Skip to main content

Catch me if you care: International development organizations and national corruption

Abstract

Many international development organizations (IDOs) have officially mandated anti-corruption criteria for aid selectivity. Substantial debate remains over whether corruption deters aid and whether anti-corruption rules are effectively implemented. We argue that the extent to which both corruption and anti-corruption mandates factor into IDO allocation depends on the composition of the donors. Using existing data on corruption alongside newly collected data on anti-corruption mandates, we demonstrate that organizations composed of corrupt donors are just as likely to adopt, but less likely to enforce, anti-corruption mandates. Organizations composed of less corrupt donors, by contrast, tend to divert aid away from corrupt states, with or without formal anti-corruption rules in place. The findings have implications for the debate over whether international efforts to institutionalize “good governance” standards are sincere or cheap talk, whether multilateral strategies are in fact less politicized than bilateral aid allocation strategies, and whether international organizations should be inclusive, open to membership by many or even all states, including those with dubious track records.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Oehler et al. (2012) show that anti-corruption programs are not always effective. See also Neumayer (2003a, b); Vreeland (2006, 2007); Clist (2011); Winters and Martinez (2014).

  2. 2.

    For a canonical discussion, see Chayes and Chayes (1993).

  3. 3.

    Some scholars find a positive relationship between foreign aid and economic growth (Sachs 2006; Galiani et al. 2014); some find no relationship (Burnside and Dollar 2000); and some find a negative relationship (Easterly and Pfuetze 2008; Knack 2009).

  4. 4.

    That declaration was followed by a 1998 World Bank report and a seminal article by Burnside and Dollar (2000) claiming that foreign aid could only foster economic growth under the condition that recipient countries pursued “good” economic policies.

  5. 5.

    Follow-up conferences in Doha (2008) and Addis Adaba (2015) further institutionalized global anti-corruption norms.

  6. 6.

    Although there is some evidence that good governance in recipient countries can improve aid efforts, other studies do not find a positive effect (Svensson 1999; Zanger 2000).

  7. 7.

    Along similar lines, Hafner-Burton and Schneider (2019) find that corruption can spread through international organizations and affect levels of national corruption in their member states.

  8. 8.

    See also Milner (2006); Milner and Tingley (2011, 2013a).

  9. 9.

    According to AidData, Ghana, Nigeria and Sudan are the biggest recipients of Chinese aid which goes primarily to infrastructure projects like oil pipelines: http://aiddata.org/. According to Transparency International, China’s government ranks as highly corrupt (http://www.transparency.org/country#CHN).

  10. 10.

    Recent work, however, indicates that Chinese bilateral aid is not likely to be more politicized than Western aid (Dreher and Fuchs 2015; Strange et al. 2017; Dreher, Fuchs, Parks, Strange, & Tierney, 2018).

  11. 11.

    A related strand of the literature demonstrates that donors make use of these differences when deciding whether or not to delegate to those organizations (Winters 2010; Dietrich 2013, 2016; Schneider and Tobin 2016).

  12. 12.

    For all IDOs in our sample we code whether the organization in a given year had a formal, and enforceable, anti-corruption mandate in place (0,1). Online Appendix A (available from the authors and on the Review of International Organization’s website) provides the data on mandates. Online Appendix C elaborates on the definition and coding protocol. See also Lohaus (2019) for a more general historical discussion of anti-corruption mandates in international organizations.

  13. 13.

    In 2015, the top five ADB donors included Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and the United States.

  14. 14.

    See: https://www.adb.org/site/integrity/overview.

  15. 15.

    This is consistent with Pevehouse (2002), who argues that if external guarantees and threats are not credible, IOs will no longer help to foster democracy.

  16. 16.

    See: http://www.caribank.org/.

  17. 17.

    The sample is based on the data availability. The latest AidData research release only covers aid allocation through 2013. A list of IDOs in our data set is in Online Appendix A.

  18. 18.

    Anti-corruption mandates are often dual focused on the prevention and prosecution of corruption in recipient countries. Available data on aid commitments best align with IDO policies that speak to the consideration of recipient corruption at the allocation stage. For example, the ADB’s Office of Anti-Corruption and Integrity states “Management and staff will consider issues of corruption more explicitly in the formulation of the country strategy and program” (Asian Development Bank 1998). In the World Bank’s updated Integrity Guidelines, a risk assessment relating to the potential occurrence of fraud and corruption is required before program initiation. Even where policies are more prosecutorial, provisions are explicit about how current allegations will block future commitments until complaints are resolved.

