id okr-10986-22870
recordtype oai_dc
spelling okr-10986-228702021-04-23T14:04:11Z On the Delegation of Aid Implementation to Multilateral Agencies Annen, Kurt Knack, Stephen DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH COMPETITORS LEAD ECONOMIC GROWTH HUMANITARIAN AID DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE MINERAL RESOURCES DONOR PARTICIPATION AID ALLOCATION DEVELOPMENT BANKS DEVELOPMENT ISSUES HEALTH DOMESTIC RESOURCES LOAN DEVELOPMENT AID PROJECTS PRIORITIES MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS PM PUBLIC HEALTH DEVELOPED COUNTRIES SHAREHOLDERS FASHION DEVELOPMENT BIASES TICS AID DISEASE AID CONDITIONALITY EDUCATION COLLUSION BILATERAL DONORS LEADS EQUALITY DIS BILATERAL AID DONORS WATER LENDING SOCIETY MARKETS NEEDS DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACCESS INCLUSION MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES TUBERCULOSIS LOANS AIDS SEE DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION COOPERATIVE FOOD AID INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES FISHING GRANTS DEVELOPMENT POLICY BILATERAL DONOR Some multilateral agencies implement aid projects in a broad range of sectors, with aid disbursements showing a strong overlap with those of bilateral donors. The question then arises of why do bilateral donors delegate sizable shares of their aid to non-specialized agencies for implementation? This paper develops a game theoretic model to explain this puzzle. Donors delegate aid implementation to the multilateral agency (ML) to strengthen the policy selectivity of aid, incentivizing policy improvements in recipient countries, in turn improving aid’s development effectiveness. Bilateral donors are better off delegating aid to ML even when they are purely altruistic but disagree on how aid should be distributed across recipients. Key for our result to hold is that ML searches some middle ground among disagreeing donors. Aid selectivity—in terms of both policy and poverty—emerges endogenously and is credible, as it is the solution to ML’s optimization problem. Moreover, the model shows that if one sufficiently large donor is policy selective in its aid allocations, there is no need for other donors to be policy selective. The World Bank’s aid program for lower-income countries, the International Development Administration (IDA), is shown to fit the assumptions and predictions of the model. Specifically, IDA is a dominant donor in most of its recipient countries and is much more policy and poverty selective than bilateral aid. Donors view it as a public good, and contribution more to it when bilateral aid is less selective. Potential threats to IDA’s role as a dominant, policy-selective donor include the emergence of nontraditional donors, changes in voting shares, and traditional donors’ increasing use of earmarked contributions. 2015-11-05T17:03:50Z 2015-11-05T17:03:50Z 2015-10 Working Paper http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/10/25192585/delegation-aid-implementation-multilateral-agencies http://hdl.handle.net/10986/22870 English en_US Policy Research Working Paper;No. 7455 CC BY 3.0 IGO http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ World Bank World Bank, Washington, DC Publications & Research :: Policy Research Working Paper Publications & Research
repository_type Digital Repository
institution_category Foreign Institution
institution Digital Repositories
building World Bank Open Knowledge Repository
collection World Bank
language English
en_US
topic DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
COMPETITORS
LEAD
ECONOMIC GROWTH
HUMANITARIAN AID
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
MINERAL RESOURCES
DONOR
PARTICIPATION
AID ALLOCATION
DEVELOPMENT BANKS
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
HEALTH
DOMESTIC RESOURCES
LOAN
DEVELOPMENT AID
PROJECTS
PRIORITIES
MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
PM
PUBLIC HEALTH
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
SHAREHOLDERS
FASHION
DEVELOPMENT
BIASES
TICS
AID
DISEASE
AID CONDITIONALITY
EDUCATION
COLLUSION
BILATERAL DONORS
LEADS
EQUALITY
DIS
BILATERAL AID
DONORS
WATER
LENDING
SOCIETY
MARKETS
NEEDS
DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ACCESS
INCLUSION
MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
TUBERCULOSIS
LOANS
AIDS
SEE
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
COOPERATIVE
FOOD AID
INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES
FISHING
GRANTS
DEVELOPMENT POLICY
BILATERAL DONOR
spellingShingle DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
COMPETITORS
LEAD
ECONOMIC GROWTH
HUMANITARIAN AID
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
MINERAL RESOURCES
DONOR
PARTICIPATION
AID ALLOCATION
DEVELOPMENT BANKS
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
HEALTH
DOMESTIC RESOURCES
LOAN
DEVELOPMENT AID
PROJECTS
PRIORITIES
MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
PM
PUBLIC HEALTH
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
SHAREHOLDERS
FASHION
DEVELOPMENT
BIASES
TICS
AID
DISEASE
AID CONDITIONALITY
EDUCATION
COLLUSION
BILATERAL DONORS
LEADS
EQUALITY
DIS
BILATERAL AID
DONORS
WATER
LENDING
SOCIETY
MARKETS
NEEDS
DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ACCESS
INCLUSION
MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES
TUBERCULOSIS
LOANS
AIDS
SEE
DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
COOPERATIVE
FOOD AID
INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES
FISHING
GRANTS
DEVELOPMENT POLICY
BILATERAL DONOR
Annen, Kurt
Knack, Stephen
On the Delegation of Aid Implementation to Multilateral Agencies
relation Policy Research Working Paper;No. 7455
description Some multilateral agencies implement aid projects in a broad range of sectors, with aid disbursements showing a strong overlap with those of bilateral donors. The question then arises of why do bilateral donors delegate sizable shares of their aid to non-specialized agencies for implementation? This paper develops a game theoretic model to explain this puzzle. Donors delegate aid implementation to the multilateral agency (ML) to strengthen the policy selectivity of aid, incentivizing policy improvements in recipient countries, in turn improving aid’s development effectiveness. Bilateral donors are better off delegating aid to ML even when they are purely altruistic but disagree on how aid should be distributed across recipients. Key for our result to hold is that ML searches some middle ground among disagreeing donors. Aid selectivity—in terms of both policy and poverty—emerges endogenously and is credible, as it is the solution to ML’s optimization problem. Moreover, the model shows that if one sufficiently large donor is policy selective in its aid allocations, there is no need for other donors to be policy selective. The World Bank’s aid program for lower-income countries, the International Development Administration (IDA), is shown to fit the assumptions and predictions of the model. Specifically, IDA is a dominant donor in most of its recipient countries and is much more policy and poverty selective than bilateral aid. Donors view it as a public good, and contribution more to it when bilateral aid is less selective. Potential threats to IDA’s role as a dominant, policy-selective donor include the emergence of nontraditional donors, changes in voting shares, and traditional donors’ increasing use of earmarked contributions.
format Working Paper
author Annen, Kurt
Knack, Stephen
author_facet Annen, Kurt
Knack, Stephen
author_sort Annen, Kurt
title On the Delegation of Aid Implementation to Multilateral Agencies
title_short On the Delegation of Aid Implementation to Multilateral Agencies
title_full On the Delegation of Aid Implementation to Multilateral Agencies
title_fullStr On the Delegation of Aid Implementation to Multilateral Agencies
title_full_unstemmed On the Delegation of Aid Implementation to Multilateral Agencies
title_sort on the delegation of aid implementation to multilateral agencies
publisher World Bank, Washington, DC
publishDate 2015
url http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/10/25192585/delegation-aid-implementation-multilateral-agencies
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/22870
_version_ 1764452281691930624