Author:
Ottersen Trygve,Moon Suerie,Røttingen John-Arne
Abstract
AbstractAfter years of unprecedented growth in development assistance for health (DAH), the DAH system is challenged on several fronts: by the economic downturn and stagnation of DAH, by the epidemiological transition and increase in non-communicable diseases and by the economic transition and rise of the middle-income countries. Central to any potent response is a fair and effective allocation of DAH across countries. A myriad of criteria has been proposed or is currently used, but there have been no comprehensive assessment of their distributional implications. We simulated the implications of 11 quantitative allocation criteria across countries and country categories. We found that the distributions varied profoundly. The group of low-income countries received most DAH from needs-based criteria linked to domestic capacity, while the group of upper-middle-income countries was most favoured by an income-inequality criterion. Compared to a baseline distribution guided by gross national income per capita, low-income countries received less DAH by almost all criteria. The findings can inform funders when examining and revising the criteria they use, and provide input to the broader debate about what criteria should be used.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference42 articles.
1. Salvado R. C. and Walz J. (2013), ‘Aid Eligibility and Income Per Capita: A Sudden Stop for MICs?’, DPAF Working Paper Series, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle.
2. Biases in the distribution of bilateral aid: a regional decomposition analysis
3. Funding AIDS programmes in the era of shared responsibility: an analysis of domestic spending in 12 low-income and middle-income countries
4. Guillaumont P. (2008), ‘Adapting Aid Allocation Criteria to Development Goals’, Essay for the 2008 Development Cooperation Forum, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
5. Ottersen T. , Moon S. and Røttingen J.-A. (2017), ‘The challenge of middle-income countries to development assistance for health: recipients, funders, both or neither’, Health Economics, Policy and Law, 12(2): 265–284.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献