  19. 19.

    There exist alternative corruption indicators, notably the corruption score of the World Governance Indicators (WGI), and Transparency International’s corruption index (CPI). The correlation between these three indicators is very high (above 0.9), and we show in Online Appendix F that our main results are robust to using these alternative corruption indicators.

  20. 20.

    Graham and Tucker’s (2019) measures for GDP and population use data from the Penn World Table to supplement data missing from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators.

  21. 21.

    For each variable, we isolate the top ten largest members within each IDO-year based on GDP. We then calculated the average distance from or trade with these top ten members.

  22. 22.

    The use of Tobit estimation is consistent with the current standard in the aid allocation literature. See Alesina and Dollar (2000); Alesina and Weder (2002); Berthélemy and Tichit (2004); Bermeo and Leblang (2015); Bermeo (2017).

  23. 23.

    See also Bermeo and Leblang (2015) and Neumayer (2003b) for an in-depth discussion of these issues.

  24. 24.

    Note that the inclusion of fixed effects in Tobit models can lead to bias and incorrectly estimated standard errors. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that this problem is negligible in Tobit models, particularly as the frequency of censored observations grows, and if there are more than five time periods (Greene 2004).

  25. 25.

    This is what we find when we estimate our model on the period 1984–1998. Results are available in Online Appendix M.

  26. 26.

    According to the World Bank’s definition of high-income countries. See: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups, last accessed: September, 2019.

  27. 27.

    Our interaction figure is based on Model (3) of Table 1 and generated using the code provided by Matt Golder (http://mattgolder.com/interactions#articles, last accessed: November 2016). See also Brambor et al. (2006); Berry et al. (2012).

  28. 28.

    90% confidence interval (−1.20, −0.52).

  29. 29.

    90% confidence interval (−0.22, 0.50).

  30. 30.

    90% confidence interval (0.44, 1.67).

  31. 31.

    More generally, our robustness checks indicate that the positive effect of IDO Member Corruption on aid allocations to corrupt recipients is not robust to a number of model specifications. Although the effect is not robust, it presents an interesting avenue for future research to investigate how IDOs composed of more corrupt members reach these aid allocation decisions. It is beyond the scope of this paper to do so, but one possible explanation for a positive effect could be in the rent-seeking behavior of corrupt donor governments who use regional IDOs to recoup some of the resources they contribute without being detected.

  32. 32.

    Estimation results available upon request.

  33. 33.

    The variation for IDOs without mandates is larger than for IDOs with mandates and there are a number of IDOs that have no mandate but also very low levels of average donor corruption. While the distribution is bimodal, the average value of Average IDO Corruption for observations with (2.04) and without (1.88) a mandate is very similar. The fact that IDO-years with an anti-corruption mandate in place have a marginally higher corruption score is in line with our expectation that IDOs with more corrupt donors are just as likely to adopt anti-corruption mandates.

  34. 34.

    We follow the method proposed in Brambor et al. (2006). Tabular and graphical results are reported in Appendices D and E respectively. We also split the samples by whether the IDO had a mandate or not; the results are reported alongside the triple interaction in Online Appendix D.

  35. 35.

    90% confidence interval (0.04, 0.94).

  36. 36.

    90% confidence interval (0.03, 0.37).

  37. 37.

    90% confidence interval (−0.65, −0.29).

  38. 38.

    In line with the findings on multilateral aid in Winters and Martinez (2014), results for the type of aid are inconsistent and thus we do not report them here.

  39. 39.

    Recent work, however, indicates that Chinese aid is not likely to be more politicized than Western aid (Dreher and Fuchs 2015; Strange et al. 2017; Dreher, Fuchs, et al., 2018).

References

  1. ABC News (2014). Asian Development Bank bans 31 companies for fraud, corruption. 14 March. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-14/an-adb-corruption/5321624.

