School of something FACULTY OF OTHER School of Politics and International Studies Romania’s profile as an international development donor Romanian Development Camp (8th-10th of July, Bucharest, Hanul Gabroveni) Simon Lightfoot, University of Leeds Balázs Szent-Iványi, Aston University

Overview of Research

Moved from EU-12 (13) or new member states to a more nuanced picture in a relatively short space of time We can now see 4 clear groups of ECE donors DAC members (Cz, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia) OECD non DAC members (Estonia, Hungary) EU members since 2004 (Latvia, Lith) EU members since 2007 (Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia) A new face of donorship or just the beginning of the road? If new EU/OECD donors, which member states do they have most in common with? Austria and Ireland or Spain and Italy? Is international socialization by the EU, OECD, UNDP and others working? Overview

what-do-british-public-think-aid-should-be UK situation

Main findings

1 An increasing volume of foreign aid, with a clear growth timetable set out with the view of achieving the 0.33 percent ODA/GNI target by 2015 (Addis) 2 The existence of foreign aid policy documents which clearly make poverty reduction a central goal, with reference to the achieving the Millennium Development Goals (now SDGs) 3 An increasing share of bilateral aid allocated to least developed countries and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. 4 A decreasing share of aid that is tied to procurement from national actors. 5 An increasing share of the budget support modality in bilateral aid in order to ensure ownership, harmonization and alignment. Global Consensus checklist

6 The existence of country strategy papers which guide how aid is allocated within a recipient, and have been drafted through consultations with the respective recipient governments in order to ensure ownership. 7 Transparency of aid policies and predictability of resource flows, including the usage of multiannual programming. 8 Establishment of a “realistic” number of partner countries to ensure harmonization and reduce donor fragmentation. 9 Limiting activities to three sectors in each partner to promote harmonization and reduce fragmentation. 10 Use of country systems to ensure alignment, and coordination and cooperation with other donors through joint programming and other means. Checklist (continued)

Good efforts thus far (aidwatch reports). Black sea focus and transition experience clearly usp but need flesh. “show me the money” Development staff/expertise in Bucharest and Brussels vital, esp in getting voice heard Public opinion appears ready for greater development cooperation but the message needs to be managed carefully CSOs can find “common cause” with the MFA to play agents for development role. Issues: how far to take “critical friend” role without becoming too close How to make the issue relevant to MPs, political elites, private sector? years time think (sh)could have middle power foreign policy reach and aid policy should reflect that. Evident in thinking in Ankara Romanian Checklist

School of something FACULTY OF OTHER Thank you for your attention.