The Rise (and Decline?) of Arab Aid: Generosity and Allocation in the Oil Era

Among non-DAC donors, wealthy Arab states are some of the most prolific contributors of foreign aid. Despite this, relatively little is known about Arab foreign aid. The OECD development database offers a paucity of information, aggregating data for “Arab countries” and “Arab agencies,” without identifying the constituent units of either. A further complication is that Arab donors are not uniformly transparent about their aid efforts, publicizing some of them while keeping other donations secret. In this paper, we advance the state of knowledge of Arab foreign aid in a number of ways. We use AidData to document the trends in reported donations from specific bilateral donors (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) and multilateral agencies (Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa, OPEC’s Fund for International Development, and the Islamic Development Bank). Notably, Arab bilateral donors have given less generously over time with aid levels remaining relatively stable despite skyrocketing national wealth. We explore reasons for this decline, including that Arab donors have: shifted their giving from bilateral to multilateral channels, given less as DAC donors have given more, and increased domestic spending at the expense of foreign aid with a view to safeguarding regime security. In addition, we look at the sectoral allocations of Arab bilateral and multilateral organizations, and compare the aid practices of Arab donors to their DAC counterparts. Finally, we suggest why an exclusive focus on aid commitments is problematic where Arab aid is concerned.     

What Determines the Size of Aid Projects?

Over the last few years, considerable attention has focused on aid fragmentation, the proliferation of donors and projects in developing countries. Aid fragmentation has continued to increase despite international efforts to foster donor coordination. One possible implication of fragmentation is smaller aid projects, potentially with the result of more administrative work for overtaxed recipient governments per dollar of aid received.This paper makes use of AidData data on bilateral aid commitments, sector, and funding agencies to explore the determinants of project size and to better understand the forces driving aid fragmentation. To the extent that project size is driven by the sectoral composition or purpose of aid, the associated administrative costs may be justified. Variations due to other factors, e.g. a donor’s administrative structure or bureaucratic interests, provide a stronger case for reforms.     

The Localized Geography of Foreign Aid: A New Dataset and Application to Violent Armed Conflict

Existing foreign aid databases – the OECD’s CRS data and now AidData – are project-based. And yet nearly all empirical analyses using these data aggregate to the country-year level, thereby losing project-specific information. In this paper, we introduce new data on the geographic location of aid projects that have been committed to many African countries between 1989 and 2008. The data enable an examination of project-level information in a wider variety of systematic research contexts. To demonstrate the utility of the new data, we discuss how geographically disaggregated foreign aid and armed conflict data are needed to capture the theoretical mechanisms in the aid-conflict literature. We then map the disaggregated aid and conflict data in Sierra Leone, Angola, and Mozambique as specific examples of how these data could help disentangle competing causal mechanisms linking aid to conflict onset and dynamics. The research provides an important new perspective on the connections between aid and conflict. More generally, it is a crucial first step in geo-referencing and comparing foreign aid projects to various localized development outcomes.     

Foreign Aid and Regime Change: A Role for Donor Intent

This paper uses data from the AidData project to analyze the association between foreign aid and the likelihood of democratization in aid recipients. Previous studies have argued that aid can entrench dictatorships, making a transition less likely. I find evidence that the relationship between aid and democratization depends on characteristics of the aid donor. During the period from 1992 to 2007, aid from democratic donors is often found to be associated with an increase in the likelihood of a democratic transition. This is consistent with a scenario in which aid promotes democratization and/or a situation in which democratic donors reward countries that take steps in a democratic direction. In either case, it suggests that democratic donors use scarce aid resources to encourage democracy. During the same period, aid from authoritarian donors exhibits a negative relationship with democratization. This suggests that the source of funding matters, with donor preferences regarding democracy helping to determine the link between aid and democratization.     

