the differences between ‘South-South’ Development Cooperation ( SSDC ) and ‘traditional’ DAC ODA in footings of focal point, donor-recipient relationships and ownership of development undertakings and programmes. What grounds is at that place, if any, that SSDC is more ‘effective’ than ODA in back uping development in receiver states?

1. Introduction

“As it’s done earlier, the planetary economic system is switching one time once more, with the outgrowth of new economic human dynamos like China and India. They’re going of import spouses for the world’s poorest states, presenting new thoughts, energy and money, but besides challenges for development co-operation”( Keeley 2012: 146 ) .

DAC givers are perceived as the normative scene organisations and a major beginning of assistance statistics. DAC givers are a cardinal policy alliance for definitions and ends. Hence, it is rather in topographic point to compose or talk about in the development direction sphere. The DAC have fought to pull from old experiences and do determinations to hammer a cosmopolitan attack on how development cooperation should be structured. Nevertheless, SSDC has invented its ain modes and method of cooperation, postponing significantly from the Development Assistance Committee ( DAC ) criterions.

Contributions amongst less developed states are breeding a new energy in international development cooperation. Undeniably, the echt worth of SSDC is non reflected in the sum of ODA or fiscal wherewithal go arounding amongst less developed states but instead in the nature and sort of the relationship expressed by these interactions, peculiarly when contrasted with traditional North-South Interventions. Less developed states and civil society groups have invariably condemned the manner assistance is often used as a neo-colonial tool by DAC givers – attaching policy conditionalities on less developed states and binding assistance to commercial, political and military involvements of givers.

SSDC is farther distinguished by its alone sort of partnership based on the rules of solidarity instead than clientelism. An illustration that suffices is the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action ( AAA ) of the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness that affirms, “South-South cooperation on development purposes to detect the rule of non-interference in internal personal businesss, equality among developing spouses and regard for their independency, national sovereignty, cultural diverseness and individuality and local content. SSDC plays an of import function in international development cooperation and is a valuable complement to North-South cooperation.”

“DAC-donors navigate in an assistance landscape that is in rapid transmutation. The OECD/DAC states are no longer the lone development histrions and are being challenged by non-DAC givers, who have an impact on the effectivity agenda” ( Hyden 2008: 260 ) . The traditional North-South relationship within development cooperation is widely discussed in recent times and the line between assistance receivers and givers has become blurry ( Zimmermann & A ; Smith 2011: 722 ) . The emerging south states are now supplying assistance to the poorer south and as Andrew Rogerson writes:“A multi-polar universe now depends every bit much on states that arenon members of the OECD industrialised ‘club’ for sustained growing and trade andinvesting flows as on states that are fully-fledged members”( Rogerson 2011: 1 ) .

2.0DEVELOPMENT ENGAGEMENT MODALITIES.

2.1 Institutional Focus Areas.

Majorly, ODA by DAC givers have targeted societal sectors in LDCs. The major displacement from capital investings to the societal sector purposes to straight better human conditions in these states. This is really dissimilar to SSDC attack as most of their ODA focuses on substructure and economic sectors. Mentioning to ECOSOC ( 2008 ) , fiscal support from southern givers has significantly gone to transport, communications, energy and other economic substructure development. This in fiscal footings histories for 50 per centum ( 50 % ) of official development aid from Southern spouses. A meagre fifth part of southern ODA is apportioned to instruction and wellness life sectors. DAC ODA has focused in thesocietal sectors:gender equality, adult females empowerment, poverty decrease and environmental concerns since late1990s. Capital investings in productive sectors and substructure output fast return on investings for LCDs in the countries of production, international trade and possibly income from export. A good illustration is the shooting trade linkages between LCDs in Africa and China for increased exports, better footings of trade, improved GNP, encouragement in authorities grosss and better debt patience for LCDs in Africa. Though oppositions have regarded what the instance will be when resources for exports are exhausted. The point here is that unless SSDC ODA donates through an inclusive national scheme that develops agribusiness, industry and services in a holistic and sustainable manner, any short-run growing in trade and industry brought by southern ODA are illusory. In fact, LCD states might go poorer, farther indebted and faced with a sullied resource base. Rocha et Al ( 2007 ) as good argue that capital investings within the SSDC agreement have failed to supplement employment chances for their receiving spouses.

