LIST OF PANELS

The United Nations defines development cooperation as activities specifically aimed at supporting national or international development goals, carried out on a non-profit basis, with a focus on developing countries, and grounded in cooperative relationships that encourage local ownership (UNECOSOC, 2015). Since the end of the Cold War, foreign aid from countries in the global North, typically in the form of official development assistance (ODA), as well as grants and loans from multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs) such as the World Bank and regional development banks, have dominated global development cooperation. However, recent shifts are challenging the longstanding dominance of the global North. These shifts include the rise of the BRICS nations and other emerging powers, the establishment of new DFIs like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), the resurgence of South-South Cooperation (SSC) strategies among countries in the Global South, and new forms of triangular development cooperation (TDC) among global North and South partners.

This panel proposes an analysis of the expanding and increasingly diverse landscape of development cooperation, focusing on bilateral, triangular, and multilateral partnerships involving the global North, emerging donors, and the Global South. At the international level, the analysis will explore how state and non-state actors are navigating the growing complexity of development cooperation, including shifting power dynamics within these partnerships. Drawing from the concept of regime complexity in international relations, this panel builds on the idea that a regime complex is “an array of partially overlapping and non-hierarchical institutions governing a particular issue area” (Raustiala & Victor, 2004). Contributing factors to regime complexity may include misaligned power structures in existing global governance frameworks and the proliferation of new institutions in response to these imbalances (Pratt, 2018). In this context, states and non-state actors often employ strategies such as forum shopping, regime shifting, and contested multilateralism to respond to these complexities (Alter & Raustiala, 2018; Morse & Keohane, 2014). The expansion of new development cooperation partnerships provides opportunities to explore how these strategies are being applied in practice.

Domestically, we propose to examine the domestic context of state and non-state actors, focusing on factors such as political regimes, economic and social transformations, and prevailing development norms and discourses. While much of the existing literature has focused on the domestic politics of foreign aid in developed democracies and countries of the global North (Breuning, 1999; Dadabaev, 2016; de Felice, 2015; Faust & Koch, 2014; Gibson et al., 2005; Molenaers et al., 2015; Tingley, 2010), a growing body of work is also emerging on the domestic processes shaping bilateral development cooperation in more powerful countries in the Global South, including China, Brazil, Turkey, and others(Farias, 2019; Huang, 2014; Kavakli, 2018; Scoones et al., 2016; Shi & Hoebink, 2019; van der Westhuizen & Milani, 2019; Varrall, 2016). This panel seeks to extend these analyses beyond the traditional North-South aid framework and case studies of emerging powers, exploring the domestic political dynamics that drive development cooperation in increasingly complex and multi-actor partnerships across the North and the South.

This panel seeks to address the following research questions:

1.      How can we conceptualize the increasing diversity and complexity of development cooperation partnerships among the North, emerging powers, and the broader Global South?

2.      What underlying determinants lead states or non-state actors to prioritize particular development cooperation policies and partnership modalities over others?

3.      Which structural and agency-driven factors contribute to the observed proliferation and diversification of these policies and partnerships, particularly new forms of SSC and TDC?

Empirically, we invite papers that use comparative or case study methodologies to identify the conditions, actors, and strategies that influence the proliferation and variation of development cooperation policies and partnerships. To encourage cross-regional comparisons and potential collaborations, we welcome submissions that explore the different actors, conditions, and strategies shaping development cooperation across various regions of the world.

References

Alter, K. J., & Raustiala, K. (2018). The Rise of International Regime Complexity. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14(1), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830

Breuning, M. (1999). Ethnopolitical Parties and Development Cooperation: The Case of Belgium. Comparative Political Studies, 32(6), 724–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414099032006003

Dadabaev, T. (2016). Japan’s ODA assistance scheme and Central Asian engagement: Determinants, trends, expectations. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 7(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2015.10.002

de Felice, D. (2015). Diverging Visions on Political Conditionality: The Role of Domestic Politics and International Socialization in French and British Aid. World Development, 75, 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.01.010

Farias, D. B. (2019). Brazil’s South–South development cooperation: Principles and experiences of the domestic bureaucracy. Public Administration and Development, 39(4–5), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1825

Faust, Jj., & Koch, S. (2014). Foreign Aid and the Domestic Politics of European Budget Support. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2476316

Gibson, C. C., Andersson, K., Ostrom, E., & Shivakumar, S. (2005). The Samaritan’s Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199278857.001.0001

Huang, Y. (2014). Domestic Politics and China’s Health Aid to Africa. China: An International Journal, 12(3), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1353/chn.2014.0031

Kavakli, K. C. (2018). Domestic Politics and the Motives of Emerging Donors: Evidence from Turkish Foreign Aid. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917750783

Molenaers, N., Dellepiane, S., & Faust, J. (2015). Political Conditionality and Foreign Aid. World Development, 75, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.001

Morse, J., & Keohane, R. (2014). Contested Multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations, 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9188-2

Pratt, T. (2018). Deference and Hierarchy in International Regime Complexes. International Organization, 72(3), 561–590. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000164

Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.

Scoones, I., Amanor, K., Favareto, A., & Qi, G. (2016). A New Politics of Development Cooperation? Chinese and Brazilian Engagements in African Agriculture. China and Brazil in African Agriculture, 81, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.020

Shi, X., & Hoebink, P. (2019). From Chengdu to Kampala: The Role of Subnational Actors in China’s Foreign Aid. Journal of Contemporary China, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2019.1621534

Tingley, D. (2010). Donors and domestic politics: Political influences on foreign aid effort. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 50(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2009.10.003

UNECOSOC. (2015). 2016 Development Cooperation Forum Policy Briefs. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiTpp2BjcTzAhUsDjQIHU3QCJ0QFnoECAkQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fen%2Fecosoc%2Fnewfunct%2Fpdf15%2F2016_dcf_policy_brief_no.1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGn0ScBwfgbELw7VK8Kee

van der Westhuizen, J., & Milani, C. R. S. (2019). Development cooperation, the international–domestic nexus and the graduation dilemma: Comparing South Africa and Brazil. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2018.1554622

Varrall, M. (2016). Domestic actors and agendas in Chinese aid policy. The Pacific Review, 29(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2015.1066414

The landscape of development cooperation—including traditional North-South aid, South-South Cooperation (SSC), and Triangular Development Cooperation (TDC)—has grown increasingly complex. This complexity arises from a proliferation of state and non-state actors, intensifying geopolitical rivalries, and the dynamic and expanding roles of Global South countries, often driven by a combination of strategic self-interest and solidarity. This panel proposes an analysis of the expanding and increasingly diverse landscape of development cooperation, focusing on structures, agencies, and strategies of states and non-state actors in bilateral, triangular, and multilateral partnerships involving the global North, emerging donors, and the Global South.

We seek to address the following research questions:

1.      How can we conceptualize the increasing diversity and complexity of development cooperation partnerships among the North, emerging powers, and the broader Global South?

2.      What underlying determinants lead states or non-state actors to prioritize particular development cooperation policies and partnership modalities over others?

3.      Which structural and agency-driven factors contribute to the observed proliferation and diversification of these policies and partnerships, particularly new forms of SSC and TDC?

Drawing on case studies from countries and regions around the world, the panel examines how states and non-state actors navigate the intensifying complexity of development cooperation, shaped by factors including but not limited to domestic political considerations, economic imperatives, foreign policy objectives, and prevailing development norms and discourses.