The objective of exploring “what works and why” may be addressed using various methodologies and sources of evidence. This study crosses conventional boundaries by bringing together knowledge from (i) academic as well as applied research, (ii) from donor evaluations and (iii) from an in-depth study of Swedish regional development cooperation with sub-Saharan Africa. The report provides insights of relevance for a range of multilateral and bilateral donors that are active in this field.
This study has found there to be a range of understandings and meanings of “regional development cooperation” and this has evidently caused a great deal of confusion. A distinction needs first to
be made between “regional development cooperation” (or regional assistance) and “outside funding of regional cooperation/integration”. Although these may interconnect, they are not identical.
Regional donor programmes that target two or more countries (sub-regions or regions) should also be distinguished from programmes that target one or several ROs. Confusion arises when such distinctions are not made and when donors try to do too many things at once.
Furthermore, Sweden tends to repeat the same mistake as many other donors, namely to focus on the level of regional integration and cooperation and capacity building of ROs instead of on development outcomes and poverty reduction.
This results in two overlapping problems: (i) the confusion of means and ends, and (ii) a strong emphasis by many donors on activities and outputs instead of longterm development results. A more strategic approach is therefore needed that would help donors make better informed decisions about which development actors to cooperate with and why, and it would help them shift focus from activities and outputs to long-term development impact.
This is closely related to monitoring, evaluation and the way results are reported. While the evidence suggests that regional development cooperation is both relevant and achieves results, there is little agreement about what constitutes a good result, how and when it should be evaluated, or whose results should count and why.