A Year after Busan: Where is the Global Partnership Going?

The document evaluates the transition from the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness to the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC). It argues that while the new partnership is more inclusive, it struggles with a weak monitoring framework, slow operationalization of indicators, and a governance structure that still feels dominated by Northern paradigms. The author highlights the 'African Consensus' as a tool for continental coherence and notes the reluctance of major South-South providers like China, India, and Brazil to adhere to OECD-DAC standards, suggesting a need for separate Southern effectiveness frameworks.

• The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) was designed to be more inclusive than its predecessor, the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness (WP-EFF), by incorporating the private sector and emerging economies.
• The 'African Consensus' enabled African stakeholders to maintain a unified position at the Busan forum, emphasizing a shift away from aid dependency toward domestic resource mobilization, trade integration, and infrastructure development.
• The post-Busan monitoring framework consists of 10 approved indicators, but its implementation has been slow, with the finalization deadline extended to March 2013.
• The 'global light and country focused' approach shifts accountability to the national level, which the author warns is risky due to the limited capacity of some recipient countries to manage such systems.
• Major South-South cooperation providers, specifically Brazil, India, and China, remain reluctant to engage with the GPEDC, viewing it as a DAC-driven process based on a Northern paradigm.
• The GPEDC governance structure is a three-tier system comprising a high-level ministerial forum, a steering committee, and a joint secretariat managed by the OECD and UNDP.
• The selection of the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) as the private sector representative on the steering committee was controversial due to its affiliation with the US Chamber of Commerce.
• There is a significant gap between the amount of official development assistance (ODA) provided by the US government ($30 billion) and the combined contributions of its corporate and philanthropic sectors ($40 billion in charity and $3 trillion in private direct investment).
• The GPEDC is increasingly linked to other global processes, including the G-20 Development Working Group, the UN Development Cooperation Forum (UNDCF), and the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

APA

Besharati, N. A. (2013). A Year after Busan: Where is the Global Partnership Going? South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Occasional-Paper-136.pdf

Chicago

Besharati, Neissan Alessandro. A Year after Busan: Where is the Global Partnership Going? South African Institute of International Affairs, 2013. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Occasional-Paper-136.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Besharati |first1=Neissan Alessandro |title=A Year after Busan: Where is the Global Partnership Going? |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=February 2013 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Occasional-Paper-136.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{besharati2013year, author = {Besharati, Neissan Alessandro}, title = {{A Year after Busan: Where is the Global Partnership Going?}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2013}, month = feb, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Occasional-Paper-136.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }