Human Rights Review

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 45–66

“Walking a Tightrope: Human Rights, Basic Human Needs and US Support for Development Projects in the Multilateral Development Banks”



  1. Andersen TM, Hansen H, Markussen T (2006) US politics and World Bank IDA-lending. The Journal of Development Studies 42 5: 772-794.Google Scholar
  2. Apodaca C (2005) U.S. Human rights policy and foreign assistance: A short history. Ritsumeikan International Affairs 3: 63-80.Google Scholar
  3. Apodaca C, Stohl, M (1999) United States human rights policy and foreign assistance. International Studies Quarterly 43 1: 185-198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babb, S (2009) Behind the Development Banks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braaten, D (2014a) Determinants of US foreign policy in multilateral development banks: The place of human rights. Journal of Peace Research 51 4: 515-527.Google Scholar
  6. Braaten, D (2014b) What Rights and Which Countries?: US Human Rights Policy in the Multilateral Development Banks. Journal of Human Rights 13 2: 205-229.Google Scholar
  7. Curry Jr., RL (1989) The basic needs strategy, the Congressional mandate, and U.S. foreign aid policy. Journal of Economic Issues 23 4: 1085-1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demirel-Pegg T, Moskowitz J (2009) US aid allocation: the nexus of human rights, democracy, and development. Journal of Peace Research 46 2: 181-198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fariss, CJ (2010) The strategic substitution of United States foreign aid. Foreign Policy Analysis 6 2 107-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedom House (2012) Freedom in the World Survey,, (last accessed 13-05-2016).
  11. Freedom House (2006) Methodology, (last accessed 13-05-2016).
  12. Gelman, A (2005) Analysis of variance—Why it is more important than ever. The Annals of Statistics 33 1 1-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibney M, Cornett L, Wood R (2012) Political Terror Scale 1976-2012 (last accessed 13-05-2016).
  14. Hafner-Burton EM, Ron J (2009) Seeing double: Human rights impact through qualitative and quantitative eyes. World Politics 61 2: 360-401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heinrich T (2013) When is Foreign Aid Selfish, When is it Selfless?. Journal of Politics 75 2: 422-435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hicks N, Streeten P (1979) Indicators of Development: The Search for a Basic Needs Yardstick. World Development 7 6: 567-580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. International Monetary Fund (2012) World Economic Outlook Database, (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  18. King G, Zeng, L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9 2: 137-163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lai B (2003) Examining the goals of US foreign assistance in the post-cold war period, 1991-96. Journal of Peace Research 40 1: 103-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lebovic J, Voeten E (2009) The cost of shame: International organizations and foreign aid in the punishing of human rights violators. Journal of Peace Research 46 1: 79-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meernik, James, Eric L. Krueger, and Steven C. Poe. 1998. “Testing models of US foreign policy: Foreign aid during and after the cold war.” Journal of Politics 60(1): 63-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milner HV, Tingley, D (2012) The choice for multilateralism: Foreign aid and American foreign policy. Review of International Organizations 4 3: 269-291. Google Scholar
  23. Neumayer E (2003) The Determinants of Aid Allocation by Regional Multilateral Development Banks and United Nations Agencies. International Studies Quarterly 47 1: 101-122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nielsen RA (2013) Rewarding Human Rights? Selective Aid Sanctions against Repressive States. International Studies Quarterly 57 4: 791-803.Google Scholar
  25. Pape R (1997) Why Economic Sanctions do not Work. International Security 22 2: 90-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenblum MR, Salehyan, I (2004) Norms and interests in US asylum enforcement. Journal of Peace Research 41 6: 677-697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sartorius RH, Ruttan VW (1989) The sources of the Basic Human Needs Mandate. The Journal of Developing Areas 23 3: 331-362.Google Scholar
  28. Strand JR., Zappile T (2015) Always Vote for Principle, Though You May Vote Alone: American Political Support for Multilateral Development Loans, 2004-2011. World Development 72: 224-239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Streeten PP (1979) Basic Needs: Premises and Promises. Journal of Policy Modeling 1: 136-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. United Nations Development Programme (2013) Human Development Reports. (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  31. United States Agency for International Development (2012) US Overseas Loans and Grants. (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  32. United States Agency for International Development (2014) USAID History (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  33. United States Census Bureau (2012a) Foreign Trade Statistics (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  34. United States Census Bureau (2012b) International Database (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  35. United States Department of State (2012) United States Participation in the United Nations. (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  36. United States Department of Treasury (2012) Loan Review Votes (Last accessed 14-05-2016).
  37. U.S. Congress (1977) International Financial Institutions Act Public Law. 95-118.Google Scholar
  38. von Soest C, Wahman M (2015) Not all dictators are equal: Coups, fraudulent elections, and the selective targeting of democratic sanctions. Journal of Peace Research 52 1: 17-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wade R (2002) US hegemony and the World Bank: The fight over people and ideas. Review of International Political Economy 9 2: 201-229.Google Scholar
  40. Whang, T (2011) Playing to the Home Crowd? Symbolic Use of Economic Sanctions in the United States. International Studies Quarterly 55 3: 787-801.Google Scholar
  41. Woods N (2003) US Hegemony and the international financial institutions. In: Foot R, MacFarlane SN, Mastanduno M (ed) US hegemony and international organizations. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 92-115 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Lutheran UniversitySeguinUSA

Personalised recommendations