대표어
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/multilateral-development-finance-2026_0720370a-en.html
권호기사보기
| 기사명 | 저자명 | 페이지 | 원문 | 기사목차 |
|---|
국회도서관 홈으로
정보검색
소장정보 검색
결과 내 검색
동의어 포함
-
-
목차보기
Title page 1
Contents 6
Foreword 4
Acknowledgements 5
Abbreviations and acronyms 9
Executive summary 11
1. Overview 13
1.1. The multilateral development system, built for scale and complementarity, is facing multiple pressures 14
1.1.1. Development co-operation covers a wide spectrum of needs, risks and financing contexts 14
1.1.2. Pressure on multiple fronts means the multilateral development system must adapt to survive 16
1.2. After years of expansion, funding to the multilateral development system has reached a turning point 20
1.2.1. The growth in donors' multilateral contributions has reversed, and structural challenges are now visible 20
1.2.2. What the funding dry-out means for the multilateral development system 23
1.3. Continued growth in multilateral outflows contrasts with early signs of strain on the UNDS 27
1.3.1. Record multilateral outflows in 2024 mask mounting pressure beneath the surface 27
1.3.2. The coming squeeze raises implications for multilateral outflows 29
1.4. Stronger together: An agenda to reset the multilateral development system 33
1.4.1. Recommendations for member states 33
1.4.2. Recommendations for multilateral development organisations 34
References 36
2. The landscape of multilateral development co-operation 39
2.1. Understanding the multilateral development system and its financial structure 40
2.1.1. The system's architecture is multifaceted and interconnected 40
2.1.2. Multilateral development co-operation covers a wide spectrum of needs, risks and financing contexts 43
2.2. Pressure on multiple fronts means the multilateral development system must adapt to survive 47
2.2.1. The rise of a more fragmented geopolitical order could mark the end of a golden age of multilateralism 47
2.2.2. The global aid crisis threatens to unravel the financial foundations of multilateral development co-operation 50
2.2.3. Cost efficiency considerations are driving multilateral reform 52
References 57
3. Funding to the multilateral development system 59
3.1. After years of expansion, funding to the multilateral development system has reached a turning point 60
3.1.1. Funding to the multilateral development system is in decline 60
3.1.2. Heavy reliance on a few DAC donors leaves the system highly exposed 63
3.1.3. Core contributions continue to lose out to earmarked funding 64
3.1.4. Tightening budgets among the system's traditional donors may open space for emerging donors to play a greater role 68
3.2. What constrained aid budgets mean for the multilateral development system 73
3.2.1. In a context of shrinking funding, donors face difficult trade-offs 73
3.2.2. The growing use of earmarked funding risks compounding the effects of declining multilateral contribution and threatens the... 74
3.2.3. Funding vulnerability differs markedly across multilateral development organisations 76
References 82
4. Financing from the multilateral development system 85
4.1. Continued overall growth in multilateral outflows contrasts with early signs of strain in parts of the system 86
4.1.1. Multilateral outflows reached a new record high in 2024, but pressure is mounting beneath the surface 86
4.1.2. The rise in overall multilateral outflows masks already observable pressures on UNDS programmes 87
4.1.3. Recent crises have displaced the geographical and sectoral centre of gravity of multilateral development finance 91
4.2. The coming squeeze raises implications for multilateral outflows 94
4.2.1. Impacts on the system's reach and ambition may be substantial and lasting 94
4.2.2. Uncoordinated funding cuts to central multilateral channels risk triggering system-wide delivery failures 96
4.2.3. Concessional resources are at risk, with consequences for the most vulnerable 98
References 101
Figure 1.1. Multilateral organisations are designed to play complementary roles, providing development finance across different contexts 15
Figure 1.2. Donors' incentives increasingly resemble a prisoner's dilemma 17
Figure 1.3. The eleven DAC members that have announced aid cuts account for a significant share of major MDOs' total funding 18
Figure 1.4. The UN's programme budget for 2026 reflects the institution's efforts to contain its costs 19
Figure 1.5. Core and earmarked contributions to the multilateral system declined by 15% in 2024 20
Figure 1.6. The 11 DAC members that have publicly announced cuts in their ODA in 2025-27 accounted for roughly two-thirds of total DAC... 21
Figure 1.7. Contributions to the multilateral development system are set to continue declining 22
Figure 1.8. Donor choices on how to allocate multilateral contributions involve explicit trade-offs 23
Figure 1.9. Core multilateral contributions are being squeezed by rising bilateral and earmarked multilateral allocations 24
Figure 1.10. Most UNDS entities exhibit a high reliance on voluntary contributions 26
Figure 1.11. Overall multilateral outflows have increased markedly over the past two decades in response to global crises 27
Figure 1.12. Major UNDS organisations are already experiencing a significant drop in their outflows 28
Figure 1.13. More than 70% of survey respondents anticipate scaling back or suspending projects due to funding cuts 29
Figure 1.14. Defunding multilateral leveraged mechanisms risks generating outflow losses that far exceed the budgetary savings achieved 30
