• 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

NEWSLETTER

CONTACT

  • Why it matters
    • Why transparency matters
    • The Story of Aid Transparency
    • What you can do
    • Case studies
  • Aid Index
    • 2022 Index
    • Comparison Chart
    • Methodology
    • Index Archive
    • Tools
  • DFI Index
    • DFI Transparency Index 2023
    • DFI Research
    • DFI Transparency Tool
    • FAQs
    • Project Advisory Board
  • Our Work
    • Women’s Economic Empowerment
    • Localization
    • Gender Financing
    • Humanitarian Transparency
    • US Foreign Assistance
    • Data Use
    • IATI Decipher
    • Improving UK Aid Transparency
    • Webinars
    • Work Under Development
  • News
    • Reports
    • News
    • Events
    • Blog
  • About Us
    • Board
    • Team
    • Our transparency
    • Our Funders
    • Jobs
    • Annual Reports
    • Friends of…
    • FAQs
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 Budget ID Canada China Climate Change Data Revolution Data use Data Visualisation Development Finance institutions DFI Spotlight DFI Transparency Tool European Commission Financing for Development France Freedom of Information Gender Germany GPEDC Humanitarian Impact International Aid Transparency Initiative Japan Joined-up data Kenya Letters MDGs Newsletter OECD Open data Open government Press Releases Publish What You Fund Road to 2015 Sustainable Development Goals Sweden UK United Nations US Webinar Women's Economic Empowerment World Bank

Twitter

  • We’re delighted that the 2024 Aid Transparency Index will go ahead with the support of @IATI_aid, and we can suppor… https://t.co/fvntLuPxM7
    Mar 16, 2023
  • We’re looking forward to the @IATI_aid Members’ Assembly next week. Ahead of his travels, @garyjforster reflects on… https://t.co/3SM0HNTGbi
    Mar 10, 2023
  • Who is using @IATI_aid data and why? Ahead of the #IATI Members’ Assembly, @garyjforster explores how a growing num… https://t.co/BMeJklZe3e
    Mar 10, 2023
FOLLOW US
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook

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)