GRIPS Development Forum
Policy Minutes

Policy Minutes No. 19
GRIPS Development ForumMay 2005

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar on
Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities—Matching Aid with Country Needs and Ownership—

By GRIPS Development Forum——in Tokyo, Japan (March 15, 2005)

［政策議事録 バックナンバー］
No.１ グローバルトレンドと日本

発行：2002 年 6 月

日本の開発研究（朽木昭文、川辺英一郎）
CDF・PRSP を超えて――開発戦略における日本の付加価値（朽木昭文）
世界銀行と日本の関係は如何にあるべきか（吉村幸雄）

No. 2 2002 年春季世界銀行・IMF 会合

発行：2002 年 6 月

世界銀行・IMF2002 年春会合の評価と今後の課題（吉田正紀、柳瀬護）

No. 3 ドナー間調整

発行：2002 年 6 月

技術協力の課題と今後の方向性（窪田博之）
ドナー調整会合――日本のより良き開発協力支援のために・世界銀行現場の視点（泉泰雄）
ある JICA 在外事務所員の懺悔録――ドナー調整会合はかくも難しい（山田浩司）

No. 4 開発資金

発行：2002 年 6 月

民間資金と開発――民間投資のダイナミズムと開発政策（畑島宏之）
世界銀行実務の問題点と日本が提示できる付加価値（豊島俊広）
開発におけるローンとグラントの役割（中村隆司）

No. 5 NGO と ODA

発行：2002 年 6 月

政府と NGO が抱える問題（杉原ひろみ）
NGO とドナーとのパートナーシップ――米国の政策と経験から考える（杉原ひろみ）

No. 6 知的 NPO の役割

発行：2002 年 6 月

開発分野の政策研究・発信とネットワークの強化に向けて（大野泉）
開発潮流積極関与のための日本提案の模索――批判・発信から提言・行動へ（大野健一）

No. 7 開発援助の戦略化

発行：2002 年 6 月「声が聞こえる援助」を目指して（上田善久）
日本の「開発外交」は如何にあるべきか――ワシントン DC の視点（紀谷昌彦）
バングラデシュ開発援助ネットワーク――国別援助政策強化の新たな試み（岡崎克彦）

No. 8 ベトナムの鉄鋼業・貿易政策

発行：2002 年 10 月

ハノイ鉄鋼集中セミナー （2000 年 10 月）
ハノイ・ワークショップ （2000 年 12 月）＜付録＞ 鉄鋼業・貿易政策に関する日本側見解の要約（2000 年 12 月）

No. 9Steel Industrial and Trade Policies of Vietnam

Issue: October 2002

Intensive Steel Seminar (Oct 2000)
Second Intensive Steel Seminar (Oct 2001)<Supplement> Summary of the Japanese Views on Steel Industry and Trade Policy
Produced by Japanese members of Trade and Industry Group (Jan 2001)

No.10

A Symposium on Industrial and Trade Policies of Vietnam
Under International Integration (Mar 29-30, 2002)

Issue: October 2002

©GRIPS Development Forum

Contact:
GRIPS Development Forum
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
7-22-1 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8677, Japan
Phone: 03-6439-6337 / Fax: 03-6439-6010
Email: forum@grips.ac.jp
URL: http://www.grips.ac.jp/forum/：ワシントン DC 開発フォーラム：日越共同研究プロジェクト

裏表紙に続くForeword

The GRIPS (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies) Development Forum has been
engaged in a series of studies related to aid partnership, PRSPs, and development. Throughthese activities, we have strengthened collaboration with the Overseas Development Institute(ODI), a London-based think tank with extensive experiences in Africa research. In March
2005, we organized a joint seminar with ODI in Tokyo on the topic of aid modalities.
We would like to publish the records of this GRIPS-ODI joint seminar in the GRIPS policy
minutes series to share the contents of the seminar discussions, our reflections and the way
forward (contributed by both ODI and GRIPS speakers). We would like to invite comments
and suggestions from those participated in the seminar, as well as the other aid professionals,
policy makers, and researchers who are interested in this topic.
Although this is a modest attempt, we hope that our activity will serve as the first step of the
UK-Japan Research Networks Project and contribute to deepening dialogue between UK andJapanese researchers on international aid and development policies.
Fore more details on this seminar, please visit the website of GRIPS Development Forum:
http://www.grips.ac.jp/forum/ (Japanese)
http://www.grips.ac.jp/forum-e/ (English)
For more details on the UK-Japan Research Networks Project, please visit:
http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/UK_Japan/index.html*The UK-Japan Research Networks Project is initiated by ODI and aims to increase interaction
between researchers in Japan and the UK, particularly in the areas of the latest thinking and practice inaid policy.

May 2005
GRIPS Development ForumGRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar
Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities—Matching Aid with Country Needs and Ownership—

CONTENTS

Programme……………………………………………………………………………. 1
Seminar Report (English)……………………………………………………………. 2
Summary of presentations…………………………………………………………... 3
Main points discussed……………………………………………………………….. 6
Reflections and the way forward (by GRIPS)………………………………………. 12
Reflections and the way forward (by Karin Christiansen, ODI).…………………… 13
Seminar Report (Japanese)………………………………………………………….. 16
Annexes………………………………………………………………………………... 24
Annex 1: Background and objectives of the seminar……..…………….................... 25
Annex 2: Presentation materials (PPT and Handout)…….…………………………. 28
・ 2-1 “Chakugan Taikyoku: Challenges & dilemmas in the ‘new aid agenda’”by Karin Christiansen…………………………………………………… 28
・ 2-2 “A conceptual framework for the choice of aid modalities—Matching

aid with country needs and ownership” by Izumi Ohno……………........ 33
・ 2-3 “Priorities and equity of resource distribution: the case of Primary

Education Development Program (PEDP) in Tanzania”
by Shoko Yamada..……………………………………………………..... 41
・ 2-4 “Sector and country context for the choice of aid modalities:

Case of health sector, Uganda and Vietnam” by Yumiko Niiya……........ 46

Programme
GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar
Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities—Matching Aid with Country Needs and Ownership—Venue: JICA Institute for International Cooperation, 2F conference room.
Time: The 15th of March 2005, 14:00-17:00

Program

14:00-14:15

14:15-14:55

Introduction to the Feedback Seminar(by Izumi Ohno, Professor, GRIPS)
General Overview (20 min. each):
Chakugan Taikyoku—Challenges and Dilemmas in the New Aid Agenda(by Karin Christiansen, Research Fellow, ODI)
- A Conceptual Framework for the Choice of Aid Modalities—Matching
Aid with Country Needs and Ownership(by Izumi Ohno, Professor, GRIPS)-

14:55-15:15

Questions & Answers

15:15-15:35

Case Studies (10 min. each):- Priorities and Equity of Resource Distribution—the Case of Primary
Education Development Program (PEDP) in Tanzania(by Shoko Yamada, Associate Professor, GRIPS)- Sector and Country Context for the Choice of Aid Modalities—Case of
Health Sector, Uganda and Vietnam(by Yumiko Niiya, Researcher, GRIPS)

15:35-16:45

Free Discussions

16:45-17:00

Wrap up(by GRIPS & ODI discussants)

17:00

Informal Gathering with Participants

1Report on GRIPS-ODI Feedback Seminar
Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities—Matching Aid with Country Needs and Ownership—
This note provides: (i) the summary of seminar presentations; (ii) the main points discussed;and (iii) reflections and the way forward. The main purpose of this GRIPS-ODI Joint
Feedback Seminar was to exchange views with the ODI researchers1 (Overseas Development
Institute, a leading London-based think tank on development and aid policy) on the choice ofaid modalities. Additionally, taking opportunities of the publication of GRIPS study reports,
Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities (English and Japanese), the seminar aimed
at providing feedback to Japanese aid professionals and researchers the findings of the GRIPS
research and stimulating discussions on this topic.
The seminar presentations consisted of: (i) the overview of new aid agenda and generalframework for considering modality choice—challenges and dilemmas in the new agenda by
Ms. Karin Christiansen (ODI); and a conceptual framework for the choice of aid modalities
by Izumi Ohno (GRIPS); and (ii) case analyses―the case of primary education sector in
Tanzania by Shoko Yamada (GRIPS), and the case of the health sector in Vietnam andUganda by Yumiko Niiya (GRIPS).
[See Annex 1 for background and objectives of the seminar]
Approximately 30 aid professionals participated in the seminar, including policy makers,
practitioners, consultants, researchers, and NGOs. The participants appreciated the GRIPS
and ODI researchers for sharing their research results, as well as providing an opportunity to
discuss the modality issue in an open and objective manner. Active discussions took place
over: (i) the perception of aid modality debates in Japan; (ii) the relevance of the proposed
framework; (iii) the nature of the process of choosing aid modalities; (iv) alignment and theuse of general budget support (GBS); and (v) East Asia’s development and aid experiences,and so on.

1

Ms. Debbie Warrener (ODI), who was originally to serve as moderator of the seminar, could not attend
for health reasons.
2Summary of Presentations(1) Karin Christiansen (ODI)“Chakugan Taikyoku (着眼大局): Challenges and Dilemmas in the New Aid Agenda”
The speaker first introduced a number of common elements in the “new aid agenda” including
country ownership, result orientation, alignment, harmonization, focus on political context
and economic analysis. She went on to highlight a series of “tensions” within the agenda: (i)aid modalities vs. donor behavior; (ii) harmonization vs. alignment; (iii) results vs. process;(iv) quality of policy vs. ownership; and (v) rewarding good performance vs. building better
performance. Some of these tensions were seen as more difficult to reconcilable than others,
but the general for proposal set out for attempting to respond to these challenges focused on:(i) great clarity by donors around their objectives and the trade offs between them(aid-trade-security etc); (ii) distinguishing means from ends (e.g. GBS and PRS processes asmeans not ends); (iii) greater realism, honesty around expectations and results and morefeasible time frames; (iv) assessing potential benefits associate with different approaches orchoices as well as risks.
[See Annex 2-1 for PPT]
(2)

Izumi Ohno (GRIPS)“A Conceptual Framework for the Choice of Aid Modalities: Matching Aid withCountry Needs and Ownership”
The speaker stressed the importance of sharing the process for modality choice between
partner countries and donors so that the actual needs of partner countries can be betterreflected. So far, this process tends to be donor-driven. The speaker first presented the generalframework and factors to be considered in deciding aid mix. More specifically, to takeaccount of the country- and sector-specific situations, she introduced two perspectives: (i)“priority country needs” (as shown by Development Priority Matrix); and (ii)
“recipient-donor relationship” (as shown by Typologies of Ownership). She also provided theoverview of Vietnam, Tanzania, and Cambodia, which have come out with different aid mix.
The three countries differ significantly in terms of aid dependency, the degree of core
government functions, potentials for private sector development (PSD), aid management
capacity, seriousness of transaction costs, and openness to external influence. Finally, shehighlighted elements of “good donorship” that should be honored across all aid modalities.
[See Annex 2-2 for PPT and handouts]3(3) Shoko Yamada (GRIPS)“Priorities and Equity of Resource Distribution: the Case of Primary Education
Development Program (PEDP) in Tanzania”
The speaker discussed the meanings of the increased public funds to be allocated to primaryeducation under the PRS framework and the primary education sector program in Tanzania, inlight of: (i) aid flow and the trend of education resource allocation at the level of central
government; (ii) efficiency and equity of the financial resource distribution from central to the
district and school level (using the data from the Public Expenditure Tracing Survey (PETS));and (iii) effectiveness of the public funds to improve educational outcomes. The speaker
pointed out that the mere increase of budget allocation does not guarantee that the money
reaches the school fully or that the educational system yields better outcomes. While noting
the potential of new aid approaches (including sector programs and PRS) in improving theefficiency and effectiveness of aid, she stressed that such efforts of developing acomprehensive policy and aid framework need to be complemented by the responsive andcontext-sensitive assistance so that the political and financial prioritization at the central
government results in the actual positive changes on the ground. Finally, the speakersuggested the importance of: (i) striking a balance between articulating a comprehensive aid
framework and attending urgent needs on the ground; (ii) developing the capacity andnegotiation power of the government to balance different donor approaches; and (iii) fostering
mutual respect among donors for different aid modalities.
[See Annex 2-3 for PPT and handouts](4)