Figure 1.15. Cuts affecting central MDOs could significantly impair the system's capacity to support the most in need 31
Figure 1.16. Low-income countries and social and humanitarian sectors are particularly exposed to cuts in multilateral concessional finance 32
Figure 2.1. The multilateral development system serves as a major conduit for development cooperation 40
Figure 2.2. The system involves myriad organisations addressing a wide range of sustainable development issues 42
Figure 2.3. Multilateral organisations are designed to play complementary roles, providing development finance across different contexts 44
Figure 2.4. Multilateral roles connect along a broadly logical progression from higher risk needs to more bankable forms of finance 45
Figure 2.5. Multilateral organisations tend to outperform bilateral actors on key measures of development co-operation effectiveness 46
Figure 2.6. Donors' incentives increasingly resemble a prisoner's dilemma 48
Figure 2.7. The multilateral development architecture is evolving from broad-based donorship to narrower issue-specific coalitions 49
Figure 2.8. The 11 DAC members cutting their ODA in 2025-27 accounted for roughly two-thirds of total DAC contributions to the system in 2024 51
Figure 2.9. The UN's programme budget and staff cuts reflect efforts to enhance cost efficiency 53
Figure 2.10. Portfolio and organisational overlaps in some parts of the system suggest room for consolidation 54
Figure 3.1. Contributions to the multilateral system declined by 15% in 2024 60
Figure 3.2. Tapering crisis response, tightening aid budgets and evolving donor priorities drove the recent drop in multilateral funding 61
Figure 3.3. Contributions to the multilateral development system are set to continue falling 62
Figure 3.4. Four countries accounted for half of DAC members' multilateral contributions in 2024 63
Figure 3.5. The 11 DAC members that have announced aid cuts account for a significant share of major MDOs' total funding 64
Figure 3.6. Bilateral and earmarked multilateral contributions are rising at the expense of core contributions 65
Figure 3.7. Earmarked contributions continue to increase as a share of total multilateral contributions 66
Figure 3.8. Changes in core and earmarked contributions show contrasting adjustment patterns across DAC donors 67
Figure 3.9. Nordic and Benelux countries provide significantly more than their "fair share" of core funding to the multilateral system 68
Figure 3.10. DAC countries' UNDS contributions rose steadily over 2014-2024, while emerging donor contributions have weakened 69
Figure 3.11. China, the UAE, Qatar and India have risen up the ranks of leading non-DAC donors to the UNDS 70
Figure 3.12. The Gates Foundation has replaced the United States as the leading donor to the World Health Organization's programme budget 72
Figure 3.13. Donor choices on how to allocate multilateral contributions involve explicit trade-offs 74
Figure 3.14. Most UNDS entities exhibit a high reliance on voluntary contributions 78
Figure 3.15. The composition of DAC countries' funding to UNESCO has shifted in recent years 80
Figure 4.1. Multilateral outflows have increased markedly over the past two decades in response to global crises 86
Figure 4.2. The rise in multilateral outflows is driven by MDBs and EU Institutions 88
Figure 4.3. MDBs have continued to deliver increasing volumes of financing, driven by outflows from the World Bank Group and the AsDB 89
Figure 4.4. Major UNDS organisations are already experiencing a significant drop in their outflows 90
Figure 4.5. Multilateral outflows to Europe have substantially increased in recent years, driven by support to Ukraine 92
Figure 4.6. Middle-income countries receive three-quarters of multilateral outflows 93
Figure 4.7. The distribution of multilateral outflows by sector reflects a shift towards short-term crisis response 94
Figure 4.8. More than 70% of survey respondents anticipate scaling back or suspending projects due to funding cuts 95
Figure 4.9. Defunding multilateral leveraged mechanisms risks generating outflow losses that far exceed the budgetary savings achieved 96
Figure 4.10. Cuts affecting central MDOs could significantly impair the system's capacity to support the most in need 97
Figure 4.11. Low-income countries and humanitarian and social sectors are particularly exposed to cuts in multilateral concessional finance 98
Figure 4.12. More than half of multilateral development finance delivered is now non-concessional 100
Boxes 8
Box 2.1. UN80: responding to financial pressure while revisiting long-standing structural issues 55
Box 3.1. The World Health Organization's evolving funding structure 72
Box 3.2. MOPAN's assessments of UNESCO underscore that limited reprioritisation in the face of funding shocks can constrain organisational effectiveness 81
Box 4.1. The case of the World Food Programme illustrates the direct implications of funding volatility for humanitarian aid 91
MARC 보기
오류 데이터 정정요청
*표시는 필수 입력사항입니다.
알림톡 발송
| 전화번호 |
|---|
개인정보 수정 바로가기
연속간행물 권호 선택
우편복사 안내
- ◾ 도서관을 방문하지 못할 경우 인터넷, 팩스 등으로 자료 복사를 신청하고, 복사물을 우편·팩스 등으로 제공받는 서비스
- ◾ 대상자료: 일반도서, 연속간행물 및 학위논문
- ※ 고서, 고잡지, 훼손될 우려가 있는 자료, 마이크로폼 자료 및 신문 등 제외
- ◾ 신청 책수: 1인 5책 이하(1일 기준)
- ◾ 신청 절차: 자료 검색 → 우편복사 목록담기 → 복사 범위 입력 → 우편복사 주문서 입력 → 접수 및 확인
- ※ 저작권법에 의거하여 부분 복사(전체 페이지 수의 1/3 범위 이내)만 가능
- ◾ 복사 범위 입력 예시: (연속 페이지) 1-30, (부분 페이지) 25, 30-40
| 번호 | 발행일자 | 권호명 | 제본정보 | 자료실 | 원문 | 신청 페이지 |
|---|
도서위치안내(서울관)
도서위치안내: / 서가번호:
0
확인
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
내서재에 담기
새로운 서재
*표시는 필수 입력사항입니다.
저장
저장 되었습니다.