As the Paris Declaration is a relatively new concept, there has been little empirical research so far about its practical consequences for donors and recipient countries. This is why a closer look on how these reforms are implemented should help to get a better insight on the merits and risks of this new approach with regard to the political dimension of foreign aid. As most developing countries struggle with a legacy of war and violent conflict, the promotion of (good) governance and strong political institutions are considered as primary conditions for sustainable development and the consolidation of peace in these countries.
However, peacebuilding is a political task and so is development cooperation. Thus, the alliance between both fields under a common headline of “harmonisation” may lead to a loss of scope and plurality in danger of social engineering or the least common denominator.
Considering these possible risks and side-effects of “harmonisation” in international development cooperation, the paper investigates how different ways of multi-actor coordination are put into practice and how this interaction affects the promotion of peace in developing countries. Additionally, political requirements – namely the promotion of good governance and national ownership – are also taken into account for analytical research.
Rwanda and Sierra Leone where chosen as case-studies for empirical research as donor coordination in both countries takes place in a post-conflict environment and differs in emphasis and scope. The results indicate that multi-actor coordination may indeed facilitate the promotion of peace in developing countries if it is carefully designed and anchored in national priorities. On the other hand, negative effects are likely to unfold if there is low national ownership and if donors fail to address restrictions in governance.