2.2 Evolving Donor – Recipient Relationships.

Observations show that DAC ODA is moderately influenced by political and strategic concerns of DAC givers as by economic demand and the policy public presentation of recipient province. Harmonizing to Alesina and Dollar ( 2000 ) , outstanding DAC givers grant well more official development aid to former settlements. More so, DAC states grant more assistance to provinces that ballot with them at the United Nations. Neumayer ( 2003 ) sustains that cumulative DAC bilateral and many-sided assistance has a inclination to profit states which these givers export their ware. DAC givers like France, Germany and Japan give more assistance to receivers that import a immense ball of these donors’ wares. This to DAC givers is a logical allotment of resources to guarantee their ain immediate economic involvements and additions. The instance is different for SSDC partnerships, as southern givers give assistance and aid that are non politically or economically induced to their spouse states.

2.2.1Conditionality.

One major depreciation against OECD assistance is on the usage of policy conditionalities. Though DAC givers are signers to the Paris Declaration which acknowledges the rule of spouse state ownership of assistance, yet DAC attach macroeconomic and policy conditionalities to their ODA. Attaching policy conditionalities in ODA contravenes the autonomous right of people to make up one’s mind their ain state precedences and schemes in development. Southern givers do non enforce any macroeconomic or policy conditionalities. SSDC besides has fewer bureaucratic demands which make for faster expenses. SSDC payouts are merely deferred if a plan state is in arrears of debt due to hapless service. Moises Naim refers to assistance from SSDC provinces like China, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela as “toxic” ( Naim 2007 ) . He argues that non-democratic states like China “have begun to sabotage development policy through their militant assistance programs” ( Naim 2007: 96 ) that seek merely “money, entree to raw stuffs, and international politics” ( Naim 2007: 95 ) without respect to the environment or long-run concern for the wellbeing of the host countryaˆYs dwellers. In short, harmonizing to Naim, emerging givers represent a “threat to healthy, sustainable development” while “pricing responsible and unthreatening assistance organisations out of the market in the really places where they are needed most” ( Naim 2007: 95 ) .

Other writers are much friendlier toward emerging givers. Reisen ( 2007 ) and Woods ( 2008 ) defend China by supplying quantitative grounds on the issue of debt sustainability in Africa. Woods opines that Chinese assistance has strengthened trade links in Africa, leting improved growing and footings of trade, and increasing both the export volumes and public grosss of recipient African states ( Woods 2008 ) . “Disappointed with bing assistance mechanisms, either because committednesss go unrealized or because conditions imposed on assistance skew policy picks. South-South partnerships avoid the policy conditions associated with assistance from traditional donors” ( IPEA & A ; World Bank 2011:20 ) SSDC usage of this word is twofold: both as a manner of distancing itself from DAC givers while the deficiency of conditionality in their ain attack is used besides as a manner of heightening its genuineness in respects to other rules like regard for sovereignty and ownership. The non-conditionality attack is as such a cardinal point with which SSDC stresses its alone stance that offer options to developing states seeking aid to run into their challenges. South-South spouses like Brazil have taken serious stance against conditionality. “As a regulation, conditions are non imposed on south-south activity, planned or implemented by the Brazilian authorities. ( IPEA & A ; World Bank 2011:37 ) . Brazil intends to portion successful patterns in countries demanded by spouse states, without inflictions or conditionalities ( IPEA 2011:33 ) .

2.2.2 Tied Aid

“ Untying assistance by and large increases assistance effectivity by cut downing dealing costs for spouse states and bettering state ownership and alliance ”( Paris 2005: 6 ) .

SSDC is known for its non-interference policy in economic schemes and political processs of spouse states. This regard for national sovereignty seems non to widen to the usage of ODA in bargaining and negociating international trade. Critics sustain that ODA from SSDC is chiefly tied to the purchase of trade goods and hiring of contractors from the donor state. Noteworthy instances are China, India and Venezuela. In all Chinese ODA to African, China authorizations that about 70 per centum of substructure building and labor is awarded to hold SOEs, while the other 30 % awarded to autochthonal companies that are besides subordinates of Chinese houses. The Arab SSDC spouses are in exclusion since their procurance regulation specifies competitory command and license for autochthonal contractors to vie.

