Funding African Governance Institutions and Processes: Insights and Lessons

The paper analyzes the funding of African governance institutions, such as anti-corruption commissions and the APRM, and processes like constitutional reform and the EITI. It argues that while government funding is ideal for ensuring national ownership, a mix of donor and state funds is common. The author highlights that funding can be used as a reward for good governance (e.g., US Millennium Challenge Account) or as a tool for donor control (e.g., EU funding of PEFA). The document concludes that mitigating external influence requires a combination of self-assessment processes, adherence to continental or global standards, and the mainstreaming of governance actions into national budgets.

• Anti-corruption commissions (ACCs) in Africa often rely on a mix of government and donor funding, but budget stability and consistency are more critical for success than the specific source of funds. In Ghana, a combination of government funding and institutional arrangements appeared more effective than in other examined countries.
• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) faces significant financial challenges, with many member states in arrears on their annual $100,000 contributions. While the APRM aims for African-led funding, it relies on a mix of member state contributions and donor funds, with donors providing approximately 36.4% of cumulative contributions by 2011.
• UNDP country-led governance assessments in Africa often operate in 'silos,' failing to link with the APRM process even in countries where both are present. This lack of a unified strategy leads to a duplication of costs and effort.
• Funding for APRM self-assessments is primarily the responsibility of the participating country, though donor support is common. The ability to fund these assessments is not strictly tied to a country's GNI per capita, as evidenced by Ethiopia funding its process without donor support despite having the lowest GNI per capita among the 17 reviewed countries.
• The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework is largely funded by the EU in Africa, which the author suggests allows the EU to exert control over the process rather than increasing national ownership.
• Constitutional reform costs in Africa vary significantly, from $4.5 million in Eritrea to $30 million in South Africa. While donor assistance is available, it often results in a loss of national control, particularly in countries emerging from conflict like the DRC, Namibia, and Somalia.
• The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) shifted the funding of country validations from governments to the International Secretariat to prioritize quality control and independence over national ownership.
• The EU's Governance Incentive Tranche (GIT) provides financial 'top-ups' to aid allocations as a reward for committing to a Governance Action Plan (GAP) or completing an APRM review. However, these funds are typically directed toward focal sectors outside of governance rather than the GAP actions themselves.
• The US Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) uses a strict scorecard of indicators to reward good governance with large infrastructure grants ('compacts'). This creates a strong incentive for countries to reform policies and improve data quality to meet eligibility thresholds.

APA

Reitmaier, A. (2014). Funding African Governance Institutions and Processes: Insights and Lessons. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Occasional-Paper-177.pdf

Chicago

Reitmaier, Angela. Funding African Governance Institutions and Processes: Insights and Lessons. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2014. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Occasional-Paper-177.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Reitmaier |first1=Angela |title=Funding African Governance Institutions and Processes: Insights and Lessons |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=February 2014 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Occasional-Paper-177.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{reitmaier2014funding, author = {Reitmaier, Angela}, title = {{Funding African Governance Institutions and Processes: Insights and Lessons}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2014}, month = feb, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Occasional-Paper-177.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }