• News
    • Latest news
    • News search
    • Health
    • Finance
    • Food
    • Career news
    • Content series
    • Try Devex Pro
  • Jobs
    • Job search
    • Post a job
    • Employer search
    • CV Writing
    • Upcoming career events
    • Try Career Account
  • Funding
    • Funding search
    • Funding news
  • Talent
    • Candidate search
    • Devex Talent Solutions
  • Events
    • Upcoming and past events
    • Partner on an event
  • Post a job
  • About
      • About us
      • Membership
      • Newsletters
      • Advertising partnerships
      • Devex Talent Solutions
      • Contact us
Join DevexSign in
Join DevexSign in

News

  • Latest news
  • News search
  • Health
  • Finance
  • Food
  • Career news
  • Content series
  • Try Devex Pro

Jobs

  • Job search
  • Post a job
  • Employer search
  • CV Writing
  • Upcoming career events
  • Try Career Account

Funding

  • Funding search
  • Funding news

Talent

  • Candidate search
  • Devex Talent Solutions

Events

  • Upcoming and past events
  • Partner on an event
Post a job

About

  • About us
  • Membership
  • Newsletters
  • Advertising partnerships
  • Devex Talent Solutions
  • Contact us
  • My Devex
  • Update my profile % complete
  • Account & privacy settings
  • My saved jobs
  • Manage newsletters
  • Support
  • Sign out
Latest newsNews searchHealthFinanceFoodCareer newsContent seriesTry Devex Pro
    • Opinion
    • Financial transparency

    8 principles for transparent reporting of international public finance flows

    How can we better collect and report how much public money really is flowing across borders? Jesse Griffiths, director of European Network on Debt and Development, offers eight insights.

    By Jesse Griffiths // 08 September 2016
    How can we better collect and report how much public money really is flowing across borders? Photo by: Images Money / CC BY

    How much public money does your country send to other countries, and for what purposes?  The short answer is: we don’t know. The only reliable figures are those for the aid provided to help developing countries, collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and called official development assistance.

    Unfortunately, even these figures are confusing, as they include large amounts of money that never leave the donor country, such as administrative costs and and the costs of accommodating refugees. A better place to look than the headline-grabbing ODA figures is a less well-known measure, called country programmable aid which the OECD says is “a better estimate of the volume of [ODA] resources transferred to developing countries.”

    But what about other official flows that don’t meet the tight definitions for ODA or CPA, such as public subsidies for international private investments, or military and security aid? The OECD collects information on “other official flows” but these are really a dumping ground for flows that donors have failed to persuade the Development Assistance Committee to include in their ODA statistics.

    So it’s clear that more effort should be made to collect and report how much public money really is flowing across borders: How else can citizens hold their governments to account, and assess if countries are meeting all their international commitments? It is also clear that unless such figures are carefully compiled, they risk providing a misleading picture and becoming a public relations tool, not a transparency exercise.

    I set out, in a new paper, eight principles that should be observed by any international organization tasked with gathering accurate information on cross-border flows of official finance.

    8 principles following cross-border flows of official finance

    All flows:
    1. Count official cost only.
    2. Count flows only.
    3. Count actual disbursements.
    4. Count net flows over lifetime of project.
    5. Do not double count.
    6. Count all flows.

    Development flows:
    7. Count flows to developing countries
    8. Ensure a developmental purpose.

    It is important to take note of the following:

    • Do not include “mobilized” or “leveraged” flows in total, i.e. those that actually leave the provider country.
    • Not all commitments materialize: Disbursements are a better measure of actual flows.
    • Count any reflows or return flows associated with the initial flow (repayments on loans, repatriated income from investments, etc).
    • Do not use the same flows to report against two separate promises (for example, climate finance and ODA).
    • Be careful not to provide a misleading picture by counting incomplete information.
    •  Use objective criteria for defining recipients list.
    • Ensure flows have over-riding objective of supporting development in recipient country. If flows have a significant commercial or foreign policy objective, count them in those categories only.

    Is TOSSD the answer?

    The OECD is currently developing a new framework, provisionally called “total official support for sustainable development,” which aims to provide transparency on other financial flows beyond ODA that support the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

    However, when Eurodad assessed the OECD’s detailed TOSSD proposals against the above principles, the picture was not pretty: there were significant problems with all principles, except principle 3. We were forced to conclude that unless the OECD’s new measure is significantly improved, it threatens to obscure more than it enlightens and, even worse, could help undermine rather than support the SDGs.

    The major problem is related to official subsidies for international private investments. The OECD suggests ignoring principle 1, and count both the official subsidy, and any private investment that goes alongside it. This means, for example, if a donor provides a subsidy of $1 as part of a $1,000 investment, they would be credited with $1,000. This is an extreme example, but highlights the two main problems neatly.

