Rethinking Foreign Aid and Legitimacy: Views from Aid Recipients in Kenya

Abstract

Contrary to scholarly predictions, foreign aid does not appear to undermine individuals’ beliefs in the legitimacy of their governments. This paper aims to understand why this prediction has failed to materialize in mounting evidence. I develop explanations inductively based on original descriptive evidence from a survey and in-depth interviews in western Kenya. I propose, first, that the prediction itself incorrectly assumes individuals expect their governments to be self-sufficient, and second, tax-based measurements of legitimacy are sometimes ill-suited to developing country contexts. I offer specific suggestions for how future studies can overcome these limitations in their theories and research designs. The contribution of this project is to facilitate future research by furnishing detailed and descriptive evidence on how individuals from a relevant sample think about politics and aid.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    While this is not the only conceptualization of legitimacy, it is the one that has been invoked in the study of foreign aid and therefore is the focus of my discussion. This contemporary approach in political science is often called “audience legitimacy” or “procedural legitimacy” and follows from a Weberian legal-rational tradition. For earlier approaches in political science, see Rothschild (1977); for alternative approaches in law and sociology, see Suchman (1995); Bottoms and Tankebe (2012); Tyler and Jackson (2013).

  2. 2.

    See also Whaites (1998); Schuller (2009); Batley and Mcloughlin (2010); Brinkerhoff et al. (2012).

  3. 3.

    A more detailed summary of the following literature review appears in the Appendix.

  4. 4.

    Blair and Roessler (2018) preregistered their hypothesis that attributing aid projects to a foreign donor would reduce tax compliance, their measure of government legitimacy. This is further evidence that most scholars have, in their applications of existing theories, predicted a negative relationship between foreign aid and government legitimacy. See http://egap.org/ registration-details/1285.

  5. 5.

    While there is also surprising new evidence that foreign aid improves political institutions (see Jones and Tarp 2016), this is a separate mechanism from the one invoked in predictions about government legitimacy. My review and investigation concern itself with arguments about how individuals perceive the legitimacy of their governments, holding constant the quality of governance itself.

  6. 6.

    Response from survey participant 41, October 27, 2015. Participant was asked to explain why s/he expressed agreement with the statement: “Wealthy countries usually give more aid to countries with ineffective governments.”

  7. 7.

    Author’s interview, November 16, 2015. See, for example, Briggs (2012, 2014); Jablonski (2014).

  8. 8.

    For example, author’s interview, July 20, 2015.

  9. 9.

    Response from survey participant 65, October 29, 2015.

  10. 10.

    Response from survey participant 52, October 28, 2015.

  11. 11.

    This question asked individuals to rate their agreement with two statements: “Wealthy countries usually give more aid to countries with ineffective governments.” or “Wealthy countries usually give more aid to countries with effective governments.” Forty-nine percent agreed with the first while 45% agreed with the second (6% agreed with neither, N = 155). The quotations above are typical of the open-ended responses given by most participants.

  12. 12.

    A caveat is that my study investigates individuals’ perceptions of the revenue sources of the central government, not their perceptions of how individual projects are funded. Dietrich et al. (2018) find individuals are generally unaware of the funding source of specific projects. Understanding the relationship between awareness of local project donors and national government donors is a topic for future research.

  13. 13.

    Results calculated using pairwise complete observations to make use of as much data as possible. However, results are similar when calculated using complete observations (coefficients of .66 and .59 respectively), limiting the sample to 74 respondents who answered all five questions.

  14. 14.

    Willingness to be taxed is just one example of a broader category of measures concerning individuals’ perceived obligation to obey the law (Bottoms and Tankebe 2012, 163). Studies about NGOs and foreign aid have focused on the perceived rights of tax authorities, which more directly relate to the goods and services provided by government, while studies in the criminal justice domain focus on the perceived rights of law enforcement officials.

  15. 15.

    See Wright and Winters (2010) for a review of the aid allocation literature.

  16. 16.