Yumiko Niiya (GRIPS)“Sector and Country Context for the Choice of Aid Modalities: Case of Health Sector,
Uganda and Vietnam”
The speaker discussed the health sector in Uganda and Vietnam from a comparative
perspective, by using the conceptual framework for “priority country needs” and“recipient-donor relationship.” The speaker first presented typology of sectors by the role ofpublic expenditure and argued that appropriate choice of aid modalities can differ, according
to the stages of development of public health services. For example, while priority needs in
Uganda are to strengthen public expenditure flow in the system, those in Vietnam are rather topromote private service providers. She then examined “recipient-donor relationship” in lightof aid dependency, aid management, openness to external influence at the sector level andsuggested: (i) in Uganda which highly depends on aid and needs recurrent financing, SWAp
with common fund can be useful to improve harmonization and alignment; but (ii) in Vietnam,
4priority should be given to improving the quality of donor intervention within the existing aid
modality.
[See Annex 2-4 for PPT and handouts]

5Main Points Discussed
Perception of modality debates in Japan
Several participants noted that, in Japan, debates over new modalities tend to become
emotional and end up with unhealthy divisions. There is general appreciation to presenters,
which attempted to provide frameworks and criteria for deciding aid mix. At the same time,
many participants stated that the proposed GRIPS framework could be further improved byaccumulating a larger number of case studies at the country and sector levels. (See the next
section)A participant questioned whether and to what extent current modality debates are relevant inlight of Japanese aid experiences. For example, Japanese aid emphasizes the use of theexisting government structure, avoiding the creation of new Project Management Units(PMU). Thus, Japan and the other donors may have different perception of project aid. This
point should be duly recognized when pros and cons of project aid are discussed.
A participant welcomed the approach presented that the choice of aid modality is not the coreof development issues in itself and should be viewed as part of overall approach todevelopment assistance. It is important to consider how the sector is organized and how
resources for development (both recurrent and capital) are managed. The role of aid modality
should be analyzed within this context. This is so particularly in the health sector, which isorganized by multiple systems (e.g., PHC, hospital management, medical insurance).
A participant stated that the two presentations (Christiansen and Ohno) were inspiring because
these illustrate how aid modalities are perceived by two different cultures—the West andJapan (or Asia). While the ODI presentation highlighted “tensions” over modality choice, the
GRIPS presentation stressed “aid mix” implying the co-existence of various modalities.2
The relevance of the proposed conceptual framework for modality choice
A number of participants asked how widely the proposed GRIPS framework could be applied
across sectors and countries. The country examples provided by the GRIPS team (i.e.,
Vietnam and Tanzania) belong to two extremes, in terms of priority needs and ownership. In
2

Christiansen later clarified that this is entirely a misinterpretation of UK position on aid modality. For
example, the DFID policy paper on Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS) states: “Our choice of types
and combination of aid instruments will reflect country circumstances and the evolution of our relationshipwith the partner country. In most partner countries, the provision of PRBS will generally be complemented
with other aid instruments. ”(DFID 2000: p.1)
6

reality, many countries are somewhere between this spectrum. For example, institutional
capacity can be analyzed from various dimensions, e.g., managerial, financial, technical. Thus,
it would be desirable to consider the choice of aid modality more concretely, according todifferent dimensions of capacity to be strengthened. Another participant cited an example ofsome Sub-Saharan African countries, where infrastructure projects appear to be working
despite their relatively weak administrative capacity.
Regarding the sector, the GRIPS speaker (Ohno) noted that the role of aid and appropriate
modality in supporting PSD merits further investigation. The issues of growth promotion andaid flows are closely related to the “aid exit” strategy, as discussed in the seminar. (See thesection of alignment and the use of GBS)
Regarding ownership, the GRIPS speaker (Niiya) highlighted the importance of identifying
appropriate “entry points” for donors-government dialogue. In the health sector, theVietnamese government treats systemic issues as purely internal matters and does not wish
donor intervention. Thus, it remains to be answered how the donor community, as outsiders,
could and should effectively engage partner countries in addressing upstream, systemic issues.
There was general consensus that the in-depth analyses of sectors, countries with different
types of capacity and ownership, etc. will be useful to refine the conceptual frameworkpresented by the GRIPS team and that such research should be encouraged among thoseinterested.
The nature of the process of choosing aid modalities
Several participants commented that the process of choosing aid modalities is political—often
driven by donors—and path-dependent. They questioned whether and to what extent there isroom for the real “choice” of aid modalities for partner countries and donors. A question was
also raised whether it is possible to choose modalities from a “zero base.” Both ODI and
GRIPS speakers (Christiansen and Ohno) responded that it is possible to choose aid
modalities, while recognizing such limitations. For example, in Tanzania and Vietnam, Japan
chose to participate in the General Budget Support (GBS) group in order to enhance theeffectiveness of its ongoing assistance (including project aid). Choosing one modality does
not necessarily mean excluding the others.
Acknowledging such donor-driven nature associated with modality choice, the GRIPS
speakers (Ohno and Niiya) reiterated that this is precisely the reason why they have decided
to conduct this research so that common ground be established for both partner countries and7

donors to discuss and consider this issue. They stressed the importance of respecting
ownership of partner countries in the process. The ODI speaker (Christiansen) suggested thatthe ultimate responsibility of donors should be to help partner countries manage them (=donors) better. This requires a greater emphasis on supporting aid management capacity as ameans of achieving alignment.
The GRIPS speaker (Yamada) noted the importance of paying attention to the politicalenvironment where modality issues are discussed in partner countries. Individual
professionals may have different perception on the goal of modality debates, subject to theirown perspectives. Some professionals may emphasize the macro picture (e.g., consistency ofthe overall policy and institutional framework), while the others may pay greater attention to
the micro-level, field activities and implementation on the ground. To discuss theeffectiveness of aid modalities, without realizing the diversity of perception about their goals,
would cause an unproductive misunderstanding. She also stressed the importance of fostering
the environment where diverse views can be allowed and openly discussed in countries.
There is shared understanding at the seminar of the need to investigate the more diverse
dimensions that affect the process of deciding aid mix and donor behaviour. Such dimensions
should include the political context of development partnership (as pointed out by Yamada).
Alignment and the use of General Budget Support (GBS)
A participant questioned whether GBS can be effectively used for those countries withextremely weak capacity, although the GRIPS speaker (Ohno) hinted its usefulness in the caseof the government with restricted core functions. Ohno responded that the GRIPS researchdoes not cover “fragile states,” since this issue would require separate examination due to its
complexity. Thus, the research covers only those countries which have “minimum capacity”
to exist as the government, whatever it may be weak.
The ODI speaker (Christiansen) stressed that in general the priority is likely to be alignment
to the national budget process. This maybe easier with GBS but can be done across allmodalities. She also commented that GBS is unlikely to be appropriate for some types of“fragile states”, for example those where there are serious and far reaching concerns about the‘willingness’ of government to engage in policy implementation or policy are explicitly aimed
at the systematic abuse of their population. In other fragile states, such as those with ‘post
conflict transition regimes’ such as Afghanistan, East Timor or Sierra Leone, GBS is likely tobe an important component of rebuilding the state systems.

8In addition there are two types of possible systems alignment: (i) directly working throughgovernment systems alignment; and (ii) shadow systems alignment which particularly forfragile states, could contribute to strengthening or at least not undermining the long term
development of government capacity.
In connection with alignment, Christiansen introduced the concept of “Horizontal National
Programming,” where many contracts are arranged with service providers, such as NGOs
under a common nation wide framework with a national policy and standards across thewhole country. This is a way to internalize project-based activities without undermining the
integrity or potential development of national policies systems. Many possibilities exist,
including arranging contracts by geographical area(s).
A participant noted that in East Asia, project aid, particularly for infrastructure development
has been effective in promoting growth-oriented poverty reduction. Infrastructure projects
supported dynamic economic network in the region. Nevertheless, he suggested that Japan
become more realistic about the use of GBS in Sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, Africancountries have more serious capacity constraints and faces pressing social needs including
recurrent cost financing. Under this circumstance, GBS can be a useful tool to transfer thefunds and promote alignment to the government’s strategy.
Several participants expressed their concern about the lack of the “aid exit” strategy, when
GBS is applied to recurrent budgets. It is questionable whether and how fast the reliance on
GBS can lead to economic take off of Sub-Saharan African countries. Furthermore, by dealing
with the budget, GBS necessarily implies that donor intervention in the government’s
sovereign issues. To what extent donors should get involved in the domestic budget processneeds to be answered. The ODI speaker acknowledged their concern about the lack of the “aidexit” strategy and the long-term sustainability of GBS, particularly if donors focus theirconditions of high recurrent spend activities such as health and education systems.
The ODI speaker (Christiansen) stressed the importance of assessing benefits, not only risks
in the decision making around aid modalities. If we only focus on risks we might end up
missing potential large benefits to be gained. Benefits can be higher in the weak environment
country. This links back to the issue around whether the aim is to “reward good performance”
or “build better performance”. The latter tries to change behavior and may bring greater
benefits. A participant supported the importance of benefit vs. risk analysis when introducing
particular aid modality. He suggested that a possible use of the methodology for portfolio
analysis be examined.

