Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Laura Trajber Waisbich
(University of Cambridge)
- Stream:
- C: Development cooperation and Humanitarianism
- Location:
- D1
- Start time:
- 27 June, 2018 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
Development finance and development cooperation have been the object of profound changes for the past decades. New actors, new measurement tools, new emerging norms, new forms of development politics. In a nutshell, this panel features a critical discussion on what those new arrangements mean to inequities in international development cooperation.
Long Abstract:
For almost two decades now, the shifting landscapes of development finance and development cooperation have galvanised much of the attention of development researchers and practitioners. While some commentators do see in the current landscape signs of a ‘post’ (or beyond)-aid world, others emphasise complex convergence-divergence dynamics currently taking place between and within countries in terms of global development indicators and the resistance and accommodation dynamics shaping global development norms and practices.
New actors (from high-impact philanthropy and private donations to the ‘rise of the South’ and South-South Cooperation) and new geopolitics, new priorities and new discourses on development and development cooperation (from infrastructure and climate finance to the Leave No One Behind and mutual-gains principles), new measurement tools and new emerging norms.
How those global and local innovations and institutional/policy-changes affect inequities in international development cooperation? What challenges and opportunities do they bring? How can the study of those new arrangements inform current global debates around development and development cooperation inequalities?
This panel features a diverse collection of papers, each of them exploring a different aspect of the so-called shifting international development cooperation landscape. The papers discuss traditional and new actors and their new/renewed policy-ideas and instruments. The contributions shed light into theoretical and policy-relevant dimensions of this current scenario and raise important questions around their potential to tackle global development inequaliti
Accepted papers:
Session 1Jacob Assa (United Nations Development Programme) Ingrid Kvangraven (King's College, London)
Paper short abstract:
Changes in standards of GDP measurement over the past 25 years redefine the yardstick of development to fit recent strengths of developed economies. The revisions therefore constitute a form of 'kicking away the ladder,' as they inflate the economies of advanced relative to developing countries.
Paper long abstract:
The System of National Accounts - the international standard for constructing macroeconomic indicators such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - was created in 1953 and revised in 1968 by the United Nations. Starting in 1993 (and again in 2008), however, and reflecting the shift in geopolitical power, four organizations representing the Global North have shared the responsibility for these revisions with the UN - the World Bank, IMF, OECD and the European Union. The 1993 and 2008 revisions to the SNA include several changes to how production is measured - including the reclassification of R&D, weapons systems and owner-occupied dwellings - which provides a starkly different picture of growth in advanced economies, between-country inequalities, and the degree to which emerging economies have 'caught up' with the US and the EU. We therefore argue that the changes in GDP measurement constitute a form of 'kicking away the ladder,' i.e. redefining the yardstick of development to fit recent strengths of developed economies. Finally, the paper considers the political economy implications of the change in methodology, such as the justification of voting shares in international financial institutions and incentives for policy-makers in low-income countries.
Sharon McLennan (Massey University )
Paper short abstract:
For over a decade Cuba has been delivering a solidarity and equity-based health and medical training programme in the Pacific. This paper explores this programme, and the challenges it presents to the dominant aid paradigm and to normative discourses of development and health in the region.
Paper long abstract:
Pacific Island countries (PICs) face considerable challenges in delivering health care, challenges being addressed by Cuba, who is currently delivering an extensive health and medical training programme in the Pacific. To date the programme has been considered a success and, due to the small populations of PICs and the relative size of the Cuban assistance, has already had a significant impact on both the doctor to population ratio and the structure of the health workforce in some PICS. However this is no ordinary medical aid programme, but one based on "multiple coincidences" between Cuba and PICs as small island states, which draws on an equity and solidarity-based approach to development and health that is rooted in the idea that health care is a right for all and in the belief that development cooperation is a matter of solidarity between peoples. This approach is particularly noteworthy in the context of recent trilateral aid agreements with Australia and New Zealand, where the Cuban solidarity-based model contrasts sharply with the modified neo-liberal models of aid and health care prevalent in the region. This paper explores the Cuban programme in the Pacific and the development implications of Cuban assistance to PICs, particularly the challenges it presents to the dominant aid paradigm and to normative discourses of development and health in the region.
Laura Trajber Waisbich (University of Cambridge)
Paper short abstract:
Accountability in SSC has gained on importance, with internal and external pressure mounting on countries like Brazil, India and China. This paper argues that multiples forms of accountability politics coexist in SSC and are shaped by concurring narratives on what accountability is or should be.
Paper long abstract:
Accountability is a major buzzword in international development cooperation (IDC) (Cornwall & Eade 2010; McGee, R. 2013). It also figures among the ambiguous, contested and open-ended development concept (Mosse 2005; Eyben & Ferguson 2004). Interestingly, not enough has been said about how is accountability in/of South-South Cooperation (SSC) being conceived and negotiated, what mechanisms are being implemented, and what forms of accountability politics (Fox 2007) are playing out in SSC.
From a marginal concept within official narratives and domestic policy debates, accountability in/of SSC has increasingly gained on importance as internal (from governmental agencies and domestic constituencies) and external pressure (from traditional development actors, Southern partners and transnational civil society coalitions) mount on SSC providers to justify policies, practices and outcomes.
This paper argues that distinct forms of accountability politics are playing out in major SSC providers, such as Brazil, China and India and in their recently established New Development Bank (NDB), informed by concurring policy narratives on what accountability in/of SSC is or should be. Drawing on critical development studies, critical international relations, policy diffusion studies, I propose an initial taxonomy of four coexisting narratives around accountability in/of SSC, namely: Accountability as Horizontality, Accountability as Transparency, Accountability as Learning, and Accountability from Below. Focusing on the narratives and on the main domestic and transnational actors engaged in shaping and disseminating them, I attempt to illustrate on-going domestic and global disputes over ideas, meanings and practices of accountability in/of SSC.