  2. Alesina, A., & Dollar, D. (2000). Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1), 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alesina, A., & Weder, B. (2002). Do corrupt governments receive less foreign aid? American Economic Review, 92(4), 1126–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, T. B., Hansen, H., & Markussen, T. (2006). US politics and World Bank IDA-lending. Journal of Development Studies, 42(5), 772–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Asian Development Bank (1998). Anticorruption policy. Retrieved October 2019, from https://www.adb.org/documents/anticorruption-policy.

  6. Baker, A. (2015). Race, paternalism, and foreign aid: Evidence from US public opinion. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bauhr, M. (2016). Does corruption reduce public support for foreign aid? Aid effectiveness, accountability and foreign aid cuts. In Paper presented at the “public opinion and foreign aid: Policy and methodology perspectives” conference, April 29–30. Colchester: University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bauhr, M., Nasiritousi, N., & Charron, N. (2013). Does corruption cause aid fatigue? Public opinion and the aid corruption paradox. International Studies Quarterly, 57(3), 568–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bearak, M., & Gamino, L. (2016). The U.S. foreign-aid budget visualized. The Washington Post. 26 September. Retrieved October 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/26/the-u-s-foreign-aid-budget-visualized/

  10. Bermeo, S. B. (2017). Aid allocation and targeted development in an increasingly connected world. International Organization, 71(4), 735–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bermeo, S. B. (2018). Targeted development: Industrialized country strategy in a globalized world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Bermeo, S. B., & Leblang, D. (2015). Migration and foreign aid. International Organization, 69(3), 627–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Berry, W., Golder, M., & Milton, D. (2012). Improving tests of theories positing interaction. Journal of Politics, 74, 653–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berthélemy, J.-C. (2006). Bilateral donors’ interest vs. recipients’ development motives in aid allocation: Do all donors behave the same? Review of Development Economics, 10(2), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Berthélemy, J.-C., Beuran, M., & Maurel, M. (2009). Aid and migration: Substitutes or complements? World Development, 37(10), 1589–1599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Broz, L. J. (2005). Congressional politics of international financial rescues. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Broz, L. J., & Hawes, M. B. (2006). Congressional politics of financing the international monetary fund. International Organization, 60(4), 367–399.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, policies, and growth. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 847–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chamberlain, G. (2016). Aid minister and the scandal school tsar. Daily Mail: United Kingdom. 2 April. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520897/Aid-Minister-scandal-school-tsar-Pakistan-700m-year-education-supremo-probed-5-000-schools-don-t-exist-Justine-Greening.html

  22. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1993). On compliance. International Organization, 47(2), 175–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Clist, P. (2011). 25 years of aid allocation practice: Whither selectivity? World Development, 39(10), 1724–1734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cole, W. (2012). Institutionalizing a global anti-corruption regime: Perverse effects on country outcomes, 1984-2012. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 56(1), 53–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Copelovitch, M. S. (2010). Master or servant? Common agency and the political economy of IMF lending. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 49–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Correlates of War Project (2016). Colonial Contiguity Data, 1816-2016. Version 3.1 Retrieved from http://correlatesofwar.org.

  27. De La Croix, D., & Delavallade, C. (2013). Why corrupt governments may receive more foreign aid. Oxford Economic Papers, 66(1), 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Smith, A. (2009). A political economy of aid. International Organization, 63(4), 309–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Dietrich, S. (2013). Bypass or engage? Explaining donor delivery tactics in aid allocation. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 698–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dietrich, S. (2016). Donor political economies and the pursuit of aid effectiveness. International Organization, 70(1), 65–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dietrich, S., & Wright, J. (2015). Foreign aid tactics and democratic change in Africa. Journal of Politics, 77(1), 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dreher, A., & Fuchs, A. (2015). Rogue aid? An empirical analysis of China’s aid allocation. Canadian Journal of Economics, 48(3), 988–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dreher, A., Sturm, J.-E., & Vreeland, J. R. (2009a). Development aid and international politics: Does membership on the UN Security Council influence World Bank decisions? Journal of Development Economics, 88, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dreher, A., Sturm, J.-E., & Vreeland, J. R. (2009b). Global horse trading: IMF loans for votes in the United Nations Security Council. European Economic Review, 53(7), 742–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dreher, A., Klasen, S., Vreeland, J. R., & Werker, E. (2013). The costs of favouritism: Is politically driven aid less effective? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 62(1), 157–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dreher, A., Eichenauer, V., & Gehring, K. (2018a). Geopolitics, aid, and growth: The impact of UN Security Council membership on the effectiveness of aid. The World Bank Economic Review, 32(2), 268–286.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Parks, B., Strange, A. M., & Tierney, M. (2018b). Apples and dragon fruits: The determinants of aid and other forms of state financing from China to Africa. International Studies Quarterly, 62(1), 182–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Easterly, W., & Pfuetze, T. (2008). Where does the money go? Best and worst practices in foreign aid. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Easterly, W., & Williamson, C. R. (2011). Rhetoric versus reality: The best and worst of aid agency practices. World Development, 39(11), 1930–1949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. European Commission (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee – A comprehensive EU Policy against Corruption. COM(2003)317. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al33301.