    A caveat to this argument is that aid does not always reach the poorest. Winters (2014) points out that there is substantial variation in the success of targeting aid projects to the poorest areas and, subsequently, to the poorest people within those areas. Politically connected individuals and communities may be able to better capture aid, even if they are not as needy. Even so, since the intent behind an aid project is often to benefit the least well-off, it is important to recognize that aid beneficiaries will have, on average, lower tax burdens. An alternative or additional mechanism driving this relationship could be that there is less need to tax certain communities because they receive foreign aid—see Eubank (2012) and Marineau (2020).

  17. 17.

    See, e.g., Blair and Roessler 2018; Blair 2018.

  18. 18.

    Author’s observations, August–November 2015. See the Appendix for an example of a Kenyan government poster encouraging individuals to be tested for tuberculosis.

  19. 19.

    Suggestive evidence for this third claim appears in the Appendix.

References

  1. Baldwin K, Winters MS. How do different forms of foreign aid affect government legitimacy? Evidence from an informational experiment in Uganda. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2020;55(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-020-09303-8. this issue.

  2. Barma NH, Levy N, Piombo J. The impact of aid dynamics on state effectiveness and legitimacy. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2020;55(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-020-09304-7. this issue.

  3. Bates RH, Lien D-HD. A note on taxation, development, and representative government. Polit Soc. 1985;14:53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Batley R, Mcloughlin C. Engagement with non-state service providers in fragile states: reconciling state-building and service delivery. Dev Policy Rev. 2010;28(2):131–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blair, RA. "Legitimacy after violence: evidence from two lab-in-the-field experiments in Liberia" (January 23, 2018). Available at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2326671

  6. Blair RA, Roessler P. The effects of Chinese aid on state legitimacy in Africa: cross-national and sub-national evidence from surveys, survey experiments, and behavioral games. AidData Working Paper, 59; 2018.

  7. Bodea C, LeBas A. The origins of voluntary compliance: attitudes toward taxation in urban Nigeria. Br J Polit Sci. 2016;46(1):215–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bottoms A, Tankebe J. Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J Crim Law Criminol. 2012;102(1):119–70.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brass JN. Allies or adversaries: NGOs and the state in Africa: Cambridge Univ Press; 2016.

  10. Bratton M. The politics of government-NGO relations in Africa. World Dev. 1989;17(4):569–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Briggs RC. Electrifying the base? Aid and incumbent advantage in Ghana. J Mod Afr Stud. 2012;50(4):603–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Briggs RC. Aiding and abetting: project aid and ethnic politics in Kenya. World Dev. 2014;64:194–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Briggs RC. The influence of aid changes on African election outcomes. Int Interact. 2015;41(2):201–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brinkerhoff D, Wetterberg A, Dunn S. Service delivery and legitimacy in fragile and conflict-affected states. Public Manag Rev. 2012;14(2):273–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bullock W, Imai K, Shapiro JN. Statistical analysis of endorsement experiments: measuring support for militant groups in Pakistan. Polit Anal. 2011;19(4):363–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cilliers J, Dube O, Siddiqi B. The white-man effect: how foreigner presence affects behavior in experiments. J Econ Behav Organ. 2015;118:397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cruz C, Schneider CJ. Foreign aid and undeserved credit claiming. Am J Polit Sci. 2017;61(2).

  18. de la Cuesta B, Milner H, Nielson DL, Knack S. Oil and aid revenue produce equal demands for accountability as taxes in Ghana and Uganda. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(36):17717-17722. 

  19. Dietrich S, Winters MS. Foreign aid and government legitimacy. J Exp Polit Sci. 2015;2(2).

  20. Dietrich S, Mahmud M, Winters MS. Foreign aid, foreign policy, and domestic government legitimacy: survey experimental evidence from Bangladesh. J Polit. 2018;80(1).

