IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ctwqxx/v33y2012i5p791-806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Great Divide? Donor perceptions of budget support, eligibility and policy dialogue

Author

Listed:
  • Nadia Molenaers

Abstract

Budget Support (bs) has been considered the aid modality that best realises the Paris Declaration principles of alignment, harmonisation and respect for recipient ownership. In design the modality has a very strong technocratic focus, and the oecd/dac has endorsed the idea that bs should be delinked from broader political concerns. In reality, however, donors do use bs to leverage more and better democratic governance. This political use of bs is not limited to exceptional moments when the political situation seriously deteriorates in certain countries. This article shows that such use is grounded in fundamentally different visions and policies that donors hold regarding the scope of leverage for bs. Such starkly diverging interpretations of which reforms bs can ‘buy’ undermine the objectives the modality was designed to achieve.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadia Molenaers, 2012. "The Great Divide? Donor perceptions of budget support, eligibility and policy dialogue," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 791-806.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:33:y:2012:i:5:p:791-806
    DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2012.677311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01436597.2012.677311
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01436597.2012.677311?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. Hackenesch, Christine, 2015. "It’s Domestic Politics, Stupid! EU Democracy Promotion Strategies Meet African Dominant Party Regimes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 85-96.
    2. Svea Koch & Stefan Leiderer & Jörg Faust & Nadia Molenaers, 2017. "The rise and demise of European budget support: political economy of collective European Union donor action," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 35(4), pages 455-473, July.
    3. de Felice, Damiano, 2015. "Diverging Visions on Political Conditionality: The Role of Domestic Politics and International Socialization in French and British Aid," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 26-45.
    4. Molenaers, Nadia & Dellepiane, Sebastian & Faust, Jorg, 2015. "Political Conditionality and Foreign Aid," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 2-12.
    5. Sven Grimm & Christine Hackenesch, 2017. "China in Africa: What challenges for a reforming European Union development policy? Illustrations from country cases," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 35(4), pages 549-566, July.
    6. Koch, Svea, 2015. "A Typology of Political Conditionality Beyond Aid: Conceptual Horizons Based on Lessons from the European Union," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 97-108.
    7. Del Biondo, Karen, 2015. "Donor Interests or Developmental Performance? Explaining Sanctions in EU Democracy Promotion in sub-Saharan Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 74-84.
    8. Thilo Bodenstein & Jörg Faust, 2017. "Who Cares? European Public Opinion on Foreign Aid and Political Conditionality," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 955-973, September.
    9. Fisher, Jonathan, 2015. "‘Does it Work?’ – Work for Whom? Britain and Political Conditionality since the Cold War," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 13-25.

    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:taf:ctwqxx:v:33:y:2012:i:5:p:791-806. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ctwq .

    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.