  42. Findley, M. G., Milner, H. V., & Nielson, D. L. (2017). The choice among aid donors: The effects of multilateral vs. bilateral aid on recipient behavioral support. Review of International Organizations, 12(2), 307–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Finnemore, M., & Toope, S. J. (2001). Alternatives to ‘legalization’: Richer views of law and politics. International Organization, 55, 743–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fleck, R. K., & Kilby, C. (2006). World Bank Independence: A model and statistical analysis of US influence. Review of Development Economics, 10(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Galiani, S., Knack, S., Xu, L., & Zou, B. (2014). The effect of aid on growth: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Journal of Economic Growth, 22(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gilligan, M. (2006). Is enforcement necessary for effectiveness? A model of the international criminal regime. International Organization, 60, 935–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gleditsch, K. S., & Ward, M. D. (2001). Measuring space: A minimum distance database. Journal of Peace Research, 38, 749–768.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Graham, B. A. T., & Tucker, J. R. (2019). The international political economy data resource. The Review of International Organizations, 14(1), 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Greenberg, J. (2017). PolitiFact: Paul exaggerates degree of foreign aid theft. Tampa Bay Times. 19 January. Retreived October 2016, from http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/politifact-paul-exaggerates-degree-of-foreign-aid-theft/2310252

  50. Greene, W. (2004). Fixed effects and bias due to the incidental parameters problem in the tobit model. Econometric Reviews, 23(2), 125–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Greenhill, B. (2015). Transmitting rights: International organizations and the diffusion of human rights practices. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2005). Trading human rights: How preferential trade agreements influence government repression. International Organization, 59(3), 593–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2009). Forced to be good: Why trade agreements boost human rights. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2013). Making human rights a reality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Schneider, C. J. (2019). The dark side of cooperation: International organizations and national corruption. International Studies Quarterly, 63(4), 1108–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Tsutsui, K. (2005). Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty promises. American Journal of Sociology, 110(5), 1373–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Tsutsui, K. (2007). Justice lost! The failure of international human rights law to matter where needed most. Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 407–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hafner-Burton, E. M., LeVeck, B. L., & Victor, D. G. (2016). How activists perceive the utility of international law. Journal of Politics, 78(1), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J., & Yiqing, X. (2019). How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis, 27(2), 163–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Heinrich, T. (2013). When is foreign aid selfish, when is it selfless? Journal of Politics, 75(2), 422–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Helfer, L. L., & Voeten, E. (2011). International courts as agents of legal change: Evidence from LGBT rights in Europe. International Organization, 68(1), 77–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Tsutsui, K. (2007). Justice lost! The failure of international human rights law to matter where needed most. Journal of Peace Research, 44(4), 407–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kilby, C. (2006). Donor influence in multilateral development banks: The case of the Asian Development Bank. Review of International Organizations, 1(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kilby, C. (2011). Informal influence in the Asian Development Bank. Review of International Organizations, 6(3–4), 223–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kilby, C. (2013). An empirical assessment of informal influence in the World Bank. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 61(2), 431–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107(02), 326–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Knack, S. (2009). Sovereign rents and the quality of tax policy and administration. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(3), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Knecht, T. (2010). Paying attention to foreign affairs: How public opinion affects presidential decision making. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Landman, T. (2005). The political science of human rights. British Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lockwood, N. J. (2013). International vote buying. Harvard International Law Journal, 54(1), 97–156.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lohaus, M. (2019). Towards a global consensus against corruption: International Agreements as Products of Diffusion and Signals of Commitment. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  72. Lyne, M. M., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2009). Controlling coalitions: Social lending at the multilateral development banks. Review of International Organizations, 4(4), 407–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Milner, H. V. (2006). Why multilateralism? Foreign aid and domestic principal-agent problems. In D. G. Hawkings, D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielson, & M. J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and Agency in International Organizations (pp. 107–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  74. Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2011). Who supports global economic engagement? The sources of preferences in American foreign economic policy. International Organization, 65(4), 37–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Milner, H., & Tingley, D. (2013a). The choice for multilateralism: Foreign aid and American foreign policy. The Review of International Organizations, 8(3), 313–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Milner, H., & Tingley, D. (2013b). Geopolitics of foreign aid. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  77. Milner, H., Nielson, D. L., & Findley, M. (2016). Citizen preferences and public goods: Comparing preferences for foreign aid and government programs in Uganda. Review of International Organizations, 11(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Neumayer, E. (2003a). The determinants of aid allocation by regional multilateral development banks and UN agencies. International Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Neumayer, E. (2003b). The pattern of aid giving. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  80. Neumayer, E. (2003c). Do human rights matter in bilateral aid allocation? A quantitative analysis of 21 donor countries. Social Science Quarterly, 84(3), 650–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Neumayer, E. (2005). Do international human rights treaties improve respect for human rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(6), 925–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (2003). Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform. International Organization, 57(2), 241–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. NPR (2017). Is corruption really a big problem in foreign aid? 4 August. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/08/04/539285319/is-corruption-really-a-big-problem-in-foreign-aid.

