Much has been debated on “the quality” or “effectiveness” of foreign aid and development programs by international donors including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB). Over the last two decades, new forms of state and private sector engagement have been promoted and utilized as an effective tool in development cooperation. In order to tackle global challenges such as poverty reduction or climate change and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is an increasing need for multi-stakeholder partnerships between governments, firms and civil societies. However, “effectiveness” has often been associated with privatization and profit-making. Moreover it has not necessarily increased “the quality” or enhancement of living standards for local communities in recipient countries. For example, privatization of public goods and services resulting in increased tariffs or entire communities have been displaced by massive infrastructure programs due to development projects.

Recent initiatives in international cooperation in Asia and elsewhere by East Asian actors such as Japan and China offer several points of discussion in this sense. Both China and Japan have in recent years promoted cooperation projects aiming at the institutional and economic development of the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. While on the one hand, initiatives in infrastructural development still occupy a major part in the overall effort by these donors, on the other, endeavors in promoting capacity development for the empowerment of local communities have multiplied. However, the actual qualitative impact of such projects is difficult to assess. Furthermore, donors’ political and economic interests remain deeply entangled in aid disbursements. How do we define “the quality” and measure the effectiveness or the effects on capacity development? Can different views on this concept (both academic and practical) be reconciled/integrated? If so, how?

In order to address these issues, we intend to provide insights from multiple actors — such as scholars, practitioners and members of the civil society — promoting an occasion for discussion on the role of “quality” in the rhetoric of development cooperation. Finally we aim at a common definition of quality (needless to say, provisional) and implementable solutions looking at lessons from East Asia.

Workshop schedule