Peer Evaluation in IOs: Text Evidence from the OECD Donor Assistance Committee

• In Event: Survey and Evaluation of Institutionalized Collaboration

Abstract

The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is the premier forum for international deliberations on best practices for official development assistance––i.e., foreign aid. One of the key tools at the organization’s disposal is a peer-review system, whereby each DAC member state gets its aid giving program evaluated by two other members every few years. Do these evaluations accurately reflect the practices of the reviewed donors? Do certain members receive harsher reviews than others? Do examiners exhibit favoritism when reviewing certain donors? We address these questions with a novel corpus including the universe of DAC peer review reports, 1962-2020. We show that, while the content of the reviews reflects the actual aid giving practices of the reviewed donor, there exists important heterogeneity: newer donors appear to be reviewed less harshly than traditional donors, and the practices of the examiners play a role in how they evaluate the same practices in the reviewed donor’s aid program. These findings contribute to the literature on the governance of international organizations, particularly with regard to the monitoring of compliance through peer reviews. They also further our understanding of the role of the international donor community in shaping development cooperation practice.

Authors

• Alice Iannantuoni, University of Geneva

• Simone Dietrich, University of Geneva