IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/diedps/12018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monitoring and evaluation in South-South Cooperation: the case of CPEC in Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Ali, Murad

Abstract

Pakistan is one of the key countries in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) where the latter is implementing a multibillion-dollar, multiyear investment plan known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). A collection of projects aimed at developing energy, industry and communication infrastructure, costing over USD 46 billion, CPEC is expected to contribute significantly to socio-economic development and poverty reduction in Pakistan. The main research question is, while implementing development projects in Pakistan, to what extent China adheres to its avowed principles of international development cooperation comprising features such as mutual respect, non-conditionality, equality, building local capacity and addressing actual needs of partner countries. Based mainly on the analysis of primary data collected during fieldwork in Pakistan, this research explores the extent to which the official narrative guides and influences the actual practice of China’s development cooperation on the ground. Although still evolving, the BRI and its constituent the CPEC, which is an investment-grant-loan model of financing in Pakistan, is an example of South-South Cooperation (SSC): the form of international development cooperation whereby “two or more developing countries pursue their individual or collective development through cooperative exchange of knowledge, skills, resources and technical expertise” (UNDP, 2007, p. 1). For the analysis of CPEC-related Chinese investment in Pakistan, this study uses an analytical framework developed by researchers from the South Africa chapter of the Network of Southern Think Tanks (NeST), a group of key research institutions from various developing countries dedicated to generating standardised, systematic and clearly comparable knowledge on SSC (Besharati & Rawhani, 2016; Besharati, Rawhani, & Rios, 2017). Established in 2015, and then refined and finalised in 2017 after a number of expert group meetings and field-based SSC case studies, the framework operationalises various conceptual issues related to the quality and development effectiveness of SSC. The framework, which is discussed later in some detail, comprises five dimensions and a set of 20 indicators. The overall framework and associated dimensions and indicators not only offer valuable parameters to assess the quality and effectiveness of SSC, but these are also closely related to the key principles and features of China’s foreign aid policy. The five key elements of the analytical framework are inclusive national ownership, horizontality, self-reliance and sustainability, accountability and transparency and development efficiency. Within this framework and associated parameters, this research examines the China-Pakistan development partnership under CPEC and explores the extent to which SSC principles are practiced. By systematically examining SSC in the form of Chinese investment and development cooperation projects in Pakistan, this study contributes to the limited body of academic literature on Chinese development cooperation with its key South Asian ally.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali, Murad, 2018. "Monitoring and evaluation in South-South Cooperation: the case of CPEC in Pakistan," IDOS Discussion Papers 1/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:diedps:12018
    DOI: 10.23661/dp1.2018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/199521/1/die-dp-2018-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.23661/dp1.2018?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Canavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo & Nunnenkamp, Peter & Thiele, Rainer & Triveño, Luis, 2005. "Assessing the allocation of aid: Developmental concerns and the self-interest of donors," Kiel Working Papers 1253, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Axel Dreher & Andreas Fuchs, 2015. "Rogue aid? An empirical analysis of China's aid allocation," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 48(3), pages 988-1023, August.
    3. Daouda Cissé & Sven Grimm, 2015. "Chinese investments in Africa: corporate responsibility and sustainability norms," International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(3/4), pages 285-304.
    4. Eric Neumayer, 2003. "What Factors Determine the Allocation of Aid by Arab Countries and Multilateral Agencies?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 134-147.
    5. Jeffery I. Round & Matthew Odedokun, 2003. "Aid Effort and its Determinants," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-03, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Alesina, Alberto & Dollar, David, 2000. "Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 33-63, March.
    7. Ministry of Finance, Government of India,, 2017. "Economic Survey 2016-17," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199477661.
    8. Jean‐Claude Berthélemy, 2006. "Bilateral Donors’ Interest vs. Recipients’ Development Motives in Aid Allocation: Do All Donors Behave the Same?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 179-194, May.
    9. Jiajun Xu & Richard Carey, 2015. "China's international development finance: Past, present, and future," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2015-130, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Besharati, Neissan Alessandro, 2013. "Common goals and differential commitments: the role of emerging economies in global development," IDOS Discussion Papers 26/2013, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    11. Adam Moe Fejerskov & Erik Lundsgaarde & Signe Cold-Ravnkilde, 2017. "Recasting the ‘New Actors in Development’ Research Agenda," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(5), pages 1070-1085, November.
    12. Xu, Xiuli & Li, Xiaoyun & Qi, Gubo & Tang, Lixia & Mukwereza, Langton, 2016. "Science, Technology, and the Politics of Knowledge: The Case of China’s Agricultural Technology Demonstration Centers in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 82-91.
    13. Round, Jeffery I. & Odedokun, Matthew, 2004. "Aid effort and its determinants," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 293-309.
    14. Martin-Shields, Charles, 2017. "State fragility as a cause of forced displacement: identifying theoretical channels for empirical research," IDOS Discussion Papers 30/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    15. Scoones, Ian & Amanor, Kojo & Favareto, Arilson & Qi, Gubo, 2016. "A New Politics of Development Cooperation? Chinese and Brazilian Engagements in African Agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-12.
