Development Policy Review最新文献

Motivation

The re-election of Donald Trump in the US in a context of geopolitical disputes and armed conflicts has led major cooperation providers to divert resources from global development and humanitarian efforts. In addition, the growing complexity of current crises tends to blur the distinction between humanitarian cooperation and development cooperation.

Purpose

This article examines the impact of abrupt cuts in Official Development Assistance (ODA) on developing countries, with a special focus on USAID and South America, and identifies options for these countries to redress the loss of development funding.

Findings

While ODA has been losing relevance relative to other development flows and has long suffered from politicization and ineffectiveness, several least-developed countries still depend on ODA for significant shares of their income. Moreover, USAID funded many humanitarian initiatives which cannot be interrupted and resumed without significant costs in terms of their objectives. Finally, in addition to its quantity, the quality, channels and goals of development cooperation also matter: USAID financed largely grassroots organisations and thereby attempted to empower local stakeholders. These organisations have been hit the hardest by its dismantling.

Policy Implications

Developing countries should seek wherever possible to increase their self-reliance and shift the focus of international cooperation from the global to the regional level. Although China cannot be expected to replace historically dominant donor countries entirely, the diversification of funding sources and establishment of new South-South partnerships presents opportunities to reshape aid frameworks and reduce dependence on such countries. In addition, alternative funding models, such as triangular cooperation arrangements and Global Public Investment could help tap into new synergies and complementarities and ensure development efforts are driven by local priorities rather than external agendas.

Motivation

The study assesses whether Ghana's Special Economic Zone (SEZ) policy improved firm resilience during COVID-19 and provides evidence to guide more adaptive industrial policies that can withstand future global shocks in emerging economies.

Purpose

This study examines the resilience SEZ firms in Ghana during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on operational continuity, sales performance, and productivity.

Approach and Methods

Using firm-level panel data from 2018 to 2021, we employ a fixed effect estimation approach to compare SEZ and non-SEZ firms, assessing whether SEZs provided a buffer against economic shocks or exacerbated vulnerabilities.

Findings

SEZ firms were more likely to suspend operations and remain closed for longer periods than non-SEZ firms, suggesting increased exposure to supply chain disruptions and declining export demand. Sales resilience was also weaker among SEZ firms, with a slower recovery trajectory than non-SEZ firms, indicating greater flexibility in market adaptation. Productivity analysis reveals no significant resilience advantage for SEZ firms, with pre-pandemic performance playing a stronger role in determining post-COVID outcomes.

Policy Implications

The results challenge the assumption that SEZs inherently provide resilience to crises, highlighting the risks associated with rigid export dependencies and weak domestic supply chain integration. The study underscores the need for more adaptive SEZ policies that improve local market flexibility and strengthen industrial linkages to mitigate future economic shocks. These insights contribute to policy discussions on SEZ effectiveness in emerging economies during global disruptions.

Motivation

Ongoing and likely future cuts in foreign aid suggest that the basic model of Official Development Assistance (ODA) is effectively dead. The question is what can replace it.

Purpose

To critique the past and now dying system of ODA, and consider how countries can meet ongoing global challenges in an effective manner, in crucial areas such as poverty and hunger reduction, addressing the impacts of climate change and seeking to mitigate it, dealing with public health emergencies, etc.

Approach and Methods

This is a qualitative assessment, using some empirical data from secondary sources.

Findings

There were many flaws with the ODA system, with dwindling foreign aid, and donors’ decisions based on geopolitical considerations. Now it is time to reconsider the conceptual and practical basis of ODA to create a new paradigm of fiscal policy for the 21st century based on Global Public Investment. In this model, countries commit to pool resources and efforts towards common goals, especially in areas that address pressing global issues such as climate change, pollution, nutrition and health.

Motivation

In recent years, foreign aid donors have tried to become more transparent, often by sharing information digitally. However, the politicization of individual aid projects has resulted in biased reporting, raising doubts about the legitimacy of aid in general. We therefore examine whether increased transparency leads to greater government effectiveness and public trust.

Purpose

Government agencies typically assume that greater transparency in public administration improves understanding of bureaucratic actions, thereby fostering trust in the government. In foreign aid, openness is believed to enhance public confidence and improve the effectiveness of governments. However, recent public and political reactions to the disclosure of aid information cast doubt on these optimistic assumptions.

Approach and methods

Using our sender-mediator-receiver model of a “fragile transparency loop,” we analyse how communication breaks down in German foreign aid. First, we focus on Germany as a donor that shares information through a digital transparency portal, examining the sender side. Second, we investigate the mediator side by conducting a qualitative content analysis of German online media articles. Third, we examine the receiver side by disaggregating the German public into several subgroups.

Findings

Our empirical findings suggest that, while donors assume a virtuous transparency loop, the reality can resemble a fragile transparency loop that is easily disrupted. The government may withhold information; mediators may spread misinformation; and the public may not receive information neutrally. These dynamics explain why, despite increasing transparency, donors may not achieve the intended increases in government effectiveness and public trust.

Policy implications

Donors should find a balanced approach to foreign aid transparency that upholds democratic accountability while avoiding information overload. Aid bureaucracies should tailor their disclosure to serve different audiences, including professionals with development expertise and the wider public, who may have preconceptions or be uninformed about foreign aid.

Motivation

Forest tenure security plays a critical role in improving the livelihoods of those who live in and around forests and simultaneously contribute to forest conservation. Governments around the world have tried to strengthen tenure through titling programmes. Little is known about how forest titling contributes in practice to tenure security and how it affects local investment in forest management.

Purpose

This research aims to understand the legal, practical, and perceptual dimensions of forest tenure (in)security after the titling programme; and to examine causal paths from tenure (in)security to local investment in forest management.

Approach and methods

Taking Southwest China as an example, the article uses mixed methods to integrate qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Quantitative data were collected using a standardized questionnaire from 410 selected households. Qualitative data were gathered through in-depth interviews with 45 key informants, including forest officials, village heads, elders, women, and local forest rangers. Nine focus group interviews were set up to learn about local perspectives on collective forest tenure reform and perceived tenure (in)security.

Findings

Although legal tenure security has been improved by forest titling, both practical and perceived tenure insecurity continue to exist.

Titling in the three sites varied between collective and individual titles, and by the degree to which either category had been certified. Context played a crucial role; for example, areas where farmers had planted rubber trees were more likely to have individual titles. In some cases, forest lands remained under dispute and were not certified.

Although legal tenure security has been improved by forest titling, in practice, rights to harvest timber and other forest products were restricted by regulations that undermined tenure security. Again, the degree of restriction varies according to local context.

Tenure insecurity also arose from the uncertainty of the duration of rights holding, as legal durations and local perceptions of duration diverged.

Tenure security did not necessarily encourage investment in the management of forests; local context mattered more than tenure.

Policy implications

Central government needs to pa