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

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    The full list of reason codes can be found on the US Treasury Department’s website: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/development-banks/Documents/Voting%20records.pdf

  2. 2.

    This legislation and the legislation governing the harboring and failure to apprehend war criminals does pertain provisions for the waiving of the sanction but those provisions do not basic human needs.

  3. 3.

    This was the case for Myanmar from 2004 to 2012, which is the time period under investigation in this study.

  4. 4.

    Those original regional votes in which all the individual countries that are a part of the proposal could be identified were disaggregated and a separate observation was created for each country. Those original regional observations in which it could not be established which countries were a part of the project were left as one regional observation.

References

  1. Andersen TM, Hansen H, Markussen T (2006) US politics and World Bank IDA-lending. The Journal of Development Studies 42 5: 772-794.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Babb, S (2009) Behind the Development Banks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fariss, CJ (2010) The strategic substitution of United States foreign aid. Foreign Policy Analysis 6 2 107-131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Freedom House (2012) Freedom in the World Survey, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012.VVCprVpCczZ, (last accessed 13-05-2016).

  11. Freedom House (2006) Methodology, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2006 (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gibney M, Cornett L, Wood R (2012) Political Terror Scale 1976-2012 www.politicalterrorscale.org (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Heinrich T (2013) When is Foreign Aid Selfish, When is it Selfless?. Journal of Politics 75 2: 422-435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hicks N, Streeten P (1979) Indicators of Development: The Search for a Basic Needs Yardstick. World Development 7 6: 567-580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. International Monetary Fund (2012) World Economic Outlook Database, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/index.aspx (Last accessed 14-05-2016).

  18. King G, Zeng, L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9 2: 137-163.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosenblum MR, Salehyan, I (2004) Norms and interests in US asylum enforcement. Journal of Peace Research 41 6: 677-697.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Streeten PP (1979) Basic Needs: Premises and Promises. Journal of Policy Modeling 1: 136-146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. United Nations Development Programme (2013) Human Development Reports. http://hdr.undp.org/en/69206 (Last accessed 14-05-2016).

  31. United States Agency for International Development (2012) US Overseas Loans and Grants. http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/ (Last accessed 14-05-2016).

  32. United States Agency for International Development (2014) USAID History http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/usaid-history (Last accessed 14-05-2016).

  33. United States Census Bureau (2012a) Foreign Trade Statistics http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/index.html (Last accessed 14-05-2016).

  34. United States Census Bureau (2012b) International Database http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php (Last accessed 14-05-2016).

  35. United States Department of State (2012) United States Participation in the United Nations. http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rpt/c47366.htm (Last accessed 14-05-2016).

  36. United States Department of Treasury (2012) Loan Review Votes http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/development-banks/Pages/data.aspx (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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Braaten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braaten, D. “Walking a Tightrope: Human Rights, Basic Human Needs and US Support for Development Projects in the Multilateral Development Banks”. Hum Rights Rev 18, 45–66 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-016-0438-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Foreign Policy
  • Human Trafficking
  • Physical Integrity
  • Female Genital Mutilation
  • Executive Board