IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oec/dcdkaa/5kzbqdwwq4q0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DAC Peer Review of the European Community

Author

Listed:
  • OECD

Abstract

This review contains the Main Findings and Recommendations of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the report of the Secretariat. It was prepared with examiners from the United States and Australia for the Peer Review meeting held on 26 June 2007. The review noted that the European Community as a donor disbursed over USD 10 billion in official development assistance in 2006, while the European Commission plays a potentially important “federating” role for the institutions of all 27 Member States of the European Union. The DAC commended both the role of the Commission in reshaping its development co-operation and the progress made since the 2002 Peer Review in delivering Community assistance. It welcomed a 2007 policy that seeks better division of labour among the Commission and the Member States and the 2005 European Consensus on Development which outlines a common policy framework for them. The DAC noted a number of challenges facing the European Community, including: ensuring that European Union policies take forward the development focus of the Consensus; implementing these policies effectively at the country level; and continuing to reform the institutions and to simplify the procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the European Community," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 8(4), pages 127-261.
    • Handle: RePEc:oec:dcdkaa:5kzbqdwwq4q0
    DOI: 10.1787/journal_dev-v8-art34-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v8-art34-en
    Download Restriction: Full text available to READ online. PDF download available to OECD iLibrary subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/journal_dev-v8-art34-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cristiano Antonelli & Pier Paolo Patrucco & Federica Rossi, 2010. "The Economics of Knowledge Interaction and the Changing Role of Universities," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Faridah Djellal (ed.), The Handbook of Innovation and Services, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    3. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & Scott R Glisson, 2013. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    4. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio & Léopold Simar, 2014. "Scale and research specialization in European universities: a directional distance approach to teaching efficiency," Chapters, in: Andrea Bonaccorsi (ed.), Knowledge, Diversity and Performance in European Higher Education, chapter 10, pages iii-iii, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Cristiano Antonelli & Chiara Franzoni & Aldo Geuna, 2011. "The Contributions of Economics to a Science of Science Policy," Chapters, in: Massimo G. Colombo & Luca Grilli & Lucia Piscitello & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra (ed.), Science and Innovation Policy for the New Knowledge Economy, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Besim Bilalli & Rana Faisal Munir & Alberto Abelló, 2021. "A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 545-563, January.
    7. Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Stig Slipersaeter, 2011. "The Construction of New Indicators for Science and Innovation Policies: The Case of Project Funding Indicators," Chapters, in: Massimo G. Colombo & Luca Grilli & Lucia Piscitello & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra (ed.), Science and Innovation Policy for the New Knowledge Economy, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    9. Sun, Zhuanlan & Clark Cao, C. & Ma, Chao & Li, Yiwei, 2023. "The academic status of reviewers predicts their language use," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    10. Klein, Daniel R. & Olonscheck, Mady & Walther, Carsten & Kropp, Jürgen P., 2013. "Susceptibility of the European electricity sector to climate change," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 183-193.
    11. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    12. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    13. José Cendejas Bueno & Cecilia Font de Villanueva, 2015. "Convergence of inflation with a common cycle: estimating and modelling Spanish historical inflation from the 16th to the 18th centuries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1643-1665, June.
    14. Zasada Ingo & Loibl Wolfgang & Köstl Mario & Piorr Annette, 2013. "Agriculture Under Human Influence: A Spatial Analysis of Farming Systems and Land Use in European Rural-Urban-Regions," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 5(1), pages 71-88, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:dcdkaa:5kzbqdwwq4q0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/oecddfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.