9A participant noted that each modality has merits and demerits and that it is absolutely right touse respective modalities, according to their comparative advantages. GBS can be viewed as akind of investment trust, and there is nothing special about it. It is merely one amongst arange of tools that is more appropriate in some settings and less so in others.
East Asia’s development and aid experience, its replicability in Africa, and the role ofJapan’s aid
The ODI speaker (Christiansen) stated that there is a need to deepen the understanding of theentire process of East Asia’s development and use of aid, particularly the role of“Developmental States.” A key success of East Asia seems to be derived from the existence ofgovernments and leadership that had a relatively comprehensive vision and strategy andcapacity for integrating projects and aid under this strategy. Even if there are someimperfections, these states had a strong sense of ownership and consistently implemented
their own visions. Thus the fundamental question would seem to be how to encourage theemergence of such “Developmental States” and needs further investigation.
Nevertheless, she considers that some of the East Asian experiences are more difficult toapply directly to Africa. The Green Revolution has not really happened in Africa (in a sharp
contrast to Asia). Agriculture-led growth appears to still be the main option for most of Africa,
but there are serious questions about how to generate it with the high transportation costs(affecting the costs of fertilizer and goods to market), and the Asian experience (including
Green Revolution) must be adapted to the African context.
Christiansen commended that Japan’s aid consistent emphasis on the productive sector andthe focus on growth strategies. This strong sector concerns are valuable and should bemaintained in the future. This is so especially when many donors have prone to fads and havebeen emphasizing potentially unsustainable levels of investment in the social service sectors.
The GRIPS speaker (Niiya) suggested the need to conduct the evaluation of Japan’s past ODA,
in order to internalize the modality debates among the Japanese aid professionals and draw
implications for Japan’s ODA reforms. Some donors conducted the evaluation of their past aid
approaches and experiences.
The ODI speaker (Christiansen) suggested that it is important to recognize that not all the
Asian countries have succeeded in development and that some countries face the problems
similar to Africa. Absolute poverty still exists in Asia, and in fact, Asia has the largest
population below the poverty line.
10Other issues
A participant stated that it may be prejudiced to conclude “failure of conditionality to induce
reform” was one of the factors leading to the emergence of new aid modalities, as explainedby the GRIPS speaker (Ohno). The appropriateness of conditionality needs careful
examination, and it is not necessarily bad that donors use conditionality to urge policy andinstitutional reforms in partner countries. Ohno responded that there is general understandingthat conditionality was not effective to enhance country ownership. This is why the WorldBank decided to shift from SAL to PRSC (from ex-ante to ex-post conditionalities). There is
no doubt about the importance of policy dialogue between donors and partner countries; but
the issue is how to conduct such policy dialogue.
The ODI speaker (Christiansen) stressed that from a recipient perspective priority be placedon “optimizing the impact of aid” rather than “aid flow maximization.”11

Reflections and the Way Forward (by GRIPS)
The seminar confirmed the importance of respecting ownership of partner countries in theprocess of choosing aid modalities, as a common starting point. At the same time, thediscussions revealed that the topic of the choice of aid modalities remains controversial in
Japan and is perceived quite differently, according to respective professional perspectives.
Key issues emerging from the seminar discussions include: (i) to what extent there is room forreal “choice” of aid modalities, particularly for partner countries (and implicitly the relevanceto discuss this topic), given that this is path-dependent and a political process; and (ii) to what
extent the current modality debates are relevant in light of Japan’s aid experiences(particularly in East Asia). On the other hand, it is also true that a large number of participantsemphasized the importance of building the coherent government system and held the views
that the modality issues be considered to support that process. Thus, the participants havediverse views.
As suggested by a number of participants, there is a scope for refining the analyticalframework of the GRIPS research by accumulating a larger number of case studies at thecountry and sector levels, and also by including the more diverse dimensions that affect theprocess of deciding aid mix (including the political context of development partnership).
Based on the above, at least, three types of future research/activity agenda can be identified:(1) Conducting in-depth case analyses at the sector and country levels, as well as sharing
the findings of such analyses widely with policy makers and practitioners. Suchanalysis should also include the role of aid and use of modality in supporting PSD
and growth promotion.
(2) Deepening the understanding of the process of choosing donor behaviour and aid
programming including aid modality, recognizing its political nature. Such analysis
should include the political context of development partnership(3) Supporting the ongoing ODA reforms in Japan by: (i) compiling and disseminating
good practices in the field, in collaboration with practitioners and building on therecommendations in the GRIPS report (as suggested in the Japanese version inparticular); and also (ii) sharpening the agenda for longer-term ODA reforms.
Nevertheless, it is important to stress that the relevance of modality debates toJapan’s ODA must be examined, based on the evaluation of Japan aid experiences indifferent regions.

12

Reflections and the Way Forward (by Karin Christiansen, ODI)
The nature of the debate about new approaches to aid in JapanThe level of interest and quality of engagement are clearly very high in these issues. The
debates and discussions I had with the whole range of actors I found extremely interesting andfruitful. A few points that struck me particularly about the debate included:•

The agenda is still very controversial in Japan. There is scepticism in some quaters about
relevance of the debate for Japanese aid or the need for change. However, there is also
clearly a major increased engagement and interesting across a whole range of actors, evenpreviously highly sceptical ones.

•

As it is elsewhere, the issues is often seen in terms of modalities, particularly budget
support vs. projects, rather than on donor behaviour with concepts such as harmonisation
and alignment applying to all modalities.

•

The defensiveness of some part of the Japanese aid community came up in a number ofdiscussions. Explanations set out included a dominant narrative about the success of aid in
East Asia- in contrast to the lack of success of others in Africa, the evolution of aid as aform of war reparations, and limited history of evaluation due to a bureaucratic culturethat is very uneasy with criticising the past.

Learning from East Asia
There is a need to look much harder at East Asian experience, particularly why did it work?
Clearly it didn’t work every where as there are still more people under $1 a day in Asia thanAfrica, but it was spectacularly successful in some place. Why? And what role did aid andJapanese aid particularly play in this?
A number of particular hypotheses emerged during the range of discussions.
1. Developmental effectiveness of both aid and non-aid financed activities wasdetermined by the existence and coherence of the national agenda. This meant that aid
could be sub-served and built into general plans. The project modality therefore did
not undermine the coherence of a national vision or policy but be slotted into it.
2. The impact of tying aid contracts to Japanese suppliers was less significant in the
Asian context during the 70s and 80s. Japanese technical, financial and humanresources probably were some of the most cost effective and appropriate anyway.
Africa, now, they are however unlike to be either as cost effective or appropriate.
13

3. Although less formal than EU accession, there was a ‘club membership’ effect. In
addition to demonstration effects, and access to capital, know how etc., there werevery real incentives for reform as access to the ‘club did provide significant benefits.’
There was a general sense that these hypotheses could be usefully tested and might shed lighton a range of experiences in Asia and beyond.
Contributions of Japan to the new aid agenda
My impression was that Japan has some important potential contributions to make to thedebate and evolution of the new aid agenda. These include:••

learning from the experience of East Asia,
the rebalancing of current social sector over-emphasis by a number of donors toinclude the productive sectors and growth,•

innovations in relation to alignment of project modalities to recipient government
systems and policies,•

an approach that focus on the underlying economic relationships as determining
social and political outcomes in a society. A deeper focus on the causes of good
governance rather than the ‘trappings’ imputed to it.

•a clarity and realism about the long term nature of economic development

14

15

セミナー報告GRIPS-ODI 合同フィードバック・セミナー「グッド・ドナーシップと援助モダリティの選択」

本報告は、標記セミナーについて、発表および質疑応答の概要、開発フォーラム所感の 3
点を紹介するもの。本セミナーは、GRIPS 開発フォーラムにて取り組んできた「グッド・ド
ナーシップと援助モダリティの選択」調査の報告書の刊行を受けて、モダリティ議論をリードしてきた英国の援助政策のブレーン的存在である ODI（Overseas Development Institute）との意見交換を通じ、モダリティ選択プロセスにおける双方の考えの類似・相違点を明らかにすること、更に本調査プロセスで助言を頂いた関係者に対し成果をフィードバックすることを目的に開催された。
セ ミ ナ ー で は ODI1 名 (Poverty and Public Policy Group/Center for Aid and Public
Expenditure 所属3)、GRIPS 開発フォーラム 3 名による発表の後、日本の援助政策・実務担当
者や研究者を中心とした 30 名弱の参加のもと、
3 時間以上にわたり活発な議論が展開された。
発表では、まず総論として、ODI の Christiansen 氏がモダリティを含む昨今の援助をめぐるアジェンダについて大局的見地より説明するとともに、モダリティの実践をめぐる困難な点を提示した。それを受けて、GRIPS の大野(泉)は、かかるアジェンダをモダリティ選択のプロセスに反映させるための枠組みと具体的方法について示した。ケースでは GRIPS の山田、二井矢が、それぞれ初等教育(タンザニア)、保健(ベトナム、ウガンダ)分野をとりあげ、総論で示されたいくつかの論点を具体的に展開した。
参加者を交えた議論では、モダリティ選択のプロセスをどのように捉えるべきか(選択の裁量余地があるのか、政治的プロセスか)、日本としてどれほど真剣に取り組むべき課題である
か、といった基本的な論点に加え、発表者側より示された国の類型化やアラインメントの具体的方法について更に分析的に掘り下げていく可能性等をめぐって活発な意見交換が行われた。
GRIPS 開発フォーラムとしては、本調査を進める過程で頂いたコメント4及び今次セミナーでの議論を踏まえ、今後、モダリティ議論を更に深めていくにあたり、①セクター・国毎の事例研究、②モダリティ選択プロセスそのものの事例研究、③日本の ODA 改革アジェンダとしてのモダリティ論、という 3 つの方向性を示した。

3

当初予定されていた Warrener 氏(Research and Policy in Development, 日英研究連携担当)は健康上の理由により不参加
4
特に、国際協力機構(JICA)企画・調整部の協力を得て非公式勉強会を行った他、FASID 国際開発援助動向研究会での意見交換を通じて貴重なコメントを頂戴した。なお、勉強会の詳細については以下のURL（http://www.grips.ac.jp/forum/gooddonorship.htm）をご参照頂きたい。
16

発表概要
(1)

Karin Christiansen (ODI)“Chakugan Taikyoku(着眼大局): Challenges and Dilemmas in the “New Aid Agenda”
冒頭で昨今の援助をめぐる 5 つの代表的アジェンダを紹介した後(①オーナーシップ、②成果主義、③政府の政策及びシステムへのアラインメント、④ドナー間の調和化、⑤政治的・経済的分析への着目)、個々のアジェンダ実践をめぐる困難な点を示した。例えば(ドナー間の)調和化とアラインメント、結果とプロセス、あるいは政策的の質とオーナーシップ尊重の間に生じうる緊張関係（”tensions”）等。更に検討すべき課題として特定モダリティの画一的適用、不適切な方向に対するドナー間の調和化や政府能力が低い場合のアラインメントの対象などを指摘した。モダリティ選択自身よりもドナーの行動が重要となる場合があること、（リ
スクはあっても）途上国政府のより良いパフォーマンスを引き出すことで得られる潜在的な便益の大きさについても言及された。最後に、こういった現実に生じうる問題を直視した上で、ドナー側のとるべき姿勢の原則として次の５点を示した。①目的及び目的相互の間のト
レードオフについて明確に認識すること、②手段の目的化の回避(モダリティは手段であることへの明確な意識)、③現実性、誠実さ、現実的な時間軸の設定、④様々なアプローチに関し、（リスクと費用に対する）潜在的な便益の考慮。
(2)

大野泉(GRIPS)“A Conceptual Framework for the Choice of Aid Modalities: Matching Aid with Country
Needs and Ownership”
同発表は、ドナー主導に陥りがちな援助モダリティ選択のプロセスに対し、途上国の現状に沿ったプロセスを経る重要性を主張した。その上でモダリティ選択に関連する途上国の現状理解に必要な視点を提案した。具体的には、途上国の現状を分析する枠組みを①優先的に取り組むべき開発課題、②援助授受をめぐる関係性の向上という 2 つの論点から整理した上で、それぞれにおける現状分析のためのツール（①に関しては Development Priority Matrix、②は Typologies of Ownership）を試論的に示した。また、ベトナム、タンザニア、カンボジ
アについて援助依存度に加えて、政府の中核システムの機能度、民間活力のポテンシャル（これらは①に関連）、及び援助マネージメント能力、取引費用、対外的な開放度等（これらは②に関連）の観点から概観し、援助モダリティ選択プロセスを比較した。更にかかるプロセス
を経て選択されるモダリティの実践にあたり、ドナー側で心がけるべき点（Good Donorship）
を例示した。