  84. O’Neill, J. (2010). Canada wants Kenty to return squandered aid money. Canada.Com. 16 December. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+wants+Kenya+return+squandered+money/3983796/story.html.

  85. Oehler, H., Nunnenkamp, P., & Dreher, A. (2012). Does conditionality work? A test for an innovative US aid scheme. European Economic Review, 56, 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (2013). What do we know about multilateral aid? Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.oecd.org/development/financing-sustainable-development/13_03_18%20Policy%20Briefing%20on%20Multilateral%20Aid.pdf.

  87. Paxton, P., & Knack, S. (2012). Individual and country level factors affecting support for foreign aid. International Political Science Review, 33(2), 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Pevehouse, J. C. (2002). Democracy from the outside-in? International organizations and democratization. International Organization, 56(3), 515–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Pevehouse, J. C. (2005). Democracy from above: Regional organizations and democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  90. Pevehouse, J., McManus, R., Nordstrom, T., Shannon, M., & Widmann, M. (2015). Codebook for Correlates of War 3. International Governmental Organizations. Version 3.0.

  91. Pew Research Center (2016). Global attitudes and trends: Europeans face the world divided. 13 June. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-disagree-on-promoting-human-rights-moderate-support-for-development-aid/.

  92. Prather, L. 2019. Values at the water’s edge: Social welfare values and foreign aid. Working paper, UCSD.

  93. Prizzon, A., Greenhill, R., & Mustapha, S. (2016). An age of choice for development finance. United Kingdom Overseas Development Institute.

  94. Reuters. (2012). EU joins national donors in freezing aid to uganda over graft. 4 December. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uganda-aid/eu-joins-national-donors-in-freezing-aid-to-uganda-over-graft-idUSBRE8B30DA20121204

  95. Rodrik, D. (1995). Why is there multilateral lending? NBER Working Paper #5160.

  96. Sachs, J. (2006). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Sarkees, M. R., & Wayman, F. (2010). Resort to War: 1816–2007. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  98. Schneider, C. J., & Tobin, J. L. (2013). Interest coalitions and multilateral aid allocation in the European Union. International Studies Quarterly, 57(1), 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Schneider, C. J., & Tobin, J. L. (2016). Portfolio similarity and international development aid. International Studies Quarterly, 60(4), 647–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Schudel, C. (2008). Corruption and bilateral aid. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(4), 507–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Simmons, B. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. Simmons, B., Dobbin, F., & Garrett, G. (2006). The international diffusion of liberalism. International Organization, 60(4), 781–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Smith-Cannoy Heather. (2012). Insincere commitments: Human rights treaties, abusive states, and citizen activism. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Sonawane, Vishakha. (2016). Saudi royal family corruption: Saudi, Abu Dhabi royals bribed top Al Arabiya official, report says. International Business Times. 24 November. Retrieved October 2019, from http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-royal-family-corruption-saudi-abu-dhabi-royals-bribed-top-al-arabiya-official-2450850

