Medium-sized Traditional Donors in the Changing International Aid Regime

Benjamin Day

Doctoral Candidate, Department of International Relations, School of International, Political & Strategic Studies, ANU

Outline

1. The changing international aid regime

2. Examining ‘Medium-Sized Traditional Donors’

3. How will MSTDs respond?

“The old certainties about the norms of international development cooperation [are] disappearing in a rapidly changing global political economy, while new modes of behaviour [are] yet to strongly emerge…”

(Eyben and Savage 2013, 457)

The Politics of Development:

• Busan HLF as an inflection point (Mawdsley, Savage, and Kim 2013 / Kim & Lee 2013)

• Emerging and Submerging Powers (Eyben & Savage 2013)

The Practice of Development:

• The ‘Age of Choice’ (Greenhill et al 2013)

• ‘Beyond aid’

• The changing geography of poverty

The Changing International Aid Regime

Examining ‘Medium Sized Traditional Donors’

MSTDs stand to lose the most from the contemporary changes in the international development regime…

They remain relevant because:

1. They continue to ‘punch above their weight’

2. They have exhibited similar policy responses since the GFC / Busan HLF

3. ‘Canary in the coal mine’ – sensitive to changes in the international system

Iceland

Slovak Republic

Czech Republic

Greece

Luxembourg

Poland

New Zealand

Portugal

Ireland

Austria

Finland

Korea

Spain

Belgium

Denmark

Italy

Switzerland

Norway

Sweden

Australia

Netherlands

Canada

Japan

France

Germany

United Kingdom

United States

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.5%

0.6%

0.9%

1.0%

1.2%

1.6%

1.8%

2.1%

2.1%

2.4%

3.7%

4.1%

4.2%

4.3%

4.4%

8.2%

9.3%

10.0%

10.8%

23.8%23.8%

Large (>$10b))

Medium($5b)

Small(<$3b)

Contribution to Total DAC ODA by Donor, 2012

Contribution to Total DAC ODA by Donor, 2012

# of Donors Population GNI ODA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

500%

64%70%

63%500%

9%

11%21%

1700%

28%

18% 16%

Large Donors Medium-sized Donors Small Donors

Contribution to the DAC by Donor Size, 2012

Examining Medium-Sized Traditional Donors

Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, Norway

• Tiers of donor size have remained stable over time

• Rank 6 to 10th in DAC ‘league table’

• ODA USD 5 billion each in 2012

• Self-identify as middle powers

How will MSTDs respond?

Factors shaping the behaviour of MSTDs in the international system (drawing on middle power theory):

1. MSTDs possess limited agency

2. MSTDs seek to preserve the established order

3. For MSTDs, maintaining credibility matters

MSTDs & the Politics of Development:

• Influence of MSTDs is constrained by systemic AND domestic factors

MSTDs & the Practice of Development:

• More space for leadership

• More space for collective action

How will MSTDs respond?

MSTDs are likely to:

• Focus entrepreneurial resources towards innovation in development practice

• Broaden their notions of ‘good international citizenship’• Increasingly emphasize ‘mutual interest’ in development

policy• Further integrate development policy with broader foreign

policy objectives (especially in key international relationships)

How will MSTDs respond?