17

(3)山田肖子(GRIPS)“Priorities and Equity of Resource Distribution: the Case of Primary Education
Development Program (PEDP) in Tanzania”
タンザニアにおける初等教育分野をケースとし、セクタープログラム導入が及ぼした影響について、①教育セクター及びそのサブセクター間の予算配分、②最終受益者である生徒に届くまでの資金フロー、③教育指標の向上や貧困削減へのインパクトの 3 つのレベルで検討した。その結果として、セクタープログラムや、PRSP を枠組みとする新しい援助モダリテ
ィは、適切に行われれば、援助の効率性、効果を高めるのに有効と思われるが、そうしたマクロの手続きの調和化だけでは、ミクロレベルでの状況やニーズの多様性に対応しきれず、状況に柔軟に、スピーディに対応するフィールドベースの支援や技術支援のニーズが存在することが具体的に明らかにされた。よってモダリティは財政支援とプロジェクトの二律背反ではなく、最終的な成果を上げるためにいかにそれらの長所を生かして組み合わせるかが重要であり、また、そのような現状における需要に合った補完のための課題として、①マクロの枠組み作りと末端の受益者の緊急かつ多様なニーズへの対応をどのようにバランスよく行
うか、②政府のキャパシティが育っているか、③ドナー間で異なる援助モダリティを採用することへの理解、受容をどのように育てるか、という点を指摘した。
(4)

二井矢由美子(GRIPS)“Sector and Country Context for the Choice of Aid Modalities: Case of Health Sector,
Uganda and Vietnam”
ウガンダ、ベトナムの保健セクターにおけるモダリティの検討を通じ、モダリティ選択における「優先的な開発課題」及び「援助授受の関係性向上」という 2 つの論点をめぐるセク
ター及び国毎の相違を具体的に論じた。公共支出の役割に基づくセクターの分類法を提示した後に、保健セクターについては、公的な保健サービスの発展度合いに応じ、公共支出強化
が主要課題となる国(ウガンダ)、あるいは民間サービス振興が課題となってくる国(ベトナム)
において適切なモダリティが異なる可能性を指摘した。さらに両国の援助授受をめぐる関係
性の相違についてもセクターの援助依存度、援助マネージメントのあり方、対外的な開放度の観点より比較を行った。その結果、援助依存が高く、経常予算も含む公共支出強化が喫急の課題とされるウガンダではセクタープログラムの枠組みの下で、財政支援などドナーの資金を途上国政府に一体化するモダリティが有効であるのに対し、援助依存が低く、既存の公共支出のシステムが既に確立されているベトナムでは、新たなモダリティの導入により改善できる点は多くなく、むしろ既存のモダリティの中で援助の質を向上させていくことが必要である点を指摘した。

18

質疑応答の概要
モダリティ選択のプロセスをめぐる解釈
発表者側がモダリティ選択のプロセスを援助の効率性をめぐる主要な一要素として位置づ
け、途上国を主体としたプロセスを促していくことが重要である点を議論の出発点としたのに対し、参加者からは、①モダリティ選択の実態はドナー主導の政治的プロセスであり、実際には「選択」の余地は限られているとの指摘、②援助の効率性の論点自体が(東アジアを中心とする日本の援助経験に照らし合わせて)妥当でない点もあり、そういった観点から日本としての対応を検討すべきという問題意識が提示された。
発表者からは、①のモダリティ選択プロセスの恣意性、政治性の指摘については現状をそれに近いものと認識しつつも、より途上国側の主体性を重んじたプロセスに近づけていく努力が重要であるとの見解が再度示された。その努力の一環として、参加者から指摘のあった
モダリティ選択をめぐるより多面的な要素を明らかにしていくためのケース分析、国毎の具体的な研究が必要であること、それらの要素は今次発表で示された優先的な開発課題、援助授受の関係性の向上といった論点にとどまらず、例えば政治的なプロセスにおいて多様な立場を尊重する雰囲気の醸成といった論点も含まれる点が示された。併せて、発表者から、１つのモダリティを「選択」することは他を排除するものではないこと、タンザニアやベトナ
ムでの一般財政支援への参画は日本としてモダリティを選択し、かつプロジェクトに軸をおきつつ複数モダリティを使い分けている事例である点が補足された。
②の日本の援助経験に基づく援助効率化及びモダリティ選択における論点については、
ODI 発表者は、日本の関係者が自らの援助経験に基づき、そういった独自の視点を持っていることを初めて認識するに至り、東アジアの開発プロセスについて今後理解を深める必要がある旨を述べた (例えば「開発主義国家」のもとでの援助マネージメント、同国家を可能ならしめた要因）。但し、東アジアの経験のアフリカへの直接的な適用可能性については慎重な検討を要すること、及びアジアの中のアフリカ的問題（アジアにもアフリカ諸国と類似した課題に直面する国が存在）への取組みについて十分留意する必要がある点もあわせて指摘した。GRIPS 側は、こういった論点を共有できる形で整理するためには日本の東アジアに対する援助の経験の整理が必要であると指摘した。
多様なモダリティの使い分け
途上国の政策や制度へのアラインメントという観点から途上国の政府機能を 1 つのシステ
ムとして捉え、過去の援助が如何にそれを歪めてきたかという反省に基づき、その強化のためにあるべき方法という観点からモダリティ論を展開すべきという主張、更には開発を考え
れば財政支援など新しいモダリティを含む様々な方法が必要なのは自明のことであり、それぞれの存在意義をめぐっての議論は不必要との指摘があった。
GRIPS 発表者は、モダリティ選択にあたっては、「何を」支援するかと同時に「どのように」支援するかという点で適切なエントリーポイントの設定に対する配慮も重要な要素であ19る旨指摘した。
GRIPS モダリティ・ペーパーにおける分析枠組みの妥当性
開発課題、オーナーシップの類型化はいずれも極端なケース（特にベトナム、タンザニア）であるため、現状理解の助けとするためには、より多くの事例をふまえた多角的な分析が必要との指摘があった。例えば、セクター別の分析を深めること、制度能力という観点から経営や財務面なども援用したきめ細かな分類の必要性などの指摘があった。GRIPS 発表側も、きめ細かに事例研究を重ねていく必要性について同意した。
特定モダリティをめぐるイシュー
財政支援はアフリカのように政府システム構築が優先課題である国については有効な方法
たりえ、日本としても取組み可能性を検討する意義はあるとの指摘があった。同時に、財政支援は援助依存を益々強めることにつながる可能性もあり、「援助からの卒業」戦略という観点も検討されるべきとの指摘もあった。これに関しては、重要な論点ではあるが対アフリカ
援助が過去 50 年にわたり失敗してきたことを踏まえれば、その卒業戦略も長期的に考えられるべきものという意見もあった。
財政支援をめぐり、政府機能が脆弱な国においてはその機能強化に有効との解釈に対し、逆に脆弱な国ほどやりにくいのではないか、という問題提起があった。この点については発表者より、制度能力が極端に脆弱な国（fragile states）においては、途上国の予算システムへの完全な資金投入が目的というよりはアラインメントの観点が重要であること、その場合には shadow alignment という方法も可能である点が示された。

20

GRIPS 開発フォーラムによる所感
今次セミナーの主目的は、英国の援助政策のブレーン的存在である ODI との意見交換を通じて、モダリティ選択のプロセスにおける考えの類似・相違点を明らかにすることであった。
この点については既に国際援助コミュニティにおける議論が、新しいモダリティの有効性のみを主張する段階から、多様な援助モダリティを使い分けていくことの重要性へと移行していることも受け、発表者の間で顕著な対立点は見られなかった。むしろ、モダリティ選択のプロセスにおいて途上国の主体性を重視する姿勢が共通の出発点として再確認された。
セミナーを通じて、参加者の多くから、途上国のニーズやオーナーシップの多様性を踏まえた上で、援助モダリティの適切な組合せや選択を考える視点を提供しようという GRIPS 側の試みを評価する意見が寄せられた。しかし、同時に参加者からはモダリティの選択・決定にはより複雑な要因が絡まっており、GRIPS 調査の視点を引続き改善していく余地があるとの指摘もあった。第１に開発の現場でのプロセスが実際には恣意性、政治性に満ちたものであり、途上国側に優先的な開発課題や援助授受の関係性の向上といった点から途上国側にモダリティ選択の裁量権があるという前提自体が現実から遊離しているのではないか、との指摘。第 2 に日本の援助の経験(特に対東アジア)は援助効率化、モダリティ選択をめぐる現行議論に必ずしも十分に反映されておらず、従って、国際援助コミュニティで活発なモダリティ
論議が日本の援助の改革アジェンダとしてどの程度の重みを持つのか不明である、との指摘である。他方、途上国における整合性ある政府システムの構築が最も重要でモダリティの議論もその観点に収斂すべきとの主張もあり、参加者の間での立場の相違の大きさが浮き彫りになった。こういった多様な見方の存在自体、モダリティのプロセスの複雑な側面を顕著に示すものとして真摯に受け止めたい。
更に分析枠組みにかかるコメントとして、国の類型化に関する分析をより多角的な観点から深めることや、国の能力に応じたアラインメントの方法のあり方について具体的な検討を行っていくこと等に対する要望が示された。
以上を踏まえ、今後、モダリティ議論において取り組むべき課題として以下の 3 点を指摘したい。
① 今次発表で示された途上国を主体としたモダリティ選択の重要性を前提としつつ、現状理解のためのツールを洗練し提供していく観点から、より具体的かつ多くのセクタ
ーや国ごとの事例の集積、及びかかる情報の実務従事者との共有化。「何に対してどのように支援するか」が援助の効果を左右するのに対し、モダリティは「どのように」の部分を中心とした議論であるが、個別のセクター、国ごとの事例では「何を」の開発戦略の中身にあたる部分に焦点がおかれる場合もある。
② モダリティ選択が恣意的、政治的プロセスであることにも配慮した上で、事例を通じてプロセスそのものに対する理解を深め、同プロセスにおける相互理解の促進に必要な要素等を解明する。
21

③ 日本の援助政策に関しては、既に和文のモダリティ・ペーパーの最終章で明示した短期的な課題への取組みに対し、実務者によるグッド・プラクティスの発信等を通じて、その進展を側面支援する。また、それらの積み重ねの中で明らかにされる長期的な制度改革のアジェンダについても議論の喚起、問題提起を行っていく。但し、日本のODA 改革アジェンダとしてモダリティ議論がどの程度有効であるか、という指摘については真摯に受け止めたい。これは、日本の過去の援助の地域別の評価等を通じて慎重に特定されるべき課題である。

22

23

ANNEXES

24

Annex 1

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar
Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities—Matching Aid with Country Needs and Ownership—
1. Background and Objectives
The main purpose of this joint seminar between the National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies (GRIPS) and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) is to present the findings ofrecent studies on aid modalities, undertaken respectively by GRIPS and ODI researchers, andto facilitate debate including the implications for global aid policy and practice. In particular,
the seminar intends to promote understanding of features of different aid modalities and how
to choose appropriate aid modalities, with due consideration of the country- andsector-specific context.
The topic of aid modalities is a growing area of interest in Japan. The 1990s saw the
emergence of new aid approaches—especially general budget support, sector budget support
and pooling fund arrangements under the Sector-Wide Approach. However, a perception"gap" over aid approaches appears to exist between the UK (and the Like-Minded Donor
Group) and Japan. This is partly because project aid is traditionally dominant in Japan andalso because the UK and Japan have different development and aid experiences in
Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia respectively. Now that experiences with the new aid
approaches have been accumulated in Sub-Sahara Africa and there has been increased interest
in its applicability among Asian countries, it is highly relevant to examine how and underwhich conditions specific aid modalities and/or their optimal combination work, in order tounderstand the relative usefulness of respective aid modalities. At the same time, there is a setof issues, or “good donorship” principles that should be honoured by all donors, regardless of
their choice of aid modalities, in order to realize effective aid. For this reason, therefore, it isimportant to build common understanding regarding donor practice as well.
Against this background, throughout 2004 GRIPS has been engaged in a research project on“Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities”. The GRIPS team has greatly benefited
from ODI’s extensive knowledge and analyses, particularly in Africa, including an initialbrainstorming meeting with ODI researchers. The GRIPS team has also benefited from advice
provided by Japanese aid professionals and researchers, built on their field experiences.
Through the proposed seminar, the GRIPS team would like to provide feedback from thisresearch and stimulate discussion concerning the issues that need further investigation.