  21. Eubank N. Taxation, political accountability and foreign aid: lessons from Somaliland. J Dev Stud. 2012;48(4):465–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Findley MG, Harris AS, Milner HV, Nielson DL. Elite and mass support for foreign aid versus government programs: experimental evidence from Uganda: Int Organ. 2017. p. 1–50.

  23. Guiteras R, Mobarak AM. Does development aid undermine political accountability Leader and Constituent Responses to a Large-Scale Intervention; 2015.

  24. Jablonski RS. How aid targets votes: the impact of electoral incentives on foreign aid distribution. World Polit. 2014;66(2):293–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones S, Tarp F. Does foreign aid harm political institutions? J Dev Econ. 2016;118:266–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Levi M. Of rule and revenue. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Levi M, Sacks A, Tyler T. Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. Am Behav Sci. 2009;53(3):354–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lieberman ES. Can the biomedical research cycle be a model for political science? Perspect Polit. 2016;14(4):1054–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marineau JF. Aiding dependency: a cross-national analysis of foreign aid and tax compliance. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2020;55(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-020-09306-5. this issue.

  30. Martin L. Taxation, loss aversion, and accountability: theory and experimental evidence for taxation’s effect on citizen behavior. 2014.

  31. Moore M. Between coercion and contract: competing narratives on taxation and governance. In: Brautigam D, Fjeldstag O-H, Moore M, editors. Taxation and state-building in developing countries: capacity and consent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  32. North DC, Weingast BR. Constitutions and commitment: the evolution of institutional governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. J Econ Hist. 1989;49(4):803–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ross ML. Does taxation lead to representation? Br J Polit Sci. 2004;34(March 2004):229–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rothschild J. Observations on political legitimacy in contemporary Europe. Polit Sci Q. 1977;92(3):487–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sacks A. Can donors and non-state actors undermine citizens’ legitimating beliefs? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 6158. 2012.

  36. Schmelzle C, Stollenwerk E. Virtuous or vicious circle? Governance effectiveness and legitimacy in areas of limited statehood. 2018.

  37. Schuller M. Gluing globalization: NGOs as intermediaries in Haiti. PoLAR: Polit Legal Anthropol Rev. 2009;32(1):84–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Seawright J. Multi-method social science: combining qualitative and quantitative tools: Cambridge University Press; 2016.

  39. Suchman MC. Managing legitimacy : strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev. 1995;20(3):571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tyler, T. R. and Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In Tankebe, J. and Liebling, A., editors, Legitimacy and criminal justice: An International Exploration Oxford University Press.

  41. Whaites A. Viewpoint NGOs, civil society and the state : avoiding theoretical extremes in real world issues. Dev Pract. 1998;8(3):343–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Winters MS. Targeting, accountability and capture in development projects. Int Stud Q. 2014;58(2):393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wright J, Winters M. The politics of effective foreign aid. Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2010;13:61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper was previously circulated under the title “Attitudes toward Foreign Aid in Recipient Countries: Evidence from Microdata from Kenya.” I am grateful to John Okinda and Moses Onyango for excellent research assistance. Thanks to Eric Arias, Chris Blattman, Allison Carnegie, Alicia Cooperman, Kolby Hanson, Mary Louis, Lucy Martin, Anna Wilke, and Matthew Winters. This work also benefited from feedback from participants in Columbia University workshops and at ISA 2016, MPSA 2016, the 2017 Workshop on Experiments in Foreign Aid Research, and APSA 2018.

Funding

This project was made possible through generous support from the Columbia University Department of Political Science, the Columbia University Center for Development Economics and Policy, and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (Grant DGE-11-44155).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindsay R. Dolan.

Ethics declarations

This project was approved by the Columbia University Institutional Review Board under protocol AAAP6605 and permitted by the Government of Kenya.

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

(DOCX 511 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dolan, L.R. Rethinking Foreign Aid and Legitimacy: Views from Aid Recipients in Kenya. St Comp Int Dev 55, 143–159 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-020-09302-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Foreign aid
  • Legitimacy
  • Taxation
  • Measurement