Advertisement

Donor motives, public preferences and the allocation of UK foreign aid: a discrete choice experiment approach

  • Simon FeenyEmail author
  • Paul Hansen
  • Stephen Knowles
  • Mark McGillivray
  • Franz Ombler
Original Paper
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

This paper develops a prescriptive model for the inter-country allocation of aid from the UK government. The model incorporates three broad motives for allocating aid: recipient need, donor interests and absorptive capacity (the ability of recipient countries to use aid effectively). To determine each motive’s relative importance, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving more than 1600 members of the UK general population was conducted. Absorptive capacity is the most important motive, and recipient need and donor interests are equally but much less important. Current UK aid allocations are compared with those prescribed by the model. Some countries, including China, India and Indonesia, would receive much more if aid were allocated according to the model; other countries, including Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Pakistan, would receive much less. Cluster analysis reveals that the political parties voted for by DCE participants at the 2015 general election are, inter alia, related to their aid preferences.

Keywords

Foreign aid Discrete choice experiment (DCE) Cluster analysis UK 

JEL Classification

F35 H50 C90 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Trong Anh Trinh for research assistance and to an anonymous reviewer for very incisive and helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Alesina, A., & Dollar, D. (2000). Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Weder, B. (2002). Do corrupt governments receive less foreign aid? American Economic Review, 92, 1126–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asra, A., Estrada, G., Kim, Y., & Quibria, M. G. (2005). Poverty and foreign aid: Evidence from cross-country data (ERD Working Paper Series No. 65). Manila: Economics and Research Division, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  4. Benyon, J. (2003). Poverty efficient aid allocations—Collier/Dollar revisited (ESAU Working Paper No. 2). London: Economic and Statistics Analysis Unit, Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Berthélemy, J.-C., & Tichit, A. (2004). Bilateral Donors’ aid allocation decisions—A three-dimensional panel analysis. International Review of Economics & Finance, 13(3), 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowles, P. (1987). The political economy of UK foreign aid. International Review of Applied Economics, 1(2), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, policies and growth. American Economic Review, 90(4), 847–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clemens, M., Radelet, S., Bhavnani, R., & Bazzi, S. (2012). Counting chickens when they hatch: Timing and the effects of aid on growth. Economic Journal, 122(561), 590–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cogneau, D., & Naudet, J.-D. (2007). Who deserves aid? Equality of opportunity, international aid and poverty reduction. World Development, 35(1), 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2001). Can the world cut poverty in half? How policy reform and effective aid can meet international development goals. World Development, 29(11), 1787–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2002). Aid allocation and poverty reduction. European Economic Review, 26, 1475–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, H., Hansen, P., & Knowles, S. (2017). Bilateral foreign aid: How important is aid effectiveness to people for choosing countries to support? Applied Economics Letters, 24(5), 306–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalgaard, C.-J., & Hansen, H. (2001). On aid, growth and good policies. Journal of Development Studies, 37(6), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalgaard, C., Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (2004). On the empirics of foreign aid and growth. Economic Journal, 114(496), F191–F216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DFID. (2017). About us. UK Department for International Development (DFID). https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-development/about. Accessed 3/2/2019.
  16. Doucouliagos, H., & Paldam, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of development aid allocation: The effects of income level and population size (Economics Working Paper 2007-15). Denmark: University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
  17. Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., & Thiele, R. (2011). Are ‘new’ donors different? Comparing the allocation of bilateral aid between non-DAC and DAC donor countries. World Development, 39(11), 1950–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feeny, S., & de Silva, A. (2012). Measuring absorptive capacity constraints to foreign aid. Economic Modelling, 29(3), 725–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feeny, S., & McGillivray, M. (2008). What determines bilateral aid allocations? New evidence from time-series data. Review of Development Economics, 12(3), 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feeny, S., & McGillivray, M. (2011). Scaling-up foreign aid: Will the big push work? The World Economy, 34(1), 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glennie, J., & Sumner, A. (2014). The $138.5 billion question: When does foreign aid work (and when doesn’t it)? (CGD Policy Paper 49). Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. http://www.cgdev.org/publication/1385-billion-question-when-does-foreign-aid-work-and-when-doesnt-it. Accessed 3/2/2019.