25

Annex 1

Two researchers from the ODI will be invited to the seminar (Ms Karin Christiansen as
speaker, and Ms Debbie Warrener as moderator). They will present recent ODI research on
this topic, comment on the GRIPS studies, and facilitate seminar discussions; for example, by
providing a UK-Japan comparative perspective. It is hoped that this opportunity for two-way
dialogue will contribute to broadening the spectrum of the research agenda and policy
debates.

2. Seminar Program
A feedback seminar, jointly organized by GRIPS and ODI, is scheduled for the 15th of March
2005 at 14:00-17:00 at the JICA Institute for International Cooperation.
The target audience will be researchers and aid professionals interested in issues ofdevelopment effectiveness and aid modalities, who ideally have different regional, country,
and sector expertise (e.g., universities, think-tanks, consultants, government officials, JICA
and JBIC). The seminar will be kept relatively small in size (approximately 30-40
participants) to promote active and in-depth discussions among those familiar with the topic.
Although the seminar does not intend to lead to pre-determined conclusions, it would be
useful if some of the following issues can be concretely discussed.
￭

What are the key factors that affect the choice of aid modalities?

￭￭

What are the lessons learned from the latest experiences with new aid approaches?
What are the specific features of respective aid modalities? How can country andsector-specific issues be incorporated so that the merits of respective modalities can be
fully exploited? Are there any overall differences in country contexts in Africa and Asia
to be borne in mind when considering the choice of aid modalities?

￭

How the program approach is applied to support growth promotion and the productive
sectors?

￭

Whether and to what extent can the choice of aid modalities make a difference inimproving development impacts? What are the limits of debates on modality?

￭

What are the elements of “good donorship” so that donors can practice aid to effectively
assist in achieving sustainable growth and poverty reduction?

26

Annex 1[About the Speakers]
Karin Christiansen:
Research Fellow (Center for Aid and Public Expenditure) / ODI
Specialised in PRSPs and linkages to public expenditure management; participatory anddecentralised approaches to public expenditure and implementation.
Debbie Warrener:
Research Officer (Research and Policy in Development) / ODI
Specialized in Japan-UK dialogue on aid policy; role of civil society in the policy process;bridging research and policy.
Izumi Ohno:
Professor / GRIPS
Specialized in PRSPs and development partnership; ODA policies and reform.
Shoko Yamada:
Associate Professor / GRIPS
Specialized in policy studies in education, comparative and international education;
African studies.
Yumiko Niiya:
Researcher / GRIPS
Specialized in ODA policies and reform, particularly in the area of social development, as
aid practitioner in the fields and head quarter offices.

27Annex 2-1

Christiansen PPTSlide 1

ODI- Independent research institute/think tank on international
development issues, based in London, but do research, advisory
and consultancy work all over world.

Chakugan Taikyoku:
Taikyoku:
Challenges & dilemmas in the‘new aid agenda’
agenda’Karin Christiansen
Centre for Aid & Public Expenditure

Me- CAPE in the Poverty and Public Policy Group (PPPG) in
ODI.
Worked in humanitarian and development area, long term workin Kenya, Rwanda and Balkans, for NGOs, UN and recipient
government, now applied policy research with a focus onrecipient government perspective, PFM, aid and fragile states.
MAs in economics and political & social thought.

GRIPS/ODI seminar
15thMarch 2005
1

Slide 2This presentationz Where did the ‘new’ aid agenda comefrom?
z What is the ‘new’ aid agenda anyway?
z Tensions within the agenda
z Some main challenges & dilemmaz Can/how can these tensions andchallenges be addressed?
228Annex 2-1

Christiansen PPTSlide 3

Where did ‘new’
new’ agenda come from?
Substantial evidence-base emerging that:z aid effectiveness undermined by lack of ownership,conditionalities not resulting implementationz highly projectised aid (due to donor accountability

fears) not delivering less corruption, but expensive& causing institutional damage

Thus, aid might be part of the problem:
unintended consequences of fragmentation,lack of coherence & state avoidance Æundermining governance in long term…
3

Slide 4

From conditionality to ownership• History of lack of growth in sub-Saharan Africa, mounting
critiques of SAPs, economic research literature develops on aid
effectiveness (Boone, Burnside, Dollar etc).
Policyenvironment emerges as determinant of what work (e.g. East
Asian successes) and conditionality had not improved that in
SSA.
• Ownership identified as the solution: a both getting policy
implemented and making the policy ‘more appropriate’
From projects to programmes & public expenditure
management
Critiques of project financing were emerging over the 1980s &1990s. (e.g. ‘Wappenhas Report’ & ‘Assessing Aid’) The main
critical conclusions of evaluations of project aid can besummarised as follows:• High transactions costs from the multiplicity of different
reporting & accounting requirements, including tied aid• Inefficient spending dictated by donor priorities &procurement arrangements• Extremely unpredictable funding levels• Undermining of state systems through the special staffing
arrangements & parallel structures• Corrosion of democratic accountability as mechanisms aredesigned to satisfy donor rather than domestic constituencies• Hard to sustain positive impact beyond the short term, withhigh level of reliance on donor fund which underminedsustainability• Corruption, fraud and rent-seeking were also a feature of the
management of projects which were not overcome by their
independence from government

PRSP principles

What’
What’s the ‘new’
new’ aid agenda anyway?
Different things to different people, but includes:
z Focus on government ownershipz Results orientationz Alignment of donors with government policies &systemsz Donor harmonisation of programmes
approaches, funds
z Focus on political context/economy analysis?
Embodied in moves to PRSPs, modalities such as
SWAP, GBS…
4

29

Annex 2-1

Christiansen PPTSlide 5

Good donorship principles(http://www.odi.org.uk/PPPG/cape/stream1/proposal.pdf)

Tensions within the agenda
z Aid modalities vs donor behaviour

principles
z Harmonisation vs alignmentz Results vs processz Quality of policy vs ownershipz Rewarding good performance vsbuilding better performance5

1. Country leadership and ownershipThis is the overriding and ultimate goal. It requires thesubordination of donor processes, procedures and eventuallyobjectives to those of the recipient country;
2. Capacity building for the long-term
Donors need to work in a way that builds the capacity of
government sustainably, neither simply filling short-term
gaps nor over-using/diverting limited existing capacity;
3. Harmonization and simplification
This involves reducing the transactions costs facing government
by limiting duplications and contradictions, and coordinating
and simplifying the demands made by donors;
4. Transparency and information sharing
This implies the full disclosure by donors of their resource
flows and practices, in formats accessible and compatible
with government cycles and systems;
5. Predictability of resources and conditionality
Without predictability of resources and the simplification of
conditions, implementing policies and delivering services
becomes extremely difficult;
6. Subsidiarity
Decisions within and between donor organisations need to bedelegated to the level that is best for aligning aid with country
systems

Slide 6

Challenges & Dilemmaz Mechanistic approach to aid instruments

whether GBS, PRS or projects
z Harmonisation Æ ganging up or
harmonising the wrong direction
z Reinforces upward accountability to donorsz Alignment to what? Multiple, weak, bad or
non-existent systems or policies
6

Slide 7

continued…
continued…
z Concerns about legitimising abusive regimesz Results monitoring how far down the causality

chain?
z Eligibility criteria- minimum standards ordirection of changez Aid as minor player – neither in growth, norintervention/$: trade, security, drugs, national
profile…
730

Annex 2-1

Christiansen PPTSlide 8Can these tensions be addressed?

Shadow systems alignment(http://www.odi.org.uk/PPPG/publications/papers_reports/HA%
20in%20fragile%20states%20.pdf)
Such an approach might be useful in situations where there is a:• Lack of, competing or multiple systems• Concerns about legitimising a particular government orauthority• Serious concerns about the intentions of the authorities
towards their own population• A significant & prolonged humanitarian presence

Yes to some… no to others. But how?
z By clarity around objectives & trade-offsz By distinguishing means from ends e.g. GBS,
PRS, or projects as means onlyz By using ‘do no harm’ approaches e.g.
shadow systems alignmentz By greater realism, honesty & timeframesz By programming base on potential
development benefits as well as risks/cost
8

If there is nothing to ‘align to’, interventions need to be‘shadow’ aligned. This approach needs to start with assessing
the available formal and informal policies and systems. (Thereis invariably more available than is first assumed). These canthen be built on, adapted and reformed, which is more effective
than designing and introducing entirely new policies andsystems, particularly in low capacity environments.

Shadow systems alignment is a state-avoiding approach
but one that is ‘future-proof’.
It does not give an authority or government control overresources, but does use structures, institutions or systems which
are parallel but compatible with existing or potential
organisation of the state.
It aims to avoid creating adiversionary institutional legacy that can undermine or impede
the development of a more accountable and legitimate future
relationship between the people and their governments.
The key to shadow ‘systems’ alignment is to ensure systemcompatibility. The design of external interventions is madebased on the parallel but consistent or compatible organisational
structures and operational procedures. A central element of
this is about providing information in a compatible format (e.g.
budget years and classifications). Additional operational
practice may include using the same or at least compatible:• Administrative layers or boundaries• Planning and budgeting cycles• Budget classifications• Accounting, procurement and audit systems• Monitoring and evaluation systems• Staffing structures and hierarchies
In practice alignment is a question of degree. Shadow systems
alignment is a way of overcoming the negative effects of‘non-alignment’ but is not dependent of policy alignment or
handing control over resources to the authorities.

31Annex 2-1

Christiansen PPTSlide 9Reference:
PRSPs
Fragile states paper

Comments & questions?
Thank you
Centre for Aid & Public Expenditure
Overseas Development InstituteTel: 020 7922 0300
Fax: 020 7922 0399
Email: k.christiansen@odi.org.uk
Website: www.odi.org.uk
9

Slide 10

The five stated core principles that underlie PRS development
and that should be embodied in their implementation:• country-driven: involving broad-based participation by civilsociety and the private sector in all operational steps;• results-oriented: focusing on outcomes that would benefit thepoor;• comprehensive: recognising the multidimensional nature ofpoverty;• partnership-oriented: involving coordinated participation ofdevelopment partners (bilateral,multilateral, andnon-governmental);• based on a long-term perspective for poverty reduction.

