|
The Development Dimension is a new series from the OECD taking a whole-of-government perspective on development. Print and electronic versions soon available on SourceOECD (www.sourceoecd.org) and the OECD Online Bookshop (www.oecdbookshop.org). Some free copies will be disseminated over the coming weeks.
This new series marks our commitment in the OECD to ‘unbundle’ the notion of policy coherence for development so as to make it better known, understood and actionable.
Increased global interdependence calls for heightened attention to be paid to the trans-border impacts of national and regional policies for example. Improving international governance and addressing policy spill-overs are in the mutual interests of developed and developing countries alike, but will require political “give and take”.
At the OECD we are developing a strategy to address our own membership and governance challenges, thereby contributing to a rebalanced international governance structure. We are also helping our member countries as they look for ways to take into account the impacts of their policies on the rest of the world. Many of them have put into place institutional mechanisms to facilitate this. Taken together, these efforts will ultimately result in greater policy coherence in support of the internationally agreed development goals.
Achieving greater coherence between policies with development objectives is a complex and politically difficult undertaking. Some prefer to ignore it. The OECD, in response to our Ministerial mandate, is determined to better understand this concept and to help others act on clear advice. Politicians, decision makers and analysts need more analytical information about the consequences of different government policies on development. We hope this new series will help.
The concept of policy coherence for development is defined and illustrated through a range of sectoral, regional and country examples. The realities of the political environment are openly discussed. The issues and challenges of growing macroeconomic interdependence and financial integration are analysed, with their implications for policy formulation and policy mix. Agricultural policy instruments are assessed with the ‘coherence perspective’ clearly articulated in each case.
Current titles include:
-
Fostering Development in a Global Economy: A Whole of Government Perspective
-
Policy Coherence for Development: Promoting Institutional Good Practice
-
Agriculture and Development: The Case for Policy Coherence
The series also includes a new work on food aid: Development Effectiveness of Food Aid: The Effects of its Tying Status
Sharing the food of the rich with the poor seems like an effective way to alleviate hunger and misery. It also provides one of the most powerful images of international co-operation. Food aid was one of the earliest aid instruments and accounted for over 25% of all official development assistance in 1960s. Over the last 40 years, however, the absolute value and relative importance has declined dramatically to less than 5% of total ODA. This marginalisation of food aid did not occur because hunger has disappeared as a development challenge (800 million people are still under the imminent threat of starvation.) Food aid has lost its pre-eminent role because of doubt about its development and cost effectiveness. Both issues have been thoroughly assessed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee in the context of its 2001 Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance to the Least Developed Countries and its broader agenda on aid effectiveness.
The empirical findings of this new study show that in most circumstances, financial aid rather than food aid is the preferable option, not only for providing project assistance or budgetary support for general development, but even for the distribution of food. Furthermore, food aid is expensive for aid agencies because it continues to be overwhelmingly tied.
We estimate that the global inefficiency cost of providing tied food aid instead of financing commercial imports is at least 30%. The actual cost of tied direct food aid transfers was on average approximately 50% more than local food purchases. Thus, there is scope for considerable efficiency gains in switching to less restricted sourcing.
It’s food for thought.
See here for further news on publications in this series.
|
