P. 1
Background Paper:The Future of Philanthropy and Development in the Pursuit of Human Wellbeing

Background Paper:The Future of Philanthropy and Development in the Pursuit of Human Wellbeing

|Views: 122|Likes:
Published by Janevska Irina
The Bellagio Initiative

The Future of Philanthropy and Development in the Pursuit of Human Wellbeing
Background Paper

Philanthropy: Current Context and Future Outlook

The Resource Alliance
November 2011
The Bellagio Initiative

The Future of Philanthropy and Development in the Pursuit of Human Wellbeing
Background Paper

Philanthropy: Current Context and Future Outlook

The Resource Alliance
November 2011

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Janevska Irina on Dec 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/20/2013

pdf

text

original

As of 2009, the global economic crisis has not caused a decrease in ODA. However, with
increasing fiscal pressures in the United States and abroad, the Hudson Institute concludes that
ODA may be affected in the future.24

In any case, ODA, as measured and accounted for by the
DAC member states, turns out to be a poor benchmark for the emerging global public policy
enriched with new objectives, actors and instruments.25

The non‐DAC official development flows
are of significant size. In 2009, the non‐DAC countries and still report their annual overseas
assistance to the OECD, reported a total of nearly $7 billion (Table 4: ‘All states, total ODA’).
Several countries that provide development aid are not captured appropriately. While the
objectives, actors and instruments have evolved, the approach to measure government
development aid hasn’t.

Indicative findings of a 2005 research report by
the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
suggest that non‐DAC donors represent up to
12 percent of official humanitarian financing in
any given year. These donors are engaging in a
growing number of countries, although they
concentrate the bulk of their resources on a
few specific crises, often in neighbouring
countries. As Harmer and Cotterrell remarked
in, “there is a strong preference for bilateral
aid over multilateral channels” (See Table 4,
next page), “particularly government‐to‐
government, as well as through national
operational agencies like the Red Cross/Red Crescent societies. This preference for bilateral
routes reflects a view that aid is part of a deeper, mutually‐beneficial partnership. It also stems
from a desire for visibility, and for aid to be delivered in a timely manner. Non‐DAC donors have
not seen multilateral contributions as offering these advantages. This constitutes a clear
challenge for the UN’s humanitarian agencies.”26

24

See Hudson report, page 7

25

See Severino, Jean‐Michel and Ray, Olivier (2009): The End of ODA: Death and Rebirth of a Global Public Policy, CGD
Working Paper 167. Washington, D.C.: Center for Global Development, page 7

26

Harmer, Adele and Cotterrell, Lin (September 2005): Diversity in donorship: The changing landscape of official
humanitarian aid, HPG Report 20, see here: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/234.pdf, page 5 (Accessed
July 2011)

“There are too many agencies,
financing too many small
projects, using too many
different procedures”

Article in The Economist “The future of
aid”, September 4, 2008

July 2011

31

Source: OECD
*
 Note: Bilateral and multilateral

Table 4: NonDAC Donors' Net ODA Disbursements, Current Prices, $million

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

All states, total ODA *

3.29

3.16

4.59

4.30

8.06

6.63

Bilateral ODA

2.90

2.64

4.01

3.68

7.17

5.58

Bilateral percent of total

88%

84%

87%

86%

89%

84%

Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)

0.41

0.47

0.49

0.50

0.41

0.40

Cyprus

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

Czech Republic

0.06

0.06

0.08

0.08

0.12

0.10

Estonia

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

Hungary

0.04

0.04

0.08

0.03

0.02

0.03

Iceland

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.03

Israel

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.11

Kuwait

0.10

0.22

0.16

0.11

0.28

0.22

Latvia

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Liechtenstein

0.02

0.02

0.02

Lithuania

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.01

Malta

0.01

Poland

0.02

0.05

0.12

0.16

0.08

0.09

Romania

0.03

0.03

Saudi Arabia

1.69

0.98

1.98

1.53

4.96

2.92

Slovak Republic

0.01

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.02

Slovenia

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

Thailand

0.06

0.06

0.17

0.03

Turkey

0.29

0.53

0.64

0.54

0.74

0.67

United Arab Emirates

0.18

0.14

0.22

0.43

0.09

0.83

July 2011

32

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->