Handout
Defining
H&A:

1. Ownership

National(Partner countries)

2. Alignment(Donor-Partner)

3. Harmonisation(Donor-Donor)

Governmental

Alignmenton partners’
priorities

Commonarrangements

Use ofcountrysystems

Rationalise
procedures

Information
sharingPlus coherence: aid-trade-security-drugs etc
z This cuts across aid instruments/modalities

Distinction between ‘off’, ‘on’ and ‘through’ budget

1032Annex 2-2

Ohno PPT

Slide 1

Slide 2

A Conceptual Framework
for the Choice of Aid
Modalities

About Aid Modality
 Why does aid modality matter? (also, justaid modality?)
 OECD-DAC:
Rome Declaration on Harmonization (2003)

Matching Aid with Country Needs
and Ownership Country-based approach Country ownership and leadership, and Diversity in aid modalities Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005)

Izumi Ohno
GRIPS Development Forum
March 15, 2005
1

Slide 3

 Elements of “Good Donorship” and agreed
monitoring indicators: ownership, alignment,
harmonization, capacity development, etc.
2

Slide 4

About Aid Modality

Discussion Topics(para.5)

1. Review of aid modality debates
2. A proposed framework for deciding
the choice of aid modalities
3. Case analyses

 Enhancing the effectiveness of aid across all
aid modalities
 Choose and design appropriate andcomplementary modalities so as tomaximize their combined effectiveness How can we put the above principles
into practice, in respective partnercountries?

 Aid mix and coordination mechanisms:
Vietnam, Cambodia, Tanzania, Ghana
 Examples of practicing “good donorship

4. Conclusions and unresolved agenda
4

3

Slide 5Slide 6Emerging Priorities and Aid Modalities

１．Aid Modality Debates(esp. mid-1990s〜 )Development Priorities New aid modalities: Budget Support(BS), pool funds under SWAp, etc.
 Emerging priorities:
 Good policies & institutions, fungibility,
core govt. functions, recurrent financing,etc.

 Criticism of the existing modalities:
 Esp. aid relationship & ownership Modality shift becoming integral partof supporting the PRSP framework
533

Aid Modalities

1950s- :Capital shortages (domestic & foreignexchanges)
Knowledge & technology gaps.

- Projects (infrastructure) & program aid(typically, balance of payments (BoP)
support through commodity loans, aimed atfinancial transfer.
- Technical assistance (TA) projects.

1970s:
Basic human needs- Project aid to support social services &rural development

1980s:
Macroeconomic stability
Structural reforms
1990s:
External debt problems- Structural Adjustment Lending (SAL) &Sector Adjustment Lending (SECAL), in theform of program aid, adding policy
conditionality to BoP support.
- Later, protram aid became linked to debt
relief (e.g., Enhanced HIPC Initiative)

Mid-1990s- : Poverty reduction as the ultimate
goal of development
Polciy & institutional coherency.
Addressing fungibility issues.
Building of the core govt. systems.
Recurrent financing- New types of program aid, including
budget support (general & sector BS), poolfunds under SWAp arrangement, as well as
pooled TA.
6

Annex 2-2

Ohno PPT

Slide 8Slide 7

Criticism of the Existing
Modalities

Issues for Consideration
 Assessment of new modalities ‘Stand-alone’ projects (e.g., aid Too early to be conclusive Countries eligible for BS limited

fragmentation, transaction costs, parallelsystems) Country diversity

Æ Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp)
Æ SWAp to (general) BS?

 Development priorities, ownership &capacity, etc.

 Structural adjustment operations

 Institutional
challenges
ofthefunctioning of the PRSP framework(e.g., failure of conditionality to induce
reforms)Æ BS, based on nationally-owned PRSP.

 PRSP-MTEF-PAF
link?,
patrimonial states, etc.

issueson
8

7

Slide 9Slide 10

2. Proposed Framework:
Choice of Aid Modalities

Issues for Consideration
 Multi-dimensionality of capacities: not only
fiduciary risk mgt., but also field
implementation

Origin of Aid Modality Debates:
Two Streams of Thinking
Priority
Development
Issues Treatment of the private sector

Aid mix should be
decided, based on
country-specificassessment on:
 Priority needs
 Ownership &capacity Aid dependency

Recipient-Donor
Aid Relationship Role of aid in PSD & growth promotion?

Æ Need for a broader framework, basedon the reality of partner countries
 Case of fragile states? (not analyzed inour study)

Aid Modality
Debates10

9Slide 11

Slide 12Development Priority Matrix (DPM)
2-1. Priority Country Needs

Public Sector Domain<Upstream>
Policy& Institutions

Critical assessmentof SAL conditionality
Fungibility issue The extent of govt. functions
 Need to build core govt. functions (e.g.,
expanding the coverage of service delivery)?
 Need to strengthen specific functions?

• Establishment of (sectorspecific) policy and institutionalframework Relative importance of PSD (outside DPM),
as compared to building of core govt.
functions Features of priority sectors and activities(2)

Sector & Local
Administration(3)• Improvement of public service delivery• Strengthening of implementation
capacity (managerial & technicalaspects）

Æ Development Priority Matrix (DPM):
To assess priority needs in the public
sector [handout#1]

Critical assessment ofparallel systems &transaction costs
1134• Macroeconomic stability• Inter-sectoral budget allocation• Establishment of core government
functions & systems (e.g., budget mgt,
civil service systems)(1)
Macroeconomic
Policy(4)• Strengthening of
implementation capacity（e.g.,
public financial mgt., monitoring& evaluation)<Downstream>
Implementation

12Annex 2-2

Ohno PPT

Slide 13

Slide 14The Extent of Govt. Functions

Expected Role of New Modalities

Case 1: Core Functions Complete

Policy & Institutions

Policy & Institutions

Budget Support
Sector& LocalAdmin.

Sector-wide
Approach(SWAp)②①③④

Macroeconomic
PolicySector& LocalAdmin.

TA

Macroeconomic
PolicyPublic Fin. Mgt.
Reform

New modalities can be effective in
expanding core govt. functions,
within the reach of public expenditure
programs.

Implementation

Implementation

13

Slide 15

14

Slide 16

Features of Priority Sectors andActivities

The Extent of Govt. Functions
Case 2: Core Functions Restricted
Policy & Institutions

Sector& LocalAdmin.

Publicsectordomain Strong resource
generation &mobilization capacity(Æ less aid
dependent) Strong
administrative
capacity Possible to scaleup project activities.
Sustainability
ensured？

Macroeconomic
PolicyImplementation

Intensity of public-goods components andthe role of recurrent expenditure

Weak resource
generation &mobilization capacity(Æ highly aid
dependent)
 Weakadministrative
capacity Difficulty ofscaling-up, aid
fragmentation
High (primary education), low (PSD), intermediate(agriculture - research & extension; infrastructure- construction vs. O&M)

System-wide applicability of standardized,
homogeneous approaches







High (school construction), low (classroom
teaching, curative care)

Role of NGOs & civil society
16

15

Slide 17

Slide 18

Assessing Real Ownership(esp. Capacity)

2-2. Assessing Real Ownership Capacity for:

 Case 1: Strong ownership Aid management
 Design and implementation of development
programs

 Capable of identifying specific aid needs
 Low aid dependency, donor leverage limited?
Æ Collective donor action on policy & institutional
agenda can be costly, creating dual system Recipients’ perception of ownership Case 2: Weak ownership Openness to external influence Bargaining power vs. donors

 Problems of aid fragmentation, transaction costs,
weak sustainability, etc.
 Often, high aid dependency: aid mgt. essential
part of managing development programs
Æ Joint solution with donors may be necessary Aid dependency

Æ Typologies of Ownership & Capacity[handout#2]

18

17

35

Annex 2-2

Ohno PPT

Slide 19

Slide20

3. Matching Aid with Country
Needs and Ownership
Process

Aid dependency

Priorities•The extent of core govt. functions•PSD potential, features of sectors

Ownership•Aid mgt. capacity, T/C•Openness to external influence

Aid mix•Role of respective modalities•Coordination mechanism

19

Slide 21

20

Slide 22
Matching Aid with Country Needs and Ownership(Examples)

Referential Indicators forAssessment

Aid dependency

 Aid dependency [handout#3]-PSD &
industrial
competitive-ness-Servicequality-Closed,centralized
aid mgt.
-T/Cmanageable-Projects as mainmodality; BS to address
specific reforms-Policy alignment-Harmonization by
donor groups withsimilar procedures.

TanzaniaHigh-Building
corefunctions-Service
expansion-Openpartnership-High T/C

-BS & pool funds(under SWAp) as mainmodality.
-Projects to be fullyaligned (policy &budget process).

CambodiaHigh-Building
corefunctions-Service
expansion-Fragmented
aid mgt.
-Open
partnership-High T/C

-Sector level, policyalignment.
-Coordinated efforts to
reduce T/C beginning.

 Ratio of ODA to investment, forex earnings, etc.

 Aid mgt. capacity
 Centralized vs. fragmented aid mgt.
 Transaction costs (T/C), associated with aid
volume, number of projects & donors
21

Slide 23

Aid mix &coordination

Low

 The extent of core govt. functions
 PSD potential

Ownership

Vietnam Ratio of ODA to GDP, govt. expenditure, etc.
 Ratio of govt. revenues to GDP Access to essential social services

Priorityneeds

22Slide 24

Country Examples:
Role of Budget Support (BS)Country Examples:
Role of Project Aid Vietnam:

 Vietnam (“without” SWAp)

 PRSC serving as an entry point for policy
reforms, with projects supporting
implementation & providing policy inputs
 Possibility of “targeted” BS being explored The existence of PHC network (provincedistrict-commune) Project aid for context-specific & transactionintensive activities: strengthening field
implementation to improve the existing
functions (e.g., Reproductive Health Project)

 Tanzania:

 PRBS/PRSC serving as resource transfer &priority sector support, supplemented by SWAp
(mostly, sector BS & pool funds) Ghana (“with” SWAp) Cambodia:

 Project aid for pilot innovation : scaled up
within SWAp, contributing to the establishmentof its institutional framework (e.g., Health InService Training Project)

 General BS yet to be introduced
 Innovative, flexible SWAp (e.g., project-based,
health SWiM, education SWAp with sector BS,pool funds & projects)

24

23

36

Annex 2-2

Ohno PPT

Slide 26

Slide 25

Country Examples: Practicing
Good Donorship

4. Conclusions

Donor behavior also matters Need for country-specific assessment of:priority needs, ownership & aid
dependency
 Need for sharing views, among partners,on the role of respective aid modalities
and desirable coordination mechanisms
 Efforts to pursue “good donorship” acrossall aid modalities Mutual learning among donors (e.g., UK &Japan) for their complementarities

 Sharing the process of deciding aid mix &coordination mechanisms: Tanzania, Vietnam
 Promoting alignment & harmonization to
reduce transaction costs: Ghana (PRSC/MDBS),
Vietnam (projects)

 Designing SWAp, with realistic assessment oflocal capacity & needs: Cambodia, Bangladesh Integrating aid flows into recipient’s budget
process: Tanzania (BS & projects)
25

Slide 27

26

Slide 28

Conclusions:
Implications for Japan’s ODA

Topics for Further Discussions
and Studies

 Enhancing the effectiveness of projects
Æ Alignment & harmonization
 Contributing to the content of policy &institutional framework, building on thefield-based experiencesÆ Participating in policy dialogue
Æ Use of PHRD funds, as well as BS & pool

 Is our framework appropriate toconsider different country context?
(e.g., Asia vs. Sub-Saharan Africa) Need for more analyses at the sector
level (e.g., PSD & growth agenda)
 Need for deeper understanding ofownership and capacity development

funds where appropriate

 Strengthening country programming
across all schemes (TA, grants, loans)Æ Key role of field-based, ODA Task Force(incl. diverse country experiences with aid
mgt.)

