IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/ecr/col016/3050.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Financing for development and middle income-countries: new challenges

Editor

Listed:
  • ECLAC

Author

Listed:
  • -

Abstract

A criterion commonly used to classify countries, including by the donor countries of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, focuses on income per capita as the main factor for defining groups of countries. Classifying countries according to income level ties in with the idea that countries should assume responsibility for their own development after reaching a certain income level (a process known as "graduation"). However, there are many important consequences of using arbitrary income boundaries to define categories. First, and this is especially true for borderline countries, graduation may simply be triggered by marginal changes in economic conditions, but it can lead to important changes in the development assistance environment, including the amount of assistance delivered and the conditions -greater or lesser concessionality- in which that assistance is delivered. Second, the process of graduation into the next higher income category is not a linear one, with countries often slipping back into a previous income status. This is another reflection of the fact that graduation may not be a sign of fundamental changes in a country's development reality but simply of marginal changes in economic conditions. Finally, and most importantly, using income thresholds leads to country groupings that do not capture the complex nature of development and the diversity of situations among and within the members of each group. In particular, middle-income countries (MICs) -considered as a group- constitute an essential pillar of the world economy, they account for a large share of economic activity and trade, and they are home to a majority both of the world's population and of the world's poor. However, a closer look inside the group reveals striking heterogeneity among the various individual countries. The wide range of capacities and needs among MICs is not taken into account when countries are grouped simply by income level. In Latin America and the Caribbean, almost 90% of countries fall in the middle-income category. The disparities across these countries are found in a wide range of variables relating not only to size and economic conditions but also to social situation and structural features linked to development potential and productive performance. This broad diversity of capacities and needs among MICs is, however, seldom taken into account by donor countries and multilateral agencies when prioritizing the allocation of official development assistance (ODA). The rationale for ODA allocation in recent decades has been to channel the bulk of ODA towards low-income countries, including those classified as least developed countries (LDCs), to the detriment of MICs. The thinking is that since MICs have higher average incomes, their needs should be less. For a middle-income region such as Latin America and the Caribbean, this has meant that its share of ODA flows fell from an already low 9% in 1990 to an even lower 7% in 2009, compared with Africa and Asia which receive the most substantial share (37% and 30% respectively). Although it is to be expected that the international system of cooperation should focus on levelling the playing field for low-income economies and narrowing their development gap with respect to the more advanced countries, international cooperation mandates should not be limited to that focus. International cooperation should search for a comprehensive and broad-based response to the development problem, one that not only addresses the needs of low-income countries but also considers the diverse needs and kinds of vulnerability present in MICs. For this, it is vital to have a comprehensive understanding of where the major needs and areas of vulnerability lie in each case and where the main gaps are between needs and possibilities so that development assistance may be allocated accordingly. A crucial step forward in this direction would be the revision of the criteria used for country classification and the substitution of the currently used income-based criteria with new, better-suited indicators. These new indicators should be able to capture the multifaceted nature of development and thus lead to country groupings that are less heterogeneous internally. More specifically, these indicators should reflect structural challenges and areas of vulnerability that are present in MICs but not captured by income per capita thresholds. In the case of Latin American and Caribbean MICs, these traditional long-term challenges and areas of vulnerability can be summarized in what the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean identified as key gaps that must be closed in order to avert the "middle-income trap" and move towards a sustainable and dynamic development process that places equity at its centre (ECLAC, 2010a). Those gaps are the financing gap, the inequality and social protection gap, the human capital gap and the productivity and investment gap. Besides developing better criteria for ODA allocation, the international community must persist in the effort to increase the resources available for development financing. The current level of ODA financing provided to developing countries is clearly insufficient; and as a result, increases in assistance to some countries or regions sometimes occur at the expense of others (such as some MICs) that also have important needs. Despite efforts by DAC donor countries to increase the amount of ODA provided, the levels in 2010 stood at only 0.32% of GNI on average, far behind the internationally agreed target of 0.7%. In addition, the public finances of many donors deteriorated substantially in the wake of the global crisis, making the scaling up of development assistance levels less likely. As the post-crisis scenario has added new areas of vulnerability to the traditional ones faced by some developing countries, the tension will persist between scarce resources and vast needs. It is therefore of vital importance that the international community pool efforts to come up with innovative ways of mobilizing resources for development that supplement -not replace- ODA flows. Countries of both the northern and southern hemispheres have joined forces on different occasions to develop innovative finance for development mechanisms. The proposals range from specific types of global taxes to mechanisms that facilitate private, person-to-person voluntary donations. Some of these proposals are already being implemented and the results are encouraging. Nevertheless, much remains to be done in this area and the international community should invest seriously in efforts to that end.

Suggested Citation

  • -, 2011. "Financing for development and middle income-countries: new challenges," Libros y Documentos Institucionales, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 3050 edited by Eclac.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecr:col016:3050
    Note: Spanish version avalilable at the Library
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/3050
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andy Sumner, 2010. "Global Poverty and the New Bottom Billion: Three-Quarters of the World’s Poor Live in Middle-Income Countries," One Pager 120, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    2. Andy Sumner, 2010. "Global Poverty and the New Bottom Billion: What if Three-quarters of the World’s Poor Live in Middle-income Countries?," Working Papers 74, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Axel Michaelowa & Katharina Michaelowa, 2011. "Climate business for poverty reduction? The role of the World Bank," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 259-286, September.
    2. Raquel Almeida Ramos, 2012. "Financial Flows and Exchange Rates: Challenges Faced by Developing Countries," Working Papers 97, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    3. Tony Addison & Miguel Niño‐Zarazúa & Finn Tarp, 2015. "Aid, Social Policy and Development," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(8), pages 1351-1365, November.
    4. Ghani, Ejaz, 2011. "The South Asian Development Paradox: Can Social Outcomes Keep Pace with Growth?," World Bank - Economic Premise, The World Bank, issue 53, pages 1-6, March.
    5. Edmond Totin & Alcade C. Segnon & Marc Schut & Hippolyte Affognon & Robert B. Zougmoré & Todd Rosenstock & Philip K. Thornton, 2018. "Institutional Perspectives of Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Bodenstein, Thilo & Kemmerling, Achim, 2015. "A Paradox of Redistribution in International Aid? The Determinants of Poverty-Oriented Development Assistance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 359-369.
    7. David Hulme, 2013. "Poverty and development thinking:synthesis or uneasy compromise?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series 18013, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    8. Petr Jansk & Marek ediv, 2018. "How Do Regional Price Levels Affect Income Inequality? Household-level Evidence From 21 Countries," LIS Working papers 752, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    9. Andy Sumner, 2016. "The world's two new middles Growth, precarity, structural change, and the limitations of the special case," WIDER Working Paper Series 034, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Gianni Vaggi, 2017. "The rich and the poor: A note on countries’ classification," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 70(280), pages 59-82.
    11. Ruth Stewart & Carina van Rooyen & Thea de Wet, 2012. "Purity or pragmatism? Reflecting on the use of systematic review methodology in development," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 430-444, September.
    12. Bishop, Sylvia & Shepherd, Andrew, 2013. "Aid and Poverty: Why Does Aid Not Address Poverty (Much)?," WIDER Working Paper Series 020, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. Bhalla, Surjit & Kaur, Ravinder, 2011. "Labour force participation of women in India: some facts, some queries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 38367, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Oyamada, Kazuhiko & Uchida, Yoko, 2011. "Production patterns of Multinational Firms: Horizontal and Vertical Multinationals with traded intermediates," Conference papers 332063, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Farole, Thomas, 2012. "Competitiveness and Connectivity: Integrating Lagging Regions in Global Markets," World Bank - Economic Premise, The World Bank, issue 93, pages 1-5, October.
    16. Richard Manning, 2012. "Aid as a Second-Best Solution: Seven Problems of Effectiveness and How to Tackle Them," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2012-024, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Todd Moss & Stephanie Majerowicz, 2012. "No Longer Poor: Ghana’s New Income Status and Implications of Graduation from IDA," Working Papers 300, Center for Global Development.
    18. Christina Wieser, 2011. "Determinants of the Growth Elasticity of Poverty Reduction. Why the Impact on Poverty Reduction is Large in Some Developing Countries and Small in Others," WIFO Working Papers 406, WIFO.
    19. Elleby, Christian, 2014. "Poverty and Price Transmission," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182722, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Heshmati, Almas & Kim, Jungsuk, 2014. "A Survey of the Role of Fiscal Policy in Addressing Income Inequality, Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth," IZA Discussion Papers 8119, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:ecr:col016:3050. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Biblioteca CEPAL (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eclaccl.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.