Research and outreach
in multiple arenas
In today’s globalised world, IOB conceives of development
as a multi-level and multi-actor process, negotiated in
multiple arenas; a patchy process, pushed and pulled
in different directions and unfolding on different time
scales, needing mixed methods methodologies to be
analysed adequately. In 2016, IOB’s research underwent
a successful external audit process, which, among other
things, reinforced this fundamental view.
The multiple levels at which our research feeds into these
different arenas are also reflected in the different research
lines currently cultivated by IOB. Functioning as platforms
to discuss and present research activities, each of them
zooms in on different levels (local, national, international)
and, at the international level, on public and private
actors.
Conditional Finance for
Development (CFD)
This research line focuses on low-income countries
(LICs) that have a relatively high degree of dependence
on international not-for-profit finance. Such financial
transfers (usually falling under the heading of
development cooperation, but also increasingly motivated
by climate change considerations) are often characterised
by a plethora of international actors who, with little
mutual coordination, impose burdensome provisions with
respect to earmarking, implementation, accountability
and conditionalities relating to broader public sector,
macroeconomic or political reforms. This research line
studies the rationale and the effectiveness of this complex
and evolving financial architecture.
A recurrent theme within CFD is the follow up of aid
trends, taking into account the changing aid landscape
and shifting power configurations in an increasingly
polycentric world. In 2016, two publications on European
budget support were realised, while particular emphasis
was also put on the understudied area of donor home
politics in allocating aid, in deciding upon aid goals and
priorities, in the use of aid modalities, and when, how
and which aid sanctions a re issued. The aid debate has
been, by and large, dominated by two very influential
research streams. The first focuses on aid allocation
(why some countries receive more aid than others); the
second on aid effectiveness (what are the effects of aid
on the economic and political evolutions/institutions in
recipient countries?). In these research communities, the
role of certain donor characteristics, such as ideology or
democratic quality, while certainly not overlooked, have
not received the scholarly attention they should have,
taking into account their general importance in politics
and policymaking. That is also why they are usually
treated in relative isolation (disconnected from other
donor features or wider processes in donor countries)
and framed to serve the purpose of advancing our
understanding of aid flows and their effectiveness. In
order to broaden and deepen this research agenda, this
research line organised a two-day seminar on the topic of
‘Domestic Dimensions of Development Cooperation’. This
seminar attracted 26 scholars from around the globe who
are working on the subject. The seminar also reached out
to some policymakers and shapers, with the OECD/DAC,
as well as a large delegation of the German Evaluation
Office, all actively participating.
A second research interest within CFD is debt relief and
how it contributes to economic growth and development
outcomes. Three contributions have dealt, more
specifically, with the evolving composition of sovereign
debt since the countries under study were granted
massive debt relief through the HIPC initiative; the
interaction of sovereign debt with more traditional aid
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS CFD
# # Holvoet, N. and Inberg, L. (2016) “Do gender targets
and gender working groups contribute to more
gender-sensitive budget support? Evidence from 14
Sub-Saharan African countries”, European Journal of
Development Research, 28 (5): 875-892.
# # Jacobs, B. (2016) “Can the Addis Ababa Action
Agenda bring about a more integrated blend?
Facilitating African infrastructure development
through institutionalized portfolio approaches”,
Forum for Development Studies, 43 (3): 385-414.
# # Koch, S., Leiderer, S., Faust, J. and Molenaers, N.
(2016) “The rise and demise of European budget
support: political economy of collective European
Union donor action”, Development Policy Review:
online first.
# # Renmans, D., Holvoet, N., Garimoi Orach, C.
and Criel, B. (2016) “Opening the ‘black box’ of
performance-based financing in low- and lower
middle-income countries: a review of the literature”,
Health Policy and Planning, 31 (9): 1297-1309.
# # Smets, L. and Knack, S. (2016) “World Bank lending
and the quality of economic policy”, Journal of
Development Studies, 52 (1): 72-91.
# # Cassimon, D., Essers, D. and Verbeke, K. (2016)
«Rwanda: from HIPC to hiccups?», in: Reyntjens, F.,
Verpoorten, M. and Vandeginste, S. (eds.) L’Afrique
des grands lacs: annuaire 2015-2016, Brussel, University
Press Antwerp, 299-320.
# # Molenaers, N. and Gleiberman, M. (2016) “The end of
aid as we know it? Some reflections on aid evolutions
and aid effectiveness”, in: Rollet, V. (ed.) Approaches
and implementation of Asian and European Official
Development Assistance (ODA): similarities, specificities
and convergences, Louvain-la-Neuve, L’Harmattan,
17-34.
Annual Report 2016 • 7