27

28

37

Annex 2-2

Ohno Handout

Development Priority Matrix (DPM)<Upstream>
Policy&Institutions

・・・

Establishment of(sector-specific) policy andinstitutional framework

・

①

②

Sector & Local
Administration③

・ Critical assessmentof SAL conditionality
・ Fungibility issue

Macroeconomic stability
Inter-sectoral budget allocation(e.g., consistency with PRSP priority)
Establishment of core government
functions & systems (e.g., budget
mgt, civic service systems)
Macroeconomic
Policy④・・ Improvement of public service
delivery (quantity & quality)
・ Strengthening of implementation
capacity（managerial & technicalaspects）

Strengthening of implementation
capacity（e.g., public financial
management, monitoring &evaluation）

Critical assessment ofparallel systems＆ transaction costs<Downstream>
Implementation

Private Sector and Growth Agenda in DPM
Original DPM

Broader DPM

Private Sector

Policy & Inst.

Policy & Inst.
Interaction

Sector &Local
Admin.

Public sector

Sector &Local
Admin.

Macro

Public sector
Macro

Implementation

Implementation

38Annex 2-2

Ohno Handout

Typologies of Country Ownership and Capacity
Case 1: Strong

Case 2: Weak-- Problems and Solution
Recipients &DonorsRecipients

DonorsDevelopment
Scenarioz Absence of policies
z Policies with
Low quality

Development
Scenario

Ineffectiveness
Development
strategy

Misalignment by donors
・ Stand-alone projects
・ Aid fragmentation

Identificationof aid needs
Implementation
Formulationof aidstrategy

Development
strategyInternal
budgetz Government’s resources (financial,
institutional & human)
Donor competition over govt.
resources.
Aid bypassing govt. system

Aid
money

・ Heavy burden on local govt
capacity
・ Weak sustainability of individual
projects.

Development
Effectiveness &Sustainabilityz Macro environment

Implementation
Internal budget& aid money

Development
Effectiveness &Sustainability

Fungibility
Macroeconomic instability
Achievement ofStrategic Goals

・ Development goals
unfulfilled

39

Achievement ofStrategic Goals

Annex 2-2

Ohno Handout

Aid as a percent of Macroeconomic Aggregates (2001)
Unit: %

GDP

Gov’t Exp.

Investment

Forex.
Imports
Revenue
Vietnam
4.6
17.9
14.8
7.0
9.4
Cambodia
12.4
64.4
69.1
19.0
24.4
Tanzania
14.3
75.0
83.8
41.8
89.2
Note: From International Monetary Fund. (2003). IMF statistical appendix.
From OECD/DAC.
The aid data (gross disbursement) are based on donor report to OECD/DAC, which may notcoincide with those reported by the government.

Access to Essential Social Services
GNI per capita
Child Immunization
Primary School(2002)
Rate (% of children
Completion Rateunder age one, 2001)(2001)
$430
98%
101%
$280
60%
43%
$280
85%
60%

Vietnam
CambodiaTanzania
Note: From World Bank. (2003). World development report 2004.

Access to Improved
Water（% of pop.,
2000）
77%
30%
68%

Selected Sources of Foreign Exchange Inflows(Average of 1999-2001)
Unit: $mn
14,00012,000

Exports
FDI Inflows

10,000Private Transfer
ODA Inflows

8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
VietnamBangladesh Cambodia

Ghana

Tanzania

Note: From International Monetary Fund. (2003). IMF statistical appendix.
From OECD/DAC.

40

Ethiopia

Annex 2-3

Yamada PPT

Slide 2

Slide 1

Case: PEDP, Tanzania (1)Aid inflow and the trend of
educational resource allocation

Priorities and equity of resource
distribution: the case of Primary
Education Development Program(PEDP) in Tanzania

Trend after 2000/2001 (handout) Increased aid dependency (reliance on
foreign grant to cover the budget deficit)
 Increased allocation of public funds toeducation (both as % of public
expenditure and of GDP)
 Bigger share of primary education at theexpense of secondary

Shoko Yamada, GRIPS

1

2

Slide 3Slide 4
Case: PEDP, Tanzania (2)Efficiency of the financial flow

Case: PEDP, Tanzania (3)Educational outcomes- PETS findings (Handout) Gross enrolment rate↑ (improvementof access) Pupil-teacher ratio↑ (less internal
efficiency, but not a dramatic change) Repetition rate→

Reducing leakage (50% of capitation grants reachedschool in 2002→68% in 2003)

IssuesExecution rate is lower for the donor funded part
than for the government funded part (efficiency
problem at the macro-level).
 Multiple channels of disbursement (cause of
misappropriation and mis-recording) (handout) 20% of registered teachers are ghost Degree of resource leakage varies across districts
and schools (income level and accessibility of info.
matters) – disadvantage for rural small schools in low
3
income communities

No clear pattern in the educational
outcomes before and after PEDP

Slide 5

4

Slide 6

Effects of increased financial
resources to primary education
Reduced duplication and contradiction
among interventions by different
development partners (DPs) Reduced transaction cost byharmonizing the procedures of different
DPs More room for the government’s
discretion in planning, financing, andimplementation
6

Weak co-relation between educational
expenditure and educational outcomeAdvantages of coordinated financial
assistance (ideal scenario)
John Roberts, 2003 (ODI); Yaqub, 1999 (WB)

Resource allocation to the pro-poor sector at
the central level does not automaticallyguarantee the benefit of the poor
“Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support:
Tanzania 1995-2004”, ODI
 Benefit incidence analysis shows Tanzanian poor
population benefit less from the public educational
5
expenditure than many African countries

41

Annex 2-3

Yamada PPT

Slide 7

Slide 8

Needs for responsive andcontext-sensitive assistance

The way forward: bridging aid
modalities

Focused assistance for the disadvantaged(the poor, girls, remote areas, etc.)
 Capacity building of local educational offices
and school committees
 Planning and service delivery based on the
deep understanding of local contexts

Balance btw/ articulating acomprehensive aid framework andattending urgent needs on the ground Capacity and negotiation power of thegovernment to balance different
modalities of DPs
 Mutual respect among DPs for differentmode of assistance→persistent needs of field-based
operation and technical assistance(provided that it is aligned to the sector policy)



7

42

Factors conditioning the relationships
among DPs – power politics; history ofcommitment to the country assisted, etc.

8Annex 2-3

Macro-level

Sector

Ed OfficeDistrict 1-1

School1-1-1District

SchoolSchool
1-1-2

TVET

School
1-1-5

Ed OfficeDistrict 1-4

Ed OfficeRegion 4

School
1-1-4

Ed OfficeDistrict 1-3

Ed OfficeRegion 3

Tertiary
Ed

School
1-1-3

Ed OfficeDistrict 1-2

Ed OfficeRegion 2

Secondary
Ed

Min. of
Education &CulturePresidential
OfficeFinal Beneficiaries (Students, parents, community)

Ed OfficeRegion 1

Primary
Ed

PO-RALG(Regional admin &Local governance)

Regional

National

Min. ofFinance

Policy, finance, and aid modalities from macro to micro level– The case of Tanzania

43
School
1-1-6

Ed OfficeDistrict 1-5

Ed OfficeRegion 5

outcomes- Educational
outcomes- Poverty reduction

Effectivenessand Equity of

Resource
distribution

Efficiency
and Equity ofallocation
Prioritization

Resource

Financial flow

Participationin policymaking

Policyimplementation(Ed Sector
Dev’t Program)

ESDP

PRSP

PolicyProject

Pooled fund

SWAP

GBS

Aid modality

Yamada Handout

Yamada Handout

Annex 2-3

1997

Foreign assistance and public expenditure on education in Tanzania
Educational expenditure
Ed expenditure
Budget deficit covered
GDP real(as % of public expenditure)(as % of GDP)by grant (as % of GDP) growth rate
2.7
3.3

1998

2.6

4

1999

26.40

3.1

2.2

4.7

2000

21.60

3.3

4.2

4.9

2001

27.02

3.4

3.5

5.7

2002
28.34
4.4
4.5
6.2
Note: From World Bank. (2003). Tanzania public expenditure review FY03.
From United Republic of Tanzania. (2003). Joint review of the primary education development
plan: Final report.

Share of recurrent expenditure of education in Tanzania by sub-sector
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1999-00

2000-01

Primary

Secondary

2001-02

University/TVET

Teacher training

2002-03
Administration

Note: From World Bank. (2003). Tanzania public expenditure review FY03.

Financial flows in PEDP
PO-RALG

MOF

MOEC
Accountant
generalREGION
District
Education

Capitationaccount

Development
account

District
Councils

Otheraccount

44

Materials
Books

Capacity building
account

Yamada Handout

Annex 2-3

Access to and quality of education in Tanzania
120%
Gross Enrolment Rate
Pupil-Teacher Ratio

100%

Repetition Rate

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1993-4

1994-5

1995-6 1996-7

1997-8 1998-9 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Note: From United Republic of Tanzania. (2005). Basic statistics in education 1993-2003.

Benefit incidences of public expenditure on primary education in Tanzania,
compared to two other East African countries
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Tanzania
PoorestSecond quartile

Ethiopia
Third quartile

Kenya
Fourth quartile

RichestNote: From Lambert, S., and Sahn, D. (1999). Incidence of public spending in the health andeducation sectors in Tanzania. In M. Christian (Ed.), Education and health expenditureand poverty reduction in East Africa (pp. 130).
From World Bank. (2002). Kenya: Strengthening the foundation of education andtraining in Kenya (pp. 61).
From World Bank. (2004). Education in Ethiopia: Strengthening the foundation forsustainable progress (pp. 104).

45

Annex 2-4

Niiya PPT

Slide 2

Slide 1

Selection process of aid modality has two stages...

Sector and Country Context for
the Choice of Aid Modalities:

Â

Case of Health Sector, Uganda and Vietnam

Proposal of conceptual
frameworks for capturing
different sector and country
context in each step.

Roadmap
1.
2.
3.
4.

Ohno’s presentation:

Priority of Country
Needs:

Why Health, Uganda and Vietnam
Comparison in priority of country needs
Comparison in recipient-donor relationship
Case of Vietnam

Â This presentation:

Through the case of health sector in Uganda andVietnam, the presentation will demonstrate
1) sector and country differences more specifically2) how they affect the selection of aid modalities.
z Why Health, Uganda and Vietnam

Typology of sectors by the role of public expenditurez Comparison in priority of country needs

Uganda and Vietnam

Recipient-Donor
Relationship:z Comparison in recipient-donor relationship

Uganda and Vietnamz Vietnam case Study

Discussion

Complex development priorities & limited openness
to external influence

15/03/2005
Yumiko Niiya, GRIPS Development Forum (y-niiya@grips.ac.jp)•Optimal mix of different
modalities•With concrete
coordination mechanism

Health, Uganda, Vietnam
Priority of country needs

1
GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

March 15, 2005

Recipient donor relation

2

Vietnam case study

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

Slide 3z Discussion

Tensions within the agenda in countries like Vietnam
Health, Uganda, Vietnam
Priority of country needs
Recipient donor relation
Vietnam case study

March 15, 2005

Slide 4Typology of Government-role and Public Expenditure’s role
Why examine the Health sector ?
Role of government

Role of public
expenditure

Typical example

Type A

Service provider

Major

Primary education,[Primary Health]Type B

Regulator/promoterof private activities

Minor

Private sector development

Type C

Mixture of A and B

HybridAgriculture,[Primary Health]Comparison of 2 types of Health development environment:
Uganda and Vietnam

Â Why this typology? Modality choice is deeply related to the public

expenditure’s flow (Ohno’s presentation).