    16. Xiaoyun Li & Dan Banik & Lixia Tang & Jin Wu, 2014. "Difference or Indifference: China's Development Assistance Unpacked," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(4), pages 22-35, July.
    17. Fahimul Quadir, 2013. "Rising Donors and the New Narrative of ‘South–South’ Cooperation: what prospects for changing the landscape of development assistance programmes?," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 321-338.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Minasyan, Anna, 2018. "Evidence-based allocation in global health: lessons learned for Germany," IDOS Discussion Papers 4/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    2. Ohnesorge, Jan, 2018. "A primer on blockchain technology and its potential for financial inclusion," IDOS Discussion Papers 2/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    3. Dick, Eva & Schraven, Benjamin, 2018. "Regional migration governance in Africa and beyond: a framework of analysis," IDOS Discussion Papers 9/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    4. Baumann, Max-Otto, 2018. "Mission impossible? Country-level coordination in the UN development system," IDOS Discussion Papers 7/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    5. Laura Trajber Waisbich, 2022. "‘It Takes Two to Tango’: South–South Cooperation Measurement Politics in a Multiplex World," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(3), pages 334-345, June.
    6. Kaplan, Lennart, 2020. "Systemic challenges and opportunities of Franco-German development cooperation," IDOS Discussion Papers 10/2020, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    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. Angelika J. Budjan & Andreas Fuchs, 2021. "Democracy and Aid Donorship," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 217-238, November.
    2. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2017. "Structural economic vulnerability, openness and bilateral development aid flows," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 77-95.
    3. Bei, Leticia Jin, 2019. "Where does the dragon’s gift go?: Subnational distribution of China’s aid to Sub-Saharan Africa from 2007 to 2012," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101349, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Fleck, Robert K. & Kilby, Christopher, 2010. "Changing aid regimes? U.S. foreign aid from the Cold War to the War on Terror," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 185-197, March.
    5. Jean-Louis COMBES & Rasmané OUEDRAOGO, 2014. "Does Pro-cyclical Aid Lead to Pro-cyclical Fiscal Policy? An Empirical Analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa," Working Papers 201424, CERDI.
    6. Jung, Yunji & Kim, Juno & Kim, Kyunghun, 2024. "Whom is economic aid meant for? The push vs. pull determinant factors of official development assistance," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 173-195.
    7. Broich, Tobias, 2017. "Do authoritarian regimes receive more Chinese development finance than democratic ones? Empirical evidence for Africa," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 180-207.
    8. Breßlein, Martin & Schmaljohann, Maya, 2013. "Surrender your market! Do the G5 countries use World Bank Trade Conditionality to promote Trade?," Working Papers 0550, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    9. Dreher, Axel & Nunnenkamp, Peter & Thiele, Rainer, 2011. "Are ‘New’ Donors Different? Comparing the Allocation of Bilateral Aid Between nonDAC and DAC Donor Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 1950-1968.
    10. Rainer Thiele & Peter Nunnenkamp & Axel Dreher, 2007. "Do Donors Target Aid in Line with the Millennium Development Goals? A Sector Perspective of Aid Allocation," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 143(4), pages 596-630, December.
    11. Ryan Cardwell & Pascal L. Ghazalian, 2020. "The Effects of Untying International Food Assistance: The Case of Canada," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1056-1078, August.
    12. Okullo, Samuel J. & Reynès, Frédéric, 2011. "Can reserve additions in mature crude oil provinces attenuate peak oil?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 5755-5764.
    13. Fink, Günther & Redaelli, Silvia, 2011. "Determinants of International Emergency Aid--Humanitarian Need Only?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 741-757, May.
    14. Hoeffler, Anke & Sterck, Olivier, 2022. "Is Chinese aid different?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    15. Fuchs, Andreas & Dreher, Axel & Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2014. "Determinants of Donor Generosity: A Survey of the Aid Budget Literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 172-199.
    16. Hendrik KRUSE & Thais NUNEZ-ROCHA & Camélia TURCU, 2019. "Infrastructure aid for resource trade? The crossroads of strategy and sustainable development," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2728, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    17. John‐Michael Davis & Liam Swiss, 2020. "Need, Merit, Self‐Interest or Convenience? Exploring Aid Allocation Motives of Grassroots International NGOs," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1324-1345, November.
    18. Nagae, Akira & Katayama, Hajime & Takase, Koichi, 2022. "Donor aid allocation and accounting standards of recipients," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    19. Lauren L. Ferry & Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Christina J. Schneider, 2020. "Catch me if you care: International development organizations and national corruption," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 767-792, October.
    20. David Fielding, 2010. "Inertia and Herding in Humanitarian Aid Decisions," Working Papers 1009, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2010.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Aufstrebende Mächte; Entwicklungsfinanzierung und öffentliche Finanzen; Agenda 2030; Handel und Investitionen; Wirksamkeit und Evaluierung;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:diedps:12018. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ditubde.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.