Paper short abstract:

The paper explores the responses of two traditional donors (the UK and the USA) to the activities of Southern providers. It studies their reactions on three levels: their perception of Southern providers, their response in official narratives and their practices.

Paper long abstract:

Most existing research on the topics of South-South Cooperation has focused on the individual donor policies of Southern providers, often in comparison with the model of traditional donors. However, the consequences that traditional donors draw from this increased South-South cooperation remain an understudied field of research.

This paper is a valuable addition to the discussion and investigates the consequences that two traditional donors draw from the activities of Southern providers, namely the United Kingdom and the United States. I use a qualitative approach to analyse government documents and expert interviews over a ten-year period, which allows me to look at three levels within the reaction of the traditional providers: first, their perception of Southern providers. Are Southern providers perceived as a threat? Are they taken as a model for cooperation? Second, the level of the narrative: what does the Northern provider claim to do in response to Southern providers? And lastly, the level of practice: how much of the narrative's claims are actually put into practice?

The paper argues that the initial responses of both donors are comparable: in both states, Southern providers are perceived to be a challenge to the development system. Both pledge in their official narratives to increase support for activities related to good governance and human rights and both fail to deliver on the translation of these narratives into practice. The paper investigates the motives behind this apparent contradiction and thereby contributes to the discussion about the future of relationships between the two groups.

Paper Download (337 KB)