Â Some sectors can be categorized in different type depending on country

situation. Examining such sector can make an appropriate case forcontrasting country difference.
Â The primary health care (PHC), can be categorized either in Type A(Uganda) or Type C (Vietnam).

Country

UgandaVietnam

HealthStatusLow health status with disease
patterns concentrating on
communicable disease

Relatively higher healthstatus with shifting disease
patterns from communicable
to non-communicable
Diseases

Public PHC network is yet toPrimary
Health Care be established and function
properly
network

Well-developed public PHC
network with an increase in
private health care providers

High
Aid
Dependency

Low

Two low income countries, two very different situations…

Health, Uganda, Vietnam

Health, Uganda, Vietnam

Priority of country needs

3
GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

March 15, 2005

Priority of country needs

Recipient donor relation

4

Vietnam case study

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

Slide 5

Recipient donor relation

Supply side

Demand side

Role and flow of
public expenditure(PE)

Aid modality

Establishment ofpublic PHC network

Stimulating healthdemand byintroducing freeservice

Both development andrecurrent expenditure
can be streamlined
into public PHC
network-SWAP as aframework-Common fundas a financial
instrument

Quality
improvement inboth i) existing
public PHC network
and ii) emerging
private providers

Establishing
financialmechanism tocover high out of
pocketexpenditure (80%).

Three tiers:-Quality improvementof public PHC-Regulatory role forprivate providers-Demand side
Financing[Handout Figure 1]

UgandaVietnamVietnam case study

Slide 6Comparison in Aid Relationship
Uganda and Vietnam

Comparison in Development Priorities and Needs
Uganda and Vietnam
Priority Needs
Country

March 15, 2005

Uganda:z Aid provides 60-70% of total funding to the health sector,

including budget support, projects and NGO support(2002/03)
z Before introducing SWAP, “aid projects are fragmented and??

proved relatively ineffective and inefficient.”z Open to external influence with strong ownership of the

Uganda Gov. at the macro (PRSP/PEAP) and sector levels.
SWAP with common fund functioning as a tool to improve
Harmonization (among donors) and alignment (to gov. strategy
and system).
Health, Uganda, Vietnam

Uganda: SWAP with common fund functioning as a tool to strengthen
the unified flow of PE.
Health, Uganda, Vietnam
Vietnam: Complex PE, what is suitable aid modality?
Priority of country needs

Priority of country needs

5

Recipient donor relation

6

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

Vietnam case study

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

March 15, 2005

46

Recipient donor relation

March 15, 2005

Vietnam case study

Annex 2-4

Niiya PPT

Slide 7

Slide 8Vietnam’s Case Show
Complex Development Priorities & Limited Openness to External Influence

Comparison in Aid Relationship
Uganda and Vietnam (findings from fieldwork in Vietnam, Feb. 2005)
Efficiency(findings from fieldwork in Vietnam, Feb. 2005)
Efficiency Overall gov. expenditure: seriously questioned by both
Level
Vietnamese researchers and donors.

Aid money: Large No. of projects and donors (Handout Table 3)with manageable level (only 13% of total public funding to health care)

Project

Behavior problems in bureaucracy system

Project

Vietnamese side questioned:• Transaction cost
• Design of projects

Program• Burdens of managing different programs at local level?

ProgramDemarcation among donors at two levels:• Vertical programs (total 10)• Referral levels

Strategy

Level

Strategy• Appropriateness resource allocation between referral(geographical) levels?

• Strong ownership of the Gov.
• Integration into gov. systems (both planning and budget)with limited role of the Ministry of Health.

How donors can address these issues with small leverage by low aid dependency& being separately managed from the overall public expenditure cycles?

Aid relationship under control, no need for alternative aid modalities
Health, Uganda, Vietnam
and/or coordination mechanism?
Priority of country needs
7
GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

March 15, 2005

The strategies exist but• Difficulty in interpreting strategies into prioritized action(what to do?).
• Inflexibility in resource re-allocation towards new priorities(how to do?).

Health, Uganda, Vietnam
Priority of country needs

Recipient donor relation

8

Vietnam case study

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

Slide 9Recipient donor relation
Vietnam case study

March 15, 2005

Slide 10
Discussion:
Tensions within the Agenda in Countries like Vietnam

Learning's from the Vietnam Case
Possible Entry Points for Countries Like Vietnam

Priority of Country
Needs:

Â Strategy Level: Establishing common platform fordiscussing concrete methods of what to do and how to do
for implementing existing strategies.

Â Factors to be considered in each steps:z Complexity of issues and flows of public expenditure

Creating mutual understanding and trust is more important than the transfer ofaid money as incentives and/or rewards for the reform.

Recipient-Donor
Relationship:z Aid and public expenditure in different management systems.

Small leverage of donors to address the latter, which is critical
for the efficiency of aid…

Â Program level: Strengthening programmatic approachwithin vertical programs and referral level.

Â Tensions within the agenda:

Including procedural harmonization and resource sharing, depending on
thorough assessment of readiness by both donor and Vietnamese sides.

•Optimal mix of different
modalities•With concrete
coordination mechanism

Â Project level: Donors’ effort to improve quality of theirintervention.
Appropriate design respecting the local needs / existing local standards, aswell as simplification of procedures.

z Donor behavior improvement> Alignment, while
contributing quality improvement of gov’s strategies
z Building better performance (by offering concrete ideas)

Priority of country needs

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

March 15, 2005>

Rewarding good performance (by policy conditionalities with aid
Health, Uganda, Vietnam
money incentive)

Health, Uganda, Vietnam

9> drastic change of aid modality

z Harmonization (among donors)

Priority of country needs

Recipient donor relation

10

Vietnam case study

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

47

Recipient donor relation
March 15, 2005

Vietnam case study

Annex 2-4

Niiya Handout

Experience of sector program by sector in Africa region
Total Number per Sector 2001-2005 (SPs Only)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Agriculture

Education

Environment

HealthTransport

Water

Note: From SPA Secretariat in collaboration with the SSWG. (2004). SPA- 2003 sector
program tracking report. Retrieved in March 2005, from http://www.spa-psa.org/
resources/pdf/secprog/2003_sp/draft_2003_SP_tracking.pdf

Difference in health status, service and role of aid—Vietnam and Uganda
Life expectancy at birth, years(2002)*1
Under 5 mortality rate per 1,000(2003)*2
Population per bed (2002)
Coverage of staff salary at
public PHC

Vietnam

Uganda

69.6

49.3

26

141

588*3

870*4
The shortage of personnel and thedelay in the payment wasprominent
beforeintroducing
SWAP (2000) and solved by 2003*6

Covered and disbursed
timely by the government
from 1995*5

Gov. expenditure/total
28.5%
57.5%
expenditure on health (2001)*1
External resource/total
2.6%
24.8%
expenditure on health (2001)*1
Note: *1 From World Health Organization. WHO statistical information system (WHOSIS). Retrieved in
March 2005, from http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm*2 From World Bank. (2004). World development indicators 04.
*3 From Ministry of Health, Vietnam. (2003). Health statistical profile 2002.
*4 From Ministry of Health, Uganda. Health statistics. Retrieved in March 2005, from http://www.
health.go.ug/health_stat.htm*5 From World Bank. (2001). Growing healthy: A review of Vietnam’s health sector.
*6 From Ministry of Health, Uganda. Ugandan health units are reporting a doubling in patient visits.
What lessons can be learnt by other sectors and by DFID?.

48

Annex 2-4

Niiya Handout

Role of government and public expenditure in primary health care --Vietnam<Upstream >P olicy& Institutions
Dem and side
financing:
Provider of
Direct Subsidy

M OH
Regulator

PPC

M OF: recurrent budget
M PI: developm ent budget
Service Provider

S ector & Local
Adm inistration

Private Provider

Beneficiaries

M acroeconom ic
PolicyDHC and CHC as
public provider<Dow nstream >Im plem entation

MOH: Ministry of Health
MOF: Ministry of Finance
MPI: Ministry of Planning and Investment
PPC: Provincial People’s Committee
DHC: District Hospital
CHC: Commune Health Center

Vietnam health sector, ODA projects in top 5 programs
Commitment budget
No. of Project No. of Donors(US$ million)
Mother and child health

364

69

16

Hospital services

184

18

11

Primary health care services

179

36

20

Communicable diseases prevention
155
72
19
and control
Health policy, planning, management
64
27
10
and evaluation
Note: From Project Coordination Department, Ministry of Health, Vietnam. (2003). Compendium of aid
projects.

49

［政策議事録 バックナンバー］
発行：2002年12月

No.11 2002年IMF・世界銀行年次総会
2002年IMF・世界銀行年次総会の評価と今後の課題（吉田正紀、三好敏之）

No.12 世界銀行と日本

発行：2002年12月

世界銀行と日本の関係強化に向けて――現状報告および今後の方向性（吉村幸雄）
日本の開発問題への知的貢献について（日下部元雄）
発行：2002年12月

No.13 MDGs、PRSPとパートナーシップ
日本はミレニアム開発目標（MDGs）に対して如何に取り組むべきか（戸田隆夫）
PRSP プロセスの改善に向けて――本フォーラムでの議論を総括する（緒方健太郎）
開発パートナーシップにおける日本のリーダーシップ――日本・UNICEF事業協力を例に考える（久木田純）

No.14

途上国の債務問題

発行：2002年12月

途上国の債務問題と日本の役割（玉木林太郎）
国家破産制度を巡る議論の現状と今後の課題（保井俊之）

No.15 開発の諸側面

発行：2002年12月

貿易・環境・開発の相互連関と日本にとっての意味合い（吉野裕）
国際教育協力の課題と日本の役割（岡谷重雄）
開発におけるICTとナレッジ・エコノミー――各ドナーのアプローチから考える（田中啓之、泉泰雄）

No.16 人間の安全保障

発行：2002年12月

人間の安全保障と日本の国際協力を考える（緒方貞子）
紛争と開発に関する今後の取り組みについて――世界銀行の活動枠組みを参考としつつ（黒田和秀）
発行：2003年6月

No.17 ODA大綱を考える
開発問題における日本の役割を考える（小和田恒）〈付論〉「開発問題における日本の役割を考える」に対する意見（服部則夫）〈付論〉「開発問題における日本の役割を考える」に対する服部則夫氏の意見への返答（小和田恒）

ODA大綱はいかにあるべきか――DC開発フォーラムからの貢献（紀谷昌彦）〈付論〉新 ODA 大綱 私案（大野健一）

No.18 アフリカ援助の再考

発行：2003年6月

アフリカ支援再編成への提言（大野健一・高橋基樹）〈付論〉Renovating Japan’s Aid in Africa （Kenichi Ohno & Motoki Takahashi）

サブサハラ･アフリカ援助の現状マッピング調査――聞き取り調査結果の概要（榎木とも子）
アフリカへの対応と日本（橘田正造）

No.19

GRIPS-ODI Joint Feedback Seminar

Issue: May 2005

Good Donorship and the Choice of Aid Modalities―Matching Aid with Country Needs and Ownership—：ワシントン DC 開発フォーラム：日越共同研究プロジェクト：GRIPS 開発フォーラム