Political recognition is almost exclusively for ODA there are few incentives to provide other official flows (OOFs) of development finance. Instruments: ODA definition can create perverse incentives.Actors: Important flows from non-DAC donors are outside the system, preventing scrutiny of quality, assessment of burden share. Relevance: in the changing landscape of development financing is ODA still relevant?.Since then UK will be first country to join this group. Luxembourg reached it in 2000 and continues to do so. Sweden and the Netherlands reached the target in 1975, Norway and Denmark reached it in 19 respectively, and all four countries have consistently met it since. Credibility: 0.7% target has not been met collectively in 40 years.Since 2005 only one list of DAC ODA recipients in place. Official aid was on top of ODA and did not count towards the 0.7 target. From 1993 to 2005 we had a more differentiated system with two DAC lists – one for “traditional” developing countries/ ODA and a separate list, for “more advanced” developing and Eastern European Economies, then called “official aid”.As not counted towards 0.7 target very little traction in political debates and arguably low donor incentives.OOF captures transactions from the official sector with countries on the DAC list of ODA recipients which do not meet ODA eligibility criteria.Other official flows (OOF) category introduced in 1969.Many aspects of the current debate were already present in 1972: private versus public, concessional vs.the development/welfare purpose of the related transactions and.the recipients (they must be on the DAC list).the source (official sector of donor countries).the type of flows (equity, grants, loans or technical cooperation).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |