Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 157–179 | Cite as

Trade versus aid: donor generosity in an era of globalization

  • Erik LundsgaardeEmail author
  • Christian Breunig
  • Aseem Prakash
Article

Abstract

Why do foreign aid budgets vary across countries and over time? Existing research indicates that the same set of factors shapes commitments toward both domestic and international redistribution. While scholars have acknowledged international normative influences on aid allocations, research on levels of donor generosity has not examined how international trade influences aid budgets. This paper examines whether imports from developing countries have a ‘displacement effect’ on aid commitments. Employing a panel of nineteen OECD donor countries, we analyze aid budgets from 1980 to 2000. We find that increased imports from developing countries to donor countries are associated with aid reductions. These results persist after controlling for international and domestic variables identified in previous research, and under other estimation techniques and model specifications.

Keywords

Foreign aid Donor generosity Trade 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Previous versions of this work were presented at Aston University in July, 2005 and at the 2005 Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association and the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. The authors wish to thank Matt Potoski, John Ahlquist, Erica Johnson, Melissa A. Thomas, and Mike Ward as well as the anonymous reviewers for their useful advice.

References

  1. Achen, C. (2000). Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, UCLA.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). ‘What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (2004). Time-series cross-section issues: Dynamics. Draft Manuscript. Accessed at: http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id = 36; 09/01/2004.Google Scholar
  4. Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (Eds.) (1999). Constructing world culture: International non-governmental organizations since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Botcheva, L., & Martin, L. L. (2001). Institutional effects on state behavior: Convergence and divergence. International Studies Quarterly, 45, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breuning, M. (2001). Women’s representation and development assistance: A cross-national study. Women and Politics, 23, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron, D. R. (1978). The expansion of the public economy: A comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 72, 1243–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caprioli, M. (2000). Gendered conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 37, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chabbott, C. (1999). Development INGOs. In J. Boli & G. M. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875 (pp. 222–248). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2004). Development effectiveness: What have we learnt? The Economic Journal, 114, F244–F271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. De Melo, J., & Panagariya, A. (Eds.) (1992). New regionalism in trade policy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. Dollar, D., & Pritchett, L. (1998). Assessing aid: What works, what doesn’t, and why. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dunning, J. (1981). International production and the multinational enterprise. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  15. Dunning, T. (2004). ‘Conditioning the effects of aid: Cold war politics, donor credibility, and democracy in Africa. International Organization, 58, 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. European Union. (2004). FAQs. Accessed on September 19, 2004 at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/gentools/faqs_en.htm.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, P. B., Jacobson, H. K., & Putnam, R. D. (Eds.) (1993). Double-edged diplomacy: International bargaining and domestic politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Federal News Service. (1990). Remarks of President George Bush at Introduction of the Legislation ‘Enterprise for the Americas Act of 1990’. (September 14).Google Scholar
  20. Finnemore, M. (1996). National interests in international society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fleck, R. K., & Kilby, C. (2006). How do political changes influence US bilateral aid allocations? Evidence from panel data. Review of Development Economics, 10, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franzese, R., & Hays, J. (2005). Spatial econometric models for political science. University of Michigan: Book Manuscript.Google Scholar
  23. Frieden, J., & Martin, L. L. (2001). International political economy: The state of the sub-discipline. Working Paper. Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. Fukuyama, F. (2004). The imperatives of state building. Journal of Democracy, 5, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gourevitch, P. (1978). The second-image reversed. International Organization, 32, 881–912.Google Scholar
  26. Green, D. P., Kim, S. Y., & Yoon, D. H. (2001). Dirty pool. International Organization, 55, 441–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Honaker, J., Joseph, A., King, G., Scheve, K., & Singh, N. (2001). Amelia: A program for missing data (Windows version). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Accessed at: http://GKing.Harvard.edu/.Google Scholar
  28. Huber, E., Ragin, C., & Stephens, J. D. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure, and the welfare state. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 711–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huber, E., Ragin, C., Stephens, J. D., Brady, D., & Beckfield, J. (2004). Comparative welfare states data set. Northwestern University, University of North Carolina, Duke University and Indiana University.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, B. D., Baumgartner, F. R., & True, J. L. (1998). Policy punctuations: US budget authority, 1947–1995. Journal of Politics, 60, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katzenstein, P. J. (1985). Small states in world markets: Industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kaufman, B. I. (1982). Trade and aid: Eisenhower’s foreign economic policy, 1953–1961. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Keohane, R. O., & Milner, H. V. (Eds.) (1996). Internationalization and domestic politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple impuation. American Political Science Review, 95, 49–69.Google Scholar
  35. Kipkorir, B. (1997). Testimony before the trade sub-committee of the house ways and means committee. Hearing on the African Growth and Opportunity End of Dependency Act of 1996. (April 29).Google Scholar
  36. Laatikainen, K. V. (1996). The disillusionment of Nordic aid. In S. W. Hook (Ed.), Foreign aid toward the new millennium (pp. 109–124). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Lindsay, J. M. (1986). Trade sanctions as policy instruments: A reexamination. International Studies Quarterly, 30, 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lumsdaine, D. H. (1993). Moral vision in international politics: The foreign aid regime 1949–1989. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 144–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morrissey, O. (2000). Foreign aid in the emerging global trade environment. In F. Tarp (Ed.), Foreign aid and development: Lessons learnt and directions for the future (pp. 375–399). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Myrdal, G. (1960). Beyond the welfare state: Economic planning and its international implications. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Noël, A., & Thérien, J. P. (2002). Public opinion and global justice. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 631–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Noël, A., & Thérien, J. P. (1995). From domestic to international justice: The welfare state and foreign aid. International Organization, 49, 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Loughlin, J., Ward, M. D., Lofdahl, C. L., Cohen, J. S., Brown, D. S., Reilly, D., Gleditsch, K. S., & Shin, M. (1998). The diffusion of democracy, 1946–1994. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88, 545–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (various years). Development Cooperation Report: Efforts and Policies of Members of the Development Assistance Committee. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  46. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). ‘Source OECD,’ Social Expenditure Database. Accessed at: www.sourceoecd.org.Google Scholar
  47. Pierson, P. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 48, 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plümper, T., Troeger, V. E., & Manow, P. (2005). Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking methods and theory. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Posen, B. R. (2001). The struggle again terrorism: Grand strategy, Strategy, and Tactics’, International Security, 26, 39–55.Google Scholar
  50. Pratt, C. (Ed.) (1989). Internationalism under strain: The north-south policies of Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rappaport, J. (2000). How does openness to growth promote growth? Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.Google Scholar
  52. Remmer, K. L. (2004). Does foreign aid promote the expansion of government? American Journal of Political Science, 48, 77–92.Google Scholar
  53. Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger governments? The Journal of Political Economy, 106, 997–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roemer, P. M. (1993). Idea gap and object gap in economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32, 531–555.Google Scholar
  55. Ruttan, V. (1996). United States development assistance policy: The domestic politics of foreign economic aid. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  57. Stokke, O. (Ed.) (1989). Western middle powers and global poverty: The determinants of aid policies of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.Google Scholar
  58. Thérien, J. P., & Noël, A. (2000). Political parties and foreign aid. American Political Science Review, 94, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thorbecke, E. (2000). The evolution of the development doctrine and the role of foreign aid, 1950–2000. In F. Tarp (Ed.), Foreign aid and development: Lessons learnt and directions for the future (pp. 17–47). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Togeby, L. (1994). The gender gap in foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Peace Research, 31, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. UNCTAD. (2004). Handbook of statistics online. Accessed at: http://www.unctad.org.Google Scholar
  62. Union of International Associations. (various years). Yearbook of international organizations. Munich: K.G. Saur Verlag.Google Scholar
  63. United States House of Representatives Ways, Means Committee. (1999). African Growth and Opportunity Act: Report to Accompany H.R. 434. Washington, DC: GPO. June 17.Google Scholar
  64. United States Senate. (1990). Hearing before the committee on foreign relations: Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, S. 3064. Washington, DC: GPO. September 27.Google Scholar
  65. Van Kersbergen, K. (1995). Social capitalism: A study of Christian democracy and the welfare state. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Wildavsky, A. (1992). The new politics of the budgetary process. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  67. Williamson, J. (1993). Democracy and the ‘Washington Consensus’. World Development, 21, 1329–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. World Bank. (2003). World development indicators online. Accessed at: http://devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Lundsgaarde
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Breunig
    • 2
  • Aseem Prakash
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TorontoOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations