Despite varied interests and motivations, aid donors
often think and act alike on a wide array of development policies and programming priorities in the face of otherwise heterogeneous national interests
, cultures, development contexts, and organisational structures. Donors
frequently acknowledge the puzzling degree of similarity in their approaches—the isomorphism
of their practices and institutions—as being reflective of an emerging “global consensus
” on things development- or aid-related. My research
into this phenomenon labels this “the globalisation
of aid” and works to explain the puzzle by drawing upon sociological
neo-institutionalism and World Society
theory to show how this globalisation is due to the creation, circulation, and enactment of world-level models for how aid should be delivered and the priorities on which it should focus (Swiss
2018).
6.2.1 Macro-Level Globalisation Processes
The macro-level
influences
identified build upon the sociological
neo-institutionalist World Society
perspective advanced by John W. Meyer and his students (Boli and Thomas
1999b; Meyer et al.
1997; Schofer et al.
2012). A primary focus of World Society research
is the explanation of isomorphism
among different states and organisations. The empirical literature in this tradition has provided significant macro-sociological evidence of how the influence
of global cultural models
on states leads to isomorphism
or globalisation
. World Society
researchers show that the increasing isomorphism of states in areas as varied as educational systems, environmentalism, human rights, and legal systems derives from the influence of global actors, treaties, meetings, and networks
(Boyle et al.
2015; Cole and Ramirez
2013; Frank et al.
2009; Kim et al.
2013; Nugent and Shandra
2009; Schofer and Hironaka
2005; Schofer and Meyer
2005).
Key factors identified in this literature that are linked to the diffusion of common models and institutions include state ties to international non-governmental
organisations, the timing of global conferences, and the ratification of various international treaties or agendas. The World Society
perspective argues that the diffusion of common institutional models is associated with greater ties to such international actors and the timing of such global agenda-setting
events. Likewise, mimicry
and the influence
of the behaviour of other states are also shown to be a strong factor in promoting the diffusion of global models. To this end, states are shown to be more likely to display isomorphic behaviour when they: (1) are influenced by the behaviour of other states; (2) are more embedded in global networks
of international organisations; and (3) aim to comply with global agendas. It is these same three macro-level
influences
that I identify in my research
on the globalisation
of aid (Swiss
2011,
2012,
2014,
2016b,
2018) and review here.
1.
Influence of other donors: Mimicry and contagion
Donors
adopt and implement new policy and programming priorities by copying the work of other donors (Swiss
2014,
2018). As perceived donor leaders innovate and implement new policy and programming directions, other donors
look to them to inspire their own policy reforms and programming decisions. This emulation of leading donors is in keeping with earlier theories of mimicry
and their relationship to institutional isomorphism
(DiMaggio and Powell
1983). For instance, Swiss (
2018) shows that Sweden—perceived as a leader in gender
equality programming in the mid-2000s—was an inspiration for Canadian reforms to their gender
policy and practices in that period. Indeed, one could argue that Sweden’s 2014 Feminist Foreign Policy (Ministry for Foreign Affairs Sweden
2018) played a significant role in influencing Canada’s subsequent advent of its Feminist International Assistance Policy in 2017 (Brown and Swiss
2017; Tiessen and Swan
2018).
Mimicry
, in the World Society
literature, extends to what researchers refer to as model density—measured using the number of countries or organisations that have adopted a world-level model. In essence, the higher the number of countries that adopt a policy model, treaty, or other institutional forms, the greater the likelihood that other countries will do the same. Similar to contagion effects identified in other literatures, this density effect is evident in aid donors
as well, with quantitative evidence showing that the more donor countries adopt a focus on women and gender
, the more likely it is that others will do so as well (Swiss
2012). For instance, statistical modelling of the adoption of donor women/gender policies and units in the period from 1968 through 2003 reveals that for every four donors
that adopted such policies, the chance of other donors following suit increased by more than 100 per cent (Swiss
2018). This herd mentality among donors
demonstrates the clear role for mimicry
and contagion in furthering the globalisation
of aid.
