Aid flows

Aid flows to fragile states suffer in terms of the imbalance between countries compared to need, overall amounts of resources, and aid level volatility. There is limited tracking of aid flows to fragile states, although the OECD-DAC and the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative, amongst others, have made recent efforts to track both developmental and humanitarian Official Development Assistance (ODA).

According to some studies, fragile states receive a disproportionately small share of ODA. One study that analysed aid volumes and volatility to fragile states between 1992-2002 found that, after controlling for population, poverty and performance, fragile states receive around 40 per cent less aid than predicted, caused mainly by low bilateral aid flows. A more recent analysis by the OECD-DAC found that whilst ODA to fragile states was 25 per cent of total aid flows, half of it was debt relief and three-quarters of it was allocated to only five countries (Nigeria, Afghanistan, Sudan, DRC and Cameroon), indicating that there are many ‘aid orphans’. There are also large discrepancies in allocation, for example, countries in the Caucasus and Western/Central Asia received between US$26-US$91/aid per capita versus those in Africa, which received between US$10-US$30 per capita.

Fragile states also experience very high aid volatility. Aid is twice as volatile compared to aid to other states, even when controlled for pragmatic donor responses to the onset or cessation of conflict and large changes in performance of its institutions. In addition, the volatility of aid to ‘orphans’ is more than twice that of the ‘darlings’. This problem has been recognised by the OECD-DAC's ten 'principles for good international engagement in fragile states and situations' which state that donors should engage more quickly, and for a longer period of time in fragile states. In addition, in some fragile states, there is a need for more, not fewer, donors in order to improve diversification and scale-up aid.