Contrary, most DAC givers have agreed to a rule of unbracing assistance and have made enormous betterments in this respect. Conversely, DAC’s proficient aid and nutrient assistance plans are non covered by this policy and, therefore, remain to a great extent tied. Several probes of assistance from DAC givers show that tied assistance non merely undercuts recipient’s precedences but besides drives-up the spending of development undertakings by 16 to 32 % . Surveies have besides shown that the goods and services supplied by tied assistance from SSDC givers such as China and India are better priced, good quality and tantrum for intent. In all, proficient cooperation amongst southern states is perceived as more suited to Autochthonal conditions and demands compared to DACs’ technological expertness which is besides really pricey. Scholars argument that possibly some Southern ODA: Chinese undertakings in Zambia have less funding costs and quicker completion times because labour Torahs, environmental ordinances and societal criterions are compromised.

2.2.3 Alignment and Capacity Development

Southern states have a major focal point on alining capacity development and proficient cooperation to the recipient’s national precedences which is highlighted in most SSDC instance narratives. This is preferred than utilizing national public fiscal direction and procurement systems like DAC givers do. The alliance of SSDC ODA to recipient’s demands and ends have been known to significantly lend to help effectivity in many LCDs. The instance of China and Africa suffices. A important portion of SSDC assistance from less endowed southern givers goes to education, wellness and proficient cooperation. South-South capacity development and proficient cooperation is non inhibited by the fiscal prosperity of SSDC giver states since all DCs have diverse and changing grades of capacities and experiences that can be shared with other states.

More so, one key benefit of southern spouses in capacity development is that they are able to pull freely from their ain experiences that more closely resemble plan state contexts than those of DAC givers. For Instance, Cuba took alliance and capacity development to a deeper degree in Timor Leste through big scale systematic plans with strong mass preparation constituent and a public service ethos. This takes capacity development to the grassroots and enhances the part of SSDC to the authorization of the hapless and marginalized to claim their right to development. “Strengthening human capacity non merely increases ownership, but besides creates links that go beyond the governmental domain and, as a effect, are non vulnerable to alterations in political dynamics” ( IPEA 2011:38 ) .

2.2.4 Democratic Ownership.

“There is no South-South Cooperation without clear local ownership and leadership.” ( Federative Republic of Brazil 2008:6 )

National leading is at the bosom of SSDC battles and is apparent in several receiver led instance narratives. This indicates that ownership is an indispensible plus of SSDC. Head of States have been hands-on in endorsing SSDC enterprise. Vicente Fox ( Mexico ) and Luis Angel Macchi ( Paraguay ) agreed to advance larning exchange on the Maquila sector ( LAC-40 ) in 2002. In 2003, Ricardo Lagos from Chile visited the Transmilenio in Bogota , a public coach rapid theodolite system, which so informed the execution of the Transantiago in his ain capital ( LAC-28 ) . India’s premier curate, Dr. Manmohan Singh, was driving the launch of the development policies exchange between Chinese and Indian think armored combat vehicles in 2006 ( AP-22 ) .

Therefore, there seems to be a consensus that “success in South-South cooperation is built on ownership, political support, and strong leadership” ( AFR-5 ) . SSDC spouses argue ownership embodied in capacity edifice is important to making engagement and an inclusiveness that Fosters true partnerships. The duty for charting a national development scheme needfully lies with the plan state, non the giver, if the rule of state ownership and sovereignty is to be respected. However, in most histories of DAC plans there is barely of all time reference of citizen’s or even parliamentary engagement in maneuvering these enterprises. ODA from the DAC givers have been restricted to donor-to INGO personal businesss pursued as pure commercial projects, with small chance for local and CSO engagement. There is serious deficiency of connexion which precludes any existent development intercession of DAC. Without ownership there can be no meaningful engagement in determining policies and supervising results. Citizens are inhibited from exerting their right to do demands on their ain authorities every bit good as purported spouses. This undermines the answerability of the establishments involved in DAC.

2.2.5 Horizontal Partnerships

South-South represents a really specific signifier of development cooperation relationships that can be described as horizontal partnership. Peer-to equal acquisition, common cognition exchange and sustainable investings in long-run partnerships can be described as basic ingredients. Partnership is believed to be the key of traveling off from inequality deducing from the usage of stigmatized and biass constructs like giver and receivers perpetuated through DACs’ perpendicular attack. Most underdeveloped states still see the rule of equality and common benefit – expressed in the Bandung Conference of 1955 – as a cardinal dogma of SSDC. As such, Southern giver states are loath to be seen as reproducing traditional donor-recipient hierarchies.

The term horizontality is frequently used by SSDC and more specifically within the impression of partnership. Horizontal cooperation is even found and used extensively with proficient cooperation. In other words, SSDC can be seen as underscoring the thought that horizontal relationships, based on equality instead than hierarchy, therefore horizontal instead than perpendicular, represents a valuable instrument to prosecute common involvements of developing spouses. The mutualness can hence be understood as enhanced by an horizontal attack, go forthing behind traditional North-South development channels in favour of more horizontal channels between developing states ( IPEA & A ; World Bank 2011:14 ) .

2.3.2 Equality and Common Heritage

The perceptual experience of sharing the same contextual chances and cautions seems to construct a strong basis for constructing effectual southern partnerships, in some instances ensuing in a short cut to development solutions. The H2O installations duplicating exercising between Cambodia and Vietnam, relates to the fact that both sides work with similar engineerings and pull on “common cultural traits” , leting a smoother exchange of experiences and patterns ( AP-15 ) . The sense of equity seems to be particularly strong in hard contexts and critical development challenges. For illustration, Colombia portions its lessons in disarming, demobilisation, and reintegration with equals in Liberia, Haiti, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. Confronting armed struggles, equal acquisition appears to be a powerful tool for accomplishing basic conditions for human development, since non lone lessons, but besides political sensitivity is shared ( LAC-24 ) .

3.0 Decision.

Mention:

Alberto Alesina and David Dollar.Who gives foreign assistance to whom and why?, National Bureau for Economic Research ( NBER ) Working Paper No. 6612, Issued in June 1998.

Eric Neumayer.The Pattern of Aid Giving: The Impact of Good Governance on Development Assistance, New York: Routledge, 2003.

Federative Republic of Brazil. ( 2008 ) UN High Level symposium: Tendencies in development cooperation: South-South and triangular cooperation and assistance effectivity. The Brazilian experience. ( online ) ECOSOC.

Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.un.org/ar/ecosoc/newfunct/Brazil_SSC_Cairo.pdf ( Accessed 13 November, 2014 )

Hyden, Goran. ( 2008 ) . “After the Paris Declaration: Taking on the Issue of Power”

Development Policy Review. Vol. 26 no.3 pp. 259-274.

IPEA. ( 2011 ) Brazilian Cooperation for International Development 2005-2009. ( online )

SAE/PR, IPEA, MRE, ABC. Available at:

hypertext transfer protocol: //api.ning.com/files/eJz*iuu91W9QUUwVGXxLlxghZj*0EdBVVvuL4zmY4LOGZgIsIgI*O1pfQzR75Am03DPdDY9TK2sWqP3SmCEv0HoNU0Pn3etN/Book_brazilian_cooperationWEB.pdf ( Accessed 13 November, 2014 )

IPEA & A ; World Bank. ( 2011 ) Bridging the Atlantic. Brazil and Sub-Saharan Africa. South-South Partnering for growing. ( online ) World Bank. Available at:

hypertext transfer protocol: //siteresources.worldbank.org/AFRICAEXT/Resources/africa-brazil-bridging-final.pdf ( Accessed 15 July 2012 )

Keeley, Brian. ( 2012 ) . OECD Insights From Aid to Development: The Global Fight against Poverty. OECD Insights, OECD Publishing.

Rogerson, Andres. ( 2011 ) . Key Busan challenges and parts to the emerging

development effectivity docket.Overseas Development Institute. Background Note.

November 2011.

Zimmermann, F. & A ; Smith, K. ( 2011 ) , More Actors, More Money, More Ideas for

International Development Co-operation.Journal of International Development.Vol. 23, pp. 722-738.

OECD. ( 2005, 2008 ) . Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action hypertext transfer protocol: //www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf. Mark: Paris, AAA

Naim, Moises ( 2007 ) “Rogue Aid, ”Foreign Policy( March/April ) , pp.95-96.

Reisen, Helmut ( 2007 ) .Is China Actually Helping Improve Debt Sustainability in Africa?Policy Brief No.9, OECD Development Centre.

Forests, Ngaire ( 2008 ) “Whose assistance? Whose influence? China, emerging givers and the soundless revolution in development aid, ”International Affairs84 ( 6 ) , 1205-1221.

Page1of9