  22. Hansen, P., Kergozou, N., Knowles, S., & Thorsnes, P. (2014). Developing countries in need: Which characteristics appeal most to people when donating money? Journal of Development Studies, 50(11), 1494–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen, P., & Ombler, F. (2008). A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 15, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (2000). Aid effectiveness disputed. Journal of International Development, 12, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (2001). Aid and growth regressions. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 547–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoeffler, A., & Outram, V. (2011). Need, merit, or self-interest—What Determines the Allocation of Aid? Review of Development Economics, 15, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hudson, J., & Mosley, P. (2001). Aid, policies and growth: In search of the Holy Grail. Journal of International Development, 13, 1023–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. IMF. (2017). Direction of trade statistics. Washington: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  29. Isenman, P. (1976). Biases in aid allocations against poorer and larger countries. World Development, 4(8), 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kapstein, E. B. (2005). The politics of policy coherence. In OECD (Ed.), Fostering development in a global economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  31. Lensink, R., & White, H. (2001). Are there negative returns to aid? Journal of Development Studies, 37(6), 42–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Llavador, H. G., & Roemer, J. E. (2001). An equal opportunity approach to the allocation of international aid. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maizels, A., & Nissanke, M. (1984). Motivations for aid to developing countries. World Development, 12, 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, W., & Raimondos-Møller, P. (2003). The politics of foreign aid: A median voter perspective. Review of Development Economics, 7, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGillivray, M., & Clarke, M. (2018). Fairness in the international allocation of development aid. The World Economy, 41(4), 1068–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGillivray, M., Feeny, S., Hermes, N., & Lensink, R. (2006). It works; No it doesn’t; well, it can, but that depends…: 50 years of controversy over the macroeconomic impact of development aid. Journal of International Development, 18, 1031–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGillivray, M., & Oczkowski, E. (1991). Modelling the allocation of Australian bilateral aid: A two-part sample selection approach. Economic Record, 67, 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGillivray, M., & Oczkowski, E. (1992). A two-part sample selection model of British bilateral foreign aid allocation. Applied Economics, 24(12), 1311–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGillivray, M., & White, H. (1994). Development criteria for the allocation and aid and assessment of donor performance (CREDIT Research Papers 94/7). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  40. McGillivray, M., White, H., & Leavy, J. (2002). Aid principles and policy: An operational basis for the assessment of donor performance. In B. M. Arvin (Ed.), New perspectives on foreign aid and economic development. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  41. Mekasha, T. J., & Tarp, F. (2011). Aid and growth: What meta-analysis reveals (UNU-WIDER Working Paper No. 2011/22). Helsinki: United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research.Google Scholar
  42. Mekasha, T. J., & Tarp, F. (2018). A meta-analysis of aid effectiveness: Revisiting the evidence (UNU-WIDER Working Paper No. 2018/44). Helsinki: United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research.Google Scholar
  43. Morrissey, O. (2001). Does aid increase growth? Progress in Development Studies, 1(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neumayer, E. (2003). Do human rights matter in bilateral aid allocation? A quantitative analysis of 21 donor countries. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD. (2011). OECD report on division of labour: Addressing cross-country fragmentation of aid. Paris: Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD).Google Scholar
  46. OECD. (2017). Development aid rises again in 2016. Paris: Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/ODA-2016-detailed-summary.pdf. Accessed 3/2/2019.
  47. OECD. (2018). DAC list of ODA recipients. Paris: Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/daclist.htm. Accessed 3/2/2019.
  48. Rajan, R. G., & Subramanian, A. (2008). Aid and growth: What does the cross-country evidence really show? Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 643–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roodman, D. (2007). The anarchy of numbers: Aid, development, and cross-country empirics. The World Bank Economic Review, 21(2), 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roodman, D. (2009). An index of donor performance (Working Paper No. 67). Washington: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
  51. Lightfoot, S. Davies, G. A. M, & Johns, R. (2016). Needs and interests: Understanding the British public’s balancing of aid priorities, conference on public opinion and foreign aid: Methodology and policy perspectives. UK: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  52. USAID. (2017). Mission, vision and values. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/mission-vision-values. Accessed 3/2/2019.
  53. Wood, A. (2008). Looking ahead optimally in allocating aid. World Development, 36, 1135–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. World Bank. (2018). World development indicators online database. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics, Finance and MarketingRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.1000mindsWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations