By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds: aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds : aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts. / Barakat, Sultan.

In: Policy Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, 04.2009, p. 107-126.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Barakat, S 2009, 'The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds: aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts', Policy Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 107-126.

APA

Barakat, S. (2009). The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds: aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts. Policy Studies, 30(2), 107-126.

Vancouver

Barakat S. The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds: aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts. Policy Studies. 2009 Apr;30(2):107-126.

Author

Barakat, Sultan. / The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds : aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts. In: Policy Studies. 2009 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 107-126.

Bibtex - Download

@article{25c0686ed9a34cf488afda7fbdeafd63,
title = "The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds: aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts",
abstract = "Multi-donor trust funds (MDTFs) have quickly become one of the most prominent aid modalities. Viewed as a reliable long-term funding source, they are hailed for facilitating donor coordination and ceding unprecedented control of post-conflict reconstruction and development to recipient governments. The advent of the MDTF also highlighted the growing understanding that aid modalities, the form and manner in which assistance is given to developing nations, are themselves a key intervention in war-torn societies and not a passive administrative arrangement. The implementation of MDTFs has, however, frequently nullified their conceptual benefits, particularly in regard to strengthening and legitimating recipient states. Complicated implementation arrangements, donor-dominated coordination and oversight bodies, short timeframes and high expectations pertaining to disbursement have subsumed trust funds to donors{\textquoteright} pre-existing modes of operating and made them contravene state building objectives and weaken aid effectiveness. Modalities can, like any other intervention, cause harmful effects. These are discussed in the context of Afghanistan's largest and highest profile reconstruction intervention, the National Solidarity Programme (NSP). This article examines one prominent MDTF, the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), and its impact upon the NSP and its governance objectives. This critical case study shows the MDTF concept to be fundamentally and theoretically sound but at odds with donor countries{\textquoteright} primary attachment to the strategic rather than development impact of post-conflict reconstruction assistance. Such priorities limit aid effectiveness, hamper coordination and sideline the recipient state in the post-conflict reconstruction process. ",
author = "Sultan Barakat",
year = "2009",
month = apr,
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "107--126",
journal = "Policy Studies",
issn = "0144-2872",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - The failed promise of multi-donor trust funds

T2 - aid financing as an impediment to effective state building in post-conflict contexts

AU - Barakat, Sultan

PY - 2009/4

Y1 - 2009/4

N2 - Multi-donor trust funds (MDTFs) have quickly become one of the most prominent aid modalities. Viewed as a reliable long-term funding source, they are hailed for facilitating donor coordination and ceding unprecedented control of post-conflict reconstruction and development to recipient governments. The advent of the MDTF also highlighted the growing understanding that aid modalities, the form and manner in which assistance is given to developing nations, are themselves a key intervention in war-torn societies and not a passive administrative arrangement. The implementation of MDTFs has, however, frequently nullified their conceptual benefits, particularly in regard to strengthening and legitimating recipient states. Complicated implementation arrangements, donor-dominated coordination and oversight bodies, short timeframes and high expectations pertaining to disbursement have subsumed trust funds to donors’ pre-existing modes of operating and made them contravene state building objectives and weaken aid effectiveness. Modalities can, like any other intervention, cause harmful effects. These are discussed in the context of Afghanistan's largest and highest profile reconstruction intervention, the National Solidarity Programme (NSP). This article examines one prominent MDTF, the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), and its impact upon the NSP and its governance objectives. This critical case study shows the MDTF concept to be fundamentally and theoretically sound but at odds with donor countries’ primary attachment to the strategic rather than development impact of post-conflict reconstruction assistance. Such priorities limit aid effectiveness, hamper coordination and sideline the recipient state in the post-conflict reconstruction process.

AB - Multi-donor trust funds (MDTFs) have quickly become one of the most prominent aid modalities. Viewed as a reliable long-term funding source, they are hailed for facilitating donor coordination and ceding unprecedented control of post-conflict reconstruction and development to recipient governments. The advent of the MDTF also highlighted the growing understanding that aid modalities, the form and manner in which assistance is given to developing nations, are themselves a key intervention in war-torn societies and not a passive administrative arrangement. The implementation of MDTFs has, however, frequently nullified their conceptual benefits, particularly in regard to strengthening and legitimating recipient states. Complicated implementation arrangements, donor-dominated coordination and oversight bodies, short timeframes and high expectations pertaining to disbursement have subsumed trust funds to donors’ pre-existing modes of operating and made them contravene state building objectives and weaken aid effectiveness. Modalities can, like any other intervention, cause harmful effects. These are discussed in the context of Afghanistan's largest and highest profile reconstruction intervention, the National Solidarity Programme (NSP). This article examines one prominent MDTF, the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), and its impact upon the NSP and its governance objectives. This critical case study shows the MDTF concept to be fundamentally and theoretically sound but at odds with donor countries’ primary attachment to the strategic rather than development impact of post-conflict reconstruction assistance. Such priorities limit aid effectiveness, hamper coordination and sideline the recipient state in the post-conflict reconstruction process.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67651216006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 107

EP - 126

JO - Policy Studies

JF - Policy Studies

SN - 0144-2872

IS - 2

ER -