2.
The DAC and beyond: International organisationsns
Another key macro-level
influence
on the globalisation
of aid is that of international and inter-governmental organisations (Boli and Thomas
1997,
1999a). In the case of Western bilateral donors
, the critical organisation in this regard is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s
(OECD) Development Assistance Committee
(DAC) (Eyben
2013; Kim and Lightfoot
2011; Swiss
2016a; Verschaeve and Orbie
2018). As has been shown in other sectoral contexts (Alasuutari
2011; Alasuutari and Rasimus
2009), the OECD and its bodies are venues for standards-setting and policy development and act as a forum for donor discussion. In my earlier research
, I demonstrate how the DAC’s GenderNet working group of donor representatives played a key role in the spread of policies on women in development among donors
(Swiss
2012).
By holding donor meetings, developing guidelines, and actively policing DAC
donor behaviour through its peer review
processes, the DAC shapes donor norms
and encourages donors
to conform to a specified set of priorities and practices. Indeed, the peer review
process has been shown to influence
donors
to match the “best practices
” of other donors as they reform and refine their aid programmes (Ashoff
2013; Carroll and Kellow
2011; Pagani
2002; Verschaeve and Orbie
2016). This is not to say that the peer review
process is omnipotent in shaping donor structures and behaviours. As Lim (
2014) shows, the first DAC
peer review
after South Korea joined the DAC contributed to some change in Korea’s development cooperation, but many recommendations were difficult to implement. Although peer review
involves examination by donor peers from other countries, the process is facilitated through the DAC
, and the body of DAC peer review
reports over the years provides evidence of a clear role for the DAC
in setting standards and encouraging their implementation, by old and new donors
alike.
3.
The 2030 Agenda and the global goals: Conferences and treaties
The final macro-level
influence
on the globalisation
of aid is that of global-level conferences, treaties, and their associated agendas. In the World Society
literature, these treaties, events, and their outcomes have been linked to the diffusion of a variety of policies, models, and institutional forms (Cole
2012,
2013a,
b; Swiss
2009; Yoo
2011). For aid donors
, these influences
have been felt via world-level conferences such as the Beijing World Conference on Women
(Hafner-Burton and Pollack
2002; Moser and Moser
2005; Swiss
2012,
2018), which influenced donor responses to gender
and development, and more generally worked to shape the global women’s movement. Similar conferences and their outcome documents, whether aid-focussed (i.e. the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness) or not (i.e. the 2015 Paris Agreement
on climate change
), hold substantial sway with donors
. For instance, following the 2005 Paris Declaration, donors quickly embraced aid effectiveness
principles such as country concentration and donor collaboration
, though the implementation of these principles, in practice, did not always conform to the intent of the declaration (Brown and Swiss
2013; Hyden
2008; Sjöstedt
2013).
Still, international declarations and agenda-setting
conferences are key factors in explaining the globalisation
of aid. Since 2000, we have seen this play out most clearly through, first, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs
), and now the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda
. For instance, despite the sometimes uneven and problematic adoption of the MDGs
by donors
(Clemens et al.
2007; Easterly
2009; Thiele et al.
2007), we witness at least a rhetorical, if not practical, adoption of the MDGs as a key factor in shaping donor aid allocation
and priorities in a number of areas. Clemens and co-authors discuss how, even if the MDGs
were unlikely to be achieved through aid, having them as an aspirational or symbolic target was able to “galvanise” the aid community to act and devote more aid towards the MDG agenda (Clemens et al.
2005). My interviews with aid workers in three donor agencies (Canadian International Development Agency
, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and United States Agency for International Development) revealed this same influence
, where having gender
equality as MDG 3 was reported by donor officials as being a valuable tool for helping advance gender and development as a priority (Swiss
2018). Even though the SDGs
of the 2030 Agenda
are relatively new, it is likely that this latest set of goals will serve a similar role in shaping donor aid allocation
and priorities (Sethi et al.
2017).