• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Publish What You FundPublish What You Fund

The Global Campaign for Aid and Development Transparency

  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Bluesky

NEWSLETTER

CONTACT

  • Why it matters
    • Why transparency matters
    • Data use examples
    • Research into aid transparency
    • The Story of Aid Transparency
    • What you can do
    • Case studies
  • Aid Index
    • 2024 Index
    • 2022 Index
    • Comparison Chart
    • Methodology
    • Index Archive
    • Tools
    • The Power of the Aid Transparency Index
  • DFI Index
    • DFI Transparency Index 2023
    • DFI Research
    • DFI Transparency Tool
    • FAQs
  • Our Work
    • Women’s Economic Empowerment
    • Localisation
    • Mobilisation
    • Climate Finance
    • UK Aid Transparency
    • Gender Financing
    • Humanitarian Transparency
    • US Foreign Assistance
    • IATI Decipher
    • Webinars
    • Work Under Development
  • News
    • Reports
    • News
    • Events
    • Blog
  • About Us
    • Board
    • Team
    • Our transparency
    • Our Funders
    • Jobs
    • Annual Reports
    • Friends of…
    • FAQs
  • Training
Show Search
Hide Search
Home / News / New DRI Paper criticises aid agencies’ use of rhetoric
news

New DRI Paper criticises aid agencies’ use of rhetoric

By Katie Welford | May 12, 2011 | News

A paper released by the Development Research Institute (DRI) this week has criticised aid donors for not delivering on promises and commitments surrounding aid effectiveness, and for showing little or no sign of improvement. Rhetoric versus Reality: The Best and Worst of Aid Agency Practices, written by William Easterly and Claudia Williamson, states that donors use increasingly strong rhetoric which is not reflected in practice.

The study graded and ranked donors against ‘best practice’ criteria. These criteria are explained in detail in the paper and are summarised on the Aid Watch Blog. The highest graded bilateral agency is the UK’s Department for International Development (DfID), whilst Japan, New Zealand and Germany also score highly. The US ranks below average, as do UN agencies, which perform particularly badly on aid transparency.

Although Williamson and Easterly condemn the lack of reality behind the rhetoric, the paper does note that there have been slight improvements in aid transparency. Whilst this is welcome news, general levels of aid transparency remain unacceptably low. Publish What You Fund hopes that aid transparency continues to increase globally, keeping donors true to their word.

Primary Sidebar

NEWS Topics

Africa Agriculture Aid transparency Aid Transparency Index Australia Canada Climate Change Data Revolution Data use Data Visualisation Development Finance institutions DFI Transparency Tool European Commission Financing for Development France Freedom of Information Gender Germany Humanitarian International Aid Transparency Initiative Japan Jobs Joined-up data Kenya Letters Local funding Localisation Locally led development MDGs mobilisation Newsletter OECD Open data Open government Press Releases Publish What You Fund Road to 2015 Sustainable Development Goals UK United Nations US USAID Webinar Women's Economic Empowerment World Bank

Twitter (X)

  • Contact Us
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Bluesky

Publish What You Fund. China Works, 100 Black Prince Road, London, SE1 7SJ
UK Company Registration Number 07676886 (England and Wales); Registered Charity Number 1158362 (England and Wales)