    First, there is no good way of measuring what is known as “additionality” — which basically means whether the private investment would have gone ahead anyway without the public subsidy. The perverse incentive this provides is clear: The smaller the public subsidy as a proportion of the overall investment, the more likely the investment would have gone ahead anyway, but the greater the credit the donor will receive under the OECD’s proposals.

    The second major problem is that we cannot just assume that more international private finance is a good thing: It depends entirely on the quality of the investment, and whether it can be managed by the recipient country. The worst case scenario is well known: Countries attract a large amount of short-term investment or “hot money” which stampedes for the exit at the first sign of trouble, precipitating a financial and economic crisis.

    Things don’t have to get this bad for it to be obvious that the OECD’s framework gives credit purely based on the size of the overall investment, taking no regard of the crucial issue of the quality of that investment.

    Of course, the obvious question is why is the OECD embarking on this major new project rather than, for example, improving its existing measure of other official flows? It also seems to be side-stepping other major existing initiatives such as the International Aid Transparency Initiative and, as Eurodad pointed out in a letter to the OECD, are moving so fast that they risk excluding civil society groups and developing country governments from having meaningful input — even though these are two of the key users of information they plan to collect.

    The obvious answer is that the OECD is being driven by the political imperatives of some of its members, who see an easy way to subsidise their own companies and get huge credit for this through inflated TOSSD numbers. This is one reason it is problematic for the ‘rich country club’ of the OECD to be in charge of this exercise.

    How can the OECD dispel this impression, which threatens to undermine the whole TOSSD exercise? One simple way would be to announce that they will focus on counting official flows only — and will drop the effort to count the amounts “mobilized” by these flows. If they don’t do this, then the OECD risks undermining the very transparency they claim to be supporting.

    Join the Devex community and access more in-depth analysis, breaking news and business advice — and a host of other services — on international development, humanitarian aid and global health.

    • Funding
    • Banking & Finance
    • Worldwide
    Printing articles to share with others is a breach of our terms and conditions and copyright policy. Please use the sharing options on the left side of the article. Devex Pro members may share up to 10 articles per month using the Pro share tool ( ).
    The views in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect Devex's editorial views.

    About the author

    • Jesse Griffiths

      Jesse Griffiths

      Jesse Griffiths has been Eurodad director since 2012 and is responsible for strategic planning, fundraising, network building, research, and advocacy. Jesse was previously the coordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, and also headed ActionAid UK’s aid and development finance policy group, worked for the U.K. Department for International Development in Nigeria, and in their environment policy department, as well as for other NGOs in the U.K. and elsewhere on both development finance and international environmental policy.

    Search for articles

    Related Jobs

    • Regional Advisor, Fundraising or Project Writing
      Dakar, Senegal | Senegal | West Africa
    • Administration and Finance Coordinator - Nigeria
      Maiduguri, Nigeria | Nigeria | West Africa
    • Head of Finance
      Belgium | Western Europe
    • See more

    Most Read

    • 1
      How low-emissions livestock are transforming dairy farming in Africa
    • 2
      Opinion: Mobile credit, savings, and insurance can drive financial health
    • 3
      Opinion: India’s bold leadership in turning the tide for TB
    • 4
      How AI-powered citizen science can be a catalyst for the SDGs
    • 5
      Strengthening health systems by measuring what really matters

    Trending

    Financing for Development Conference

    The Trump Effect

    Newsletters

    Related Stories

    Development FinanceSevilla reporter's notebook Day 4: 'Sevilla is about what comes next'

    Sevilla reporter's notebook Day 4: 'Sevilla is about what comes next'

    Development FinanceIn 2024, global aid fell for the first time in five years

    In 2024, global aid fell for the first time in five years

    Development FinanceWhat is Financing for Development 4 and why is it a big deal?

    What is Financing for Development 4 and why is it a big deal?

    Development FinanceSevilla reporter's notebook Day 2: Compromiso adopted, but what next?

    Sevilla reporter's notebook Day 2: Compromiso adopted, but what next?

    • News
    • Jobs
    • Funding
    • Talent
    • Events

    Devex is the media platform for the global development community.

    A social enterprise, we connect and inform over 1.3 million development, health, humanitarian, and sustainability professionals through news, business intelligence, and funding & career opportunities so you can do more good for more people. We invite you to join us.

    • About us
    • Membership
    • Newsletters
    • Advertising partnerships
    • Devex Talent Solutions
    • Post a job
    • Careers at Devex
    • Contact us
    © Copyright 2000 - 2025 Devex|User Agreement|Privacy Statement