IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oec/dcdkaa/5kzr8qlg5zr1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DAC Peer Review of the United States

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 Kingdom and Canada for the Peer Review meeting held on 07 December May 2006. The review applauded the major increase in American official development assistance, which reached a record high of USD 27.6 billion in 2005. The Committee commended the United States for raising development to the status of one of three pillars of national foreign policy. Key recommendations included the need to explicitly recognise the key importance of poverty reduction, encouragement for a more explicit approach to the role of policy coherence for development, the need to persist in clarifying the lines of operational responsibility between military and development institutions, support for greater US attention to the Paris Declaration aid effectiveness agenda and encouragement for the joint Department of State and USAID development of an overarching strategic plan to guide humanitarian work.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2008. "DAC Peer Review of the United States," OECD Journal on Development, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 95-200.
    • Handle: RePEc:oec:dcdkaa:5kzr8qlg5zr1
    DOI: 10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art41-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v7-art41-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-v7-art41-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. 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.
    2. Knack, Stephen, 2013. "Aid and donor trust in recipient country systems," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 316-329.
    3. Siddarth Srinivasan & Jamie Morgenstern, 2021. "Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review," Papers 2109.00923, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    4. 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.
    5. Meilke, Karl D. & Rude, James & Zahniser, Steven, 2006. "The Search for "NAFTA Plus"," 2006 NAAMIC Workshop III: Achieving NAFTA Plus 163881, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    6. O'Flaherty, Brendan & Sethi, Rajiv, 2010. "Homicide in black and white," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 215-230, November.

    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:5kzr8qlg5zr1. 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.