The Potential Role of Non-Traditional Donors’ Aid in Africa

by Peter Kragelund

Issue Paper 11

Do More

See also

Discuss this publicationShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

South-South cooperation is by no means a new phenomenon. Indeed, after a decline in the 1980s and 1990s South-South cooperation has regained momentum. China and India are the largest southern donors, but other developing countries like Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and South Africa have an important and increasing role in development assistance in Africa, as well as in other developing countries.

Although the total size of the development assistance from these donors is still small in comparison to the traditional donors’ aid, its role is growing rapidly. Geographical proximity is a major determinant of the direction of most aid flows from the emerging economies. This pattern is mainly motivated by language and cultural similarities and opportunities for increasing trade and strengthening political relations. However, geographical proximity is not the only determinant, and southern donors, particularly China and India, are strengthening their ties with Africa as well as other developing countries. Development assistance is by no means the principal ingredient in South-South cooperation. Indeed, the latter is also largely made of trade and investment, tourism, and peace-keeping operations. Nonetheless, it is the most important element as it is used to facilitate the other flows.

The present Issue Paper challenges the perception that non-traditional aid lacks transparency and contains little or any conditionality thereby undermining the development efforts of ‘traditional’ donors. Moreover, this  paper examines the implications of the re-emergence of China, India, Brazil and South Africa as important ‘non-traditional’ donors to Africa on sustainable development and aid flows and governance.

One response to “The Potential Role of Non-Traditional Donors’ Aid in Africa”

1. Apostolos 13th September 2010 at 04:08

   Thus, while traditional donors
   until very recently targeted (only) social sectors,
   non-traditional donors targeted the productive
   sectors. Moreover, the studies found that not
   only were ‘donor darlings’ targeted but so were
   conflict and post-conflict countries (formerly
   mostly targeted by multilateral agencies and civil society organisations). The political
   elite in these non-donor darling countries
   will consequently have a marked enlarged
   room for manoeuvre while the re-appearance
   of non-traditional donors will put (further)
   pressure on the absorptive capacity for donor
   darlings – already faced with several bilateral
   donors, international financial institutions,
   vertical funds, and non-governmental organisations
   eager to engage in development
   collaborations.31

   Excuse me but the above seems not clear, really. How exactly will the enlarged room for manoeuvre of non-darling countries will put pressure on the absorptive capacity for donor darlings? Aren’t the non-traditional donors’ funds, additional to those of the traditional financial institutions?

   Regards,

Add a comment

Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.