Dodging Adverse Selection: How Donor Type and Governance Condition Aid’s Effects on School Enrollment

We employ AidData to test the effects of primary-education aid on school enrollment. We argue that the problem of adverse selection complicates both the allocation and the effectiveness of aid. We hypothesize that bilateral donors ought to have greater freedom to condition aid on recipient governance quality than multilateral donors, which are often bound by institutional rules to provide aid more impartially. Compared to their multilateral counterparts, bilateral donors may have advantages in overcoming adverse selection, resulting in bilateral aid’s boosting enrollments to a greater degree. AidData’s extensive coverage of multilateral aid enables this analysis for up to 100 low- and low-middle-income countries from 1995 to 2008. Latent growth regression analysis suggests that, compared to multilateral donors, bilateral donors indeed condition their primary education aid on recipient control of corruption and that bilateral aid is significantly related to improved enrollments.     

Aid Quality and Donor Rankings

This paper offers new measures of aid quality covering 38 bilateral and multilateral donors, as well as new insights about the robustness and usefulness of such measures. The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the follow-up 2008 Accra Agenda for Action have focused attention on common donor practices that reduce the development impact of aid. Using 18 underlying indicators that capture these practices—derived from the OECD-DAC’s Survey for Monitoring the Paris Declaration, the new AidData database, and the DAC aid tables—the authors construct an overall aid quality index and four coherently defined sub-indexes on aid selectivity, alignment, harmonization, and specialization. Compared with earlier indicators used in donor rankings, this indicator set is more comprehensive and representative of the range of donor practices addressed in the Paris Declaration, improving the validity, reliability, and robustness of rankings. One of the innovations is to increase the validity of the aid quality indicators by adjusting for recipient characteristics, donor aid volumes, and other factors. Despite these improvements in data and methodology, the authors caution against overinterpretation of overall indexes such as these. Alternative plausible assumptions regarding weights or the inclusion of additional indicators can still produce marked shifts in the ranking of some donors, so that small differences in overall rankings are not meaningful. Moreover, because the performance of some donors varies considerably across the four sub-indexes, these sub-indexes may be more useful than the overall index in identifying donors’ relative strengths and weaknesses.     

Are ‘New’ Donors Different? Comparing the Allocation of Bilateral Aid Between nonDAC and DAC Donor Countries

Major DAC donors are widely criticized for weak targeting of aid, selfish aid motives, and insufficient coordination. The emergence of an increasing number of new donors may further complicate the coordination of international aid efforts. At the same time, it is open to question whether new donors (many of which were aid recipients until recently) are more altruistic and provide better targeted aid according to need and merit. Project-level data on aid by new donors, as collected by the AidData initiative, allow for empirical analyses comparing the allocation behavior of new versus old donors. We employ Probit and Tobit models and test for significant differences in the distribution of aid by new and old donors across recipient countries. We find that, on average, new donors care less for recipient need than old donors. New and old donors behave similarly in several respects, however. They disregard merit by not taking the level of corruption in recipient countries into account. Concerns that commercial self-interest distorts the allocation of aid seem to be overblown for both groups.     

Foreign Aid Heterogeneity: Issues and Agenda

The present paper serves as an introduction to this special issue providing a justification for, and linking and introducing to the articles that follow. A central message emanating from the papers included in this special issue is that it is not sufficient to double aid efforts by simply raising and transferring more money. Substantial effort needs to be taken in order to delve deeper into the various routes and transmission mechanisms through which the various types of aid operate. And this is a timely as well as important issue in view of recent calls (as well as concerns) for another “big push” approach in development aid. JEL no. F35     

The Increasing Selectivity of Foreign Aid, 1984–2003

The Monterrey Consensus includes the idea that foreign aid is more effective when targeted to countries with sound institutions. We examine the extent to which foreign aid, bilateral and multilateral, is “selective” in terms of democracy and property rights/rule of law. We find that multilateral assistance is more selective than bilateral aid in targeting countries with good rule of law. “Selectivity” is a new phenomenon. During 1984–89, both bilateral and multilateral aid had significant negative relationships with rule of law; by 2000–03 this had shifted to a significant positive relationship for multilateral aid, and a positive but statistically insignificant relationship for bilateral aid.     

The Money Trail: Ranking Donor Transparency in Foreign Aid

Transparency of aid activity is being recognized to be one of the key areas whereby aid effectiveness can be improved. In this paper, we propose an index to measure and rank donors on the transparency of their aid activities. The Transparency Index rates 31 bilateral and multilateral donor agencies on six measures of transparency. We find that being a member of the IATI is a powerful signal of a donor being more transparent across most other dimensions as well. We find no relationship between transparency and donor aid volumes. Overall IDA and Australia are identified as the most transparent donors, while Korea and IDB Special Fund are the least transparent.     

国际援助再分类及其对受援国经济增长的异质性影响

国际援助对受援国的经济影响在学界并没有一致的答案，文章从不同类型国际援助的影响具有异质性的角度再次探讨这一问题。文章的主要工作有两点：一是对援助类型的重新分类；二是根据新分类的援助，实证分析不同类型援助的异质性影响。首先，基于中观经济学对生成性资源的分类方式，文章提出资源配对援助法，将国际援助分为了商业性援助、开发性援助和公益性援助三类，并与经合组织债权人申报系统相衔接，建立了分类后的国际援助数据集。然后，在实证分析部分，分别研究了援助总规模和不同类型国际援助对受援国经济发展的影响。结果发现，援助总规模对受援国的经济正向影响显著。同时，开发性援助和公益性援助存在门槛效应和滞后性，两者都有显著的正向影响，而且开发性援助对受援国经济发展促进作用要强于公益性援助。     

The Impact of Foreign Agricultural Aid and Total Foreign Aid on Agricultural Output in African Countries: New Evidence from Panel Data Analysis

Official Development Assistance may play an important role in increasing the resources to finance the agriculture sector and improve agricultural outcomes in African countries. Although this is a relevant issue, very few studies have investigated the link between foreign agricultural aid and national agricultural output. Using advanced econometrics techniques, this paper examines the impact of foreign agricultural aid and foreign aid on agriculture output in the panel data set of 29 African countries over the period of 1975–2013. In particular, we employed two estimation methods: Augmented Mean Group and Common Correlated Effects‐2SLS. The first method accounts for heterogeneous slope coefficients across group members and cross‐sectional dependency among variables, whereas the second method accounts for endogenous regressors. Our main findings indicate a small and positive impact of foreign agricultural aid and total foreign aid on agricultural output for low‐ and middle‐income countries. Furthermore, the Pairwise Dumitrescu‐Hurlin Panel Causality test shows evidence of a bidirectional causal relationship between agricultural aid and agricultural output for the full sample, noting that the result changes at the different group income level. Based on the empirical results, recommendations for future policy are given.     

Institutional destruction resulting from donor and project proliferation in Sub-Saharan African countries

This note suggests that the most important feature distinguishing foreign aid in the 1970s from earlier programmes was the proliferation of donors and projects. This donor and project build-up, which continues into the 1980s, is having a negative impact on the major government institutions of developing nations. Instead of working to establish comprehensive and consistent national development objectives and policies, government officials are forced to focus on pleasing donors by approving projects that mirror the current development ‘enthusiasm’ of each donor. Further, efforts to implement the large number of discrete, donor-financed projects, each with its own specific objectives and reporting requirements, use up far more time and effort than is appropriate. Project consolidation is needed, but this is unlikely to occur on a significant scale because of the competitive nature of donor interactions. Second-best solutions include a greater emphasis on institution-building and new projects expressly intended to facilitate implementation of existing project portfolios.     

Giving and Receiving Foreign Aid: Does Conflict Count?

Of what relative importance are strategic motivators for bilateral aid donors, and how important is a recipient’s geographic proximity to conflict relative to previously examined economic and political motivators? We find that donors have historically responded to balanced incentives to reduce recipient poverty and further donor political and economic goals. Every bilateral donor conditions aid on conflict. The United States allocates large amounts of development aid to countries bordering a conflict, both pre- and post-Cold War. However, controlling for development levels and donor economic and political interest, most donors reduce aid to a recipient with an in-house or nearby intense conflict.     

Rhetoric versus Reality: The Best and Worst of Aid Agency Practices

Foreign aid critics, supporters, recipients, and donors have produced eloquent rhetoric on the need for better aid practices—has this translated into reality? This paper attempts to monitor the best and worst of aid practices among bilateral, multilateral, and UN agencies. We create aid practice measures based on aid transparency, specialization, selectivity, ineffective aid channels, and overhead costs. We rate donor agencies from best to worst on aid practices. We find that the UK does well among bilateral agencies, the US is below average, and Scandinavian donors do surprisingly poorly. The biggest difference is between the UN agencies, who mostly rank in the bottom half of donors, and everyone else. Average performance of all agencies on transparency, fragmentation, and selectivity is still very poor. The paper also assesses trends in best practices over time—we find modest improvement in transparency and more in moving away from ineffective channels. However, we find no evidence of improvements (and partial evidence of worsening) in specialization, fragmentation, and selectivity, despite escalating rhetoric to the contrary.     

Transition of China＇s Diplomacy and Foreign Relations

The present paper focuses on the transformation of China＇s foreign affairs. The transformation is closely associated with and mutually reinforced by the developmental changes that have taken place in China. China＇s strong economic focus has had a profound effect on its foreign relations and international strategies. With sustained growth over the past three decades （1978-2008）, China has become an important member of the world community. In particular, its influence has been growing in the Asia-Pacific area. China＇s unique developmental model and path are recognized and scrutinized worldwide. The present paper discusses special aspects of foreign aid and also explores the changes in principles of and approaches taken in the application of foreign aid policies. Under dual external and internal pressure, China has to constantly adjust, renew and improve its approach to diplomatic and international relations.     

East European aid to India

The aid-relationship is part of a wider economic relationship between India and the East European countries, in a far more integrated sense than is the case with some of India's other donors. The group has been a significant though not a dominant source of aid to India, the USSR being the most important member of the group. Easy generalizations about the terms of East European aid, in comparison to aid from other sources, are not possible. The same is true for India's experience in the actual utilization of aid from various sources. The main usefulness of the East European countries as a source of aid has lain in their willingness to give aid for particular public-sector projects and in improving India's bargaining powers vis-à-vis other donors.     

A Survey of the Theoretical Economic Literature on Foreign Aid

This paper surveys the theoretical economic literature on foreign aid—in particular, the aid donor–recipient relationship. Economic theory, especially new institutional economics, can be very helpful in understanding foreign aid relationships—especially the incentive problems involved—and in designing institutions to improve aid effectiveness. In particular, it helps in understanding the chain of principal–agent relations inherent in the aid delivery system and the resulting potential for agency problems. The survey shows that economic theory can improve the design of cooperation modalities by aligning the incentives of donors and recipients for poverty reduction, but that, in order to address the problems, policy analysis must take into account the constraints faced by stakeholders in the aid relationship. The aid 'contract' should thus seek to improve the agents' incentives to use aid effectively, given the circumstances of the developing country.     

“一带一路”背景下科技援外实践与思考——以福建省菌草技术援外为例

聚焦福建省科技援外实践,梳理福建技术援外20年的工作成效。运用个案研究法,基于菌草技术在科技援外上的成功经验的梳理,介绍分析福建省科技援外的工作实际。为加大对“一带一路”共建国和地区科技援外的力度、促进受援地经济水平提高、拓展与“一带一路”共建国和地区国际技术转移的深度,从构建机制和健全体系两方面提出提高福建省科技援外质量的建议。     

Determinants of China's and Japan's Foreign Aid Allocations in Africa

Foreign aid plays an important role in promoting economic development in Africa. Recently, several countries, most notably China, have emerged as alternative sources of foreign aid. However, their motives for providing foreign aid have been questioned. The present study examines and compares determinants of China's and Japan's foreign aid allocations in Africa. It assumes that the distribution of foreign aid was determined by the aid donors’ self‐interest and also by the aid recipients’ needs. Three panel model methods, namely, the pooled OLS method, the one‐way fixed effects method and the two‐way fixed effects methods, were employed to examine and compare the patterns of China's and Japan's foreign aid allocation in Africa. The main finding was that the provision of foreign aid by China and Japan was primarily driven by the aid donors’ self‐interest. Additionally, the size of population in a recipient country was an important element to determine China's and Japan's aid allocations. The findings also suggest that Japan tended to pay more attention to the aid recipient countries’ needs as well as to the quality of governance and institutions in these countries. Overall, the findings indicate that there was no considerable difference in the motives for the provision of aid between the two aid donor countries.