  105. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) (2013). Health Services in Afghanistan: USIAD Continues Providing Millions of Dollars to the Ministry of Public Health despite the Risk of Misuse of Funds. Audit 13–17 September. Retrieved October 2019, from https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/audits/SIGAR%20Audit%2013-17.pdf.

  106. Stone, R. W. (2002). Lending credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the post-communist transition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  107. Stone, R. W. (2004). The political economy of IMF lending in Africa. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 577–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Stone, R. W. (2008). The scope of IMF conditionality. International Organization, 62, 589–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Strange, A., Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Parks, B., & Tierney, M. J. (2017). Tracking under-reported financial flows: China’s development finance and the aid-conflict nexus revisited. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(5), 935–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Svensson, J. (1999). Aid, growth and democracy. Economics and Politics, 11(3), 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 19–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Thacker, S. (1999). The high politics of IMF lending. World Politics, 52, 38–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. The Guardian (2014). UK and international donors suspend Tanzania aid after corruption claims. Retrieved October 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/13/uk-and-international-donors-suspend-tanzania-aid-after-corruption-claims.

  114. Tierney, M. J., Nielson, D. L., Hawkins, D. G., Timmons Roberts, J., Findley, M. G., Powers, R. M., Parks, B., Wilson, S. E., & Hicks, R. L. (2011). More dollars than sense: Refining our knowledge of development finance using AidData. World Development, 39(11), 1891–1906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Transparency International (2017). The 2017 Corruption perceptions index. Retrieved October 2019, from https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016.

  116. U.S. Office of Inspector General (2016). Statement: Reports of Corrupt Practices in Cross-Border Aid to Syria. 6 May. Retrieved October 2019, from https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/statement_05062016_usaid_oig_syria_aid.pdf.

  117. Victor, D. G. (2011). Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  118. Vreeland, J. R. (2006). IMF program compliance: Aggregate index versus policy specific research strategies. Review of International Organization, 1(4), 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Vreeland, J. R. (2007). The International Monetary Fund: Politics of conditional lending. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Vreeland, J. R., & Dreher, A. (2014). The political economy of the United Nations Security Council. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Weeks, J. L. (2008). Autocratic audience costs: Regime type and signaling resolve. International Organization, 62(1), 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Winters, M. S. (2010). Choosing to target: What types of countries get different types of World Bank projects. World Politics, 62(3), 422–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Winters, M. S., & Martinez, G. (2014). The role of governance in determining foreign aid flow composition. World Development, 66, 516–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Wolfensohn, J. D. (1996). “People and Development.” Address to the Board of Governors at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Reprinted in Voice for the World’s Poor: Selected Speeches and Writings of World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn, 1995–2005. Washington: World Bank.

  125. Zanger, S. (2000). Good governance and European aid. European Union Politics, 1(3), 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sarah Bermeo, Axel Dreher, Andreas Fuchs, Susanne Mueller, Jon Pevehouse, Tal Sadeh, Mike Tierney, and the participants at the PEIO conference (2017), the speaker series at the University of Konstanz (2017) and the University of Wisconsin at Madison (2018), the International Studies Association annual conference (2017) and the International Political Economy Society conference (2017) for helpful comments. Hafner-Burton gratefully acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego. Schneider gratefully acknowledges financial support from the UCSD Academic Senate (#RP85G-SCHNEIDER) and the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union. We thank Rachel Schoner for her research assistance.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lauren L. Ferry, Emilie M. Hafner-Burton or Christina J. Schneider.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(ZIP 8735 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferry, L.L., Hafner-Burton, E.M. & Schneider, C.J. Catch me if you care: International development organizations and national corruption. Rev Int Organ 15, 767–792 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09371-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corruption
  • Good governance
  • Foreign aid
  • International development organizations
  • Anti-corruption mandates