The inclusion of a goal on
governance in the post-2015 framework has been one of the most hotly debated issues
in the search for a successor to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This topic has generated - and will continue
to generate - discussions across the development community. Some believe that peace
and effective institutions are both development outcomes in their own right as
well as vehicles to deliver other development goals. Others are not necessarily
contesting this, but fear that including a goal on peace and institutions could
detract from other development goals. The final proposal from the Open Working
Group includes a goal on the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies for
sustainable development. The prospect of keeping this goal in the final agreement
now looks more favourable.
This leads to the question of
whether development co-operation is in a position to contribute effectively to
this new goal on governance and peaceful and inclusive societies.
If the contribution is measured
in terms of funds allocated the response would be in principle
affirmative. Of course, more funds are
needed globally to be invested in development in general; however, the
proportion of funds currently allocated to governance support compared to other
development sectors is enough.
The recent review of Development Assistance Flows for Governance and for Peace prepared by the OECD showed that in 2012, the
“governance and peace” sector is the one which received the most funds: “In
2012, Official Development Assistance (ODA) totalling USD 17 285 million[1] was
disbursed to support governance and peace in developing countries. This
represents 15.7% of total sector-allocable ODA (saODA) – the highest amount
provided to any sector”. By comparison, traditional
sectors like education or health received respectively 10.5% and 8.6% of total
sector-allocable ODA. Actually, if ODA used to strengthen line ministries,
which is currently counted as part of ODA to their respective sector, were considered
as aid for governance, this percentage would be around 20% of total saODA.
These figures are quite impressive particularly if we consider that governance
is absent from the current MDG framework. But at the same time, this should not
be a big surprise. It shows that development partners understand that having a
capable and inclusive state is crucial for development, that any development
outcome will face problems of sustainability if institutions are not
consolidated.
However, even if there are significant resources devoted to these issues
there is still a question of whether they are well used. In theory there may be enough funding in
volume – but is there enough in quality?
There are certainly question about distribution of resources, with some
countries receiving high volumes of support and others very little. There are also questions about modalities,
with several reviews of public sector managementprogrammes showing uneven
results.
Evidently, more efforts need to be made in order to ensure that our
actions will really make a difference. The
good news is that there are plenty of people thinking about how this could be
done (see for example the DDD manifesto or the Thinking and working politically group). The DAC Network on Governance (GovNet) is also contributing to these efforts.
The network is currently collecting information and analysing different
examples of innovative approaches to promote governance reforms. Another study
is exploring how relatively new modalities, like results-based financing is
working on governance support. We expect that these studies will help to
increase the quality of the work in those areas.
Beyond funds, what is needed to reform governance systems? The answer is
more innovative approaches and less business as usual.
See the attached report “DevelopmentAssistance Flows for Governance and for Peaceful and Inclusive Societies” which
includes data on how and where official development cooperation funds for
governance and peacebuilding are allocated.
Eduardo Gonzalez Cauhapé-Cazaux
Governance Advisor
OECD-DCD
The views expressed in our blogs remain those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the OECD or its members
The views expressed in our blogs remain those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the OECD or its members