Skip to main content

Polish and Czech foreign aid: a ‘mélange’ of geopolitical and developmental objectives

Abstract

This paper seeks to bring new insights into the foreign aid allocation behaviour and patterns of two donors from the group of post-communist EU member countries, namely Poland and the Czech Republic. We use quantitative regression analysis to address Polish and Czech foreign aid objectives with a specific emphasis on geopolitical considerations and promotion of democracy. The results reveal a considerable level of similarity between Polish and Czech foreign aid allocation. Both donor countries use foreign aid to safeguard their own geopolitical self-interests—the Czech Republic and especially Poland prioritise post-Soviet countries in their aid allocations. They also prefer recipients in a relative geographic proximity. On the other hand, economic objectives are not significant drivers of Polish and Czech foreign aid. Given the recipients’ needs, the middle-income effects are evident in both countries’ aid allocations. Although support of democracy is an official objective of both donors, the level of democracy and freedom played a statistically significant role only in the allocation of overall Czech aid. A separated analysis on Polish and Czech democracy aid reveals even stronger biases of democracy aid towards former post-Soviet countries. Our research has also acknowledged the need for a more precise definition of democratic assistance.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Heteroscedasticity refers to a situation in which the variability of a dependent variable is unequal across the range of values of independent variables. It occurs as a violation of a homoscedasticity assumption according to which the variability of a dependent variable is equal across any set of values of independent variables.

  2. 2.

    There are at least two reasons to choose this indicator. First, we want to use an index that measures the quality of public institutions. According to the World Bank (2017), this indicator captures the perceptions of the quality of public and civil services and the degree of their independence from political pressures. It also captures the perceptions of the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies. The second reason is rather functional: this dimension of the Worldwide Governance Indicators has the lowest correlation with other variables used in the context of the merit hypothesis.

  3. 3.

    As already pointed out earlier, the same logic could be applied to the quality of governance and institutions. Similarly, while we categorise democracy and freedoms among factors of merit, their deficiencies could be regarded as special needs as well. This suggests that the classification of factors is sometimes debatable.

References

  1. Acemoglu, Daron and A. James Robinson (2012) Why nations fail : the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty, New York: Crown Business.

  2. Alesina, Alberto and David Dollar (2000) ‘Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?’, Journal of Economic Growth 5(1): 33–63.

  3. Andrespok, Evelin and Andres Ilmar Kasekamp (2012) ‘Development Cooperation of the Baltic States: A Comparison of the Trajectories of Three New Donor Countries’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 13(1): 117–30.

  4. Bailey, Michael A., Anton Strezhnev and Erik Voeten (2017) ‘Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(2): 430–56.

  5. Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu and Katarina Vermann (2013) ‘Donor Motives for Foreign Aid’, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 95(4): 327–36.

  6. Barthel, Fabian, Eric Neumayer, Peter Nunnenkamp and Pablo Selaya (2014) ‘Competition for Export Markets and the Allocation of Foreign Aid: The Role of Spatial Dependence among Donor Countries’, World Development 64: 350–65.

  7. Beck, Thorsten, George Clarke, Alberto Groff, Philip Keefer and Patrick Walsh (2001) ‘New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions’, World Bank Economic Review 15: 165–76.

  8. Berthelemy, Jean-Claude (2006) ‘Bilateral Donors’ Interest vs. Recipients’ Development Motives in Aid Allocation: Do All Donors Behave the Same?’, Review of Development Economics 10(2): 179–94.

  9. Berthélemy, Jean-Claude and Ariane Tichit (2004) ‘Bilateral Donors’ Aid Allocation Decisions ‒ a Three-Dimensional Panel Analysis’, International Review of Economics & Finance 13(3): 253–74.

  10. Berti, Benedetta, Kristina Mikulova and Nicu Popescu (2016) ‘Introduction: democratisation of EU foreign policy? The role of new member states from Central and Eastern Europe’, in Benedetta Berti, Kristina Mikulova and Nicu Popescu, eds, Democratization in EU Foreign Policy: New member states as drivers of democracy promotion, 1–9, London: Routledge.

  11. Bučar, Maja, Eva Nastav and Anija Mešič (2014) ‘Development Cooperation in New EU Member States: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations’, in Paul Hoebink and Lau Schulpen, eds, Private Development Aid in Europe. Foreign Aid between the Public and the Private Domain, 257–91, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  12. Burnside, Craig and David Dollar (2000) ‘Aid, Policies, and Growth’, American Economic Review 90(4): 847–68.

  13. Canavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo Javier, Rainer Thiele and Luis Triveño (2005) ‘Assessing the Allocation of Aid: Developmental Concerns and the Self-Interest of Donors’, Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).

  14. Carbone, Maurizio (2004) ‘Development’, in Neill Nugent, ed., European Union Enlargement, 242–52, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  15. Chong, Alberto and Mark Gradstein (2008) ‘What determines foreign aid? The donors’ perspective’, Journal of Development Economics 87(1): 1–13.

  16. Collier, Paul and David Dollar (2002) ‘Aid Allocation and Poverty Reduction’, European Economic Review 46(8): 1475–500.

  17. Cooray, Nawalage S., Ricardo Gottschalk and Md. Shahiduzzaman (2005) ‘Will Japan Increase Aid and Improve Its Allocation to Help the Poorer Countries Achieve the Millennium Development Goals?’, Brighton: IDS, IDS Working Paper 243.

  18. Czech Republic (2010) Act on Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, and Amending Related Laws, no. 151 of 21 April, 2010.

  19. Degnbol-Martinussen, John and Poul Engberg-Pedersen (2003) Aid : understanding international development cooperation, London; New York: Zed Books.

  20. Dollar, David and Victoria Levin (2006) ‘The Increasing Selectivity of Foreign Aid, 1984–2003’, World Development 34(12): 2034–46.

  21. Drążkiewicz-Grodzicka, Elżbieta (2015) ‘Poland: Attempts at Defining Aid by Solidarity, Democracy and Development’, in Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň and Simon Lightfoot, eds, Development Cooperation of the New EU Member States, 43–63, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  22. Dreher, Axel and Andreas Fuchs (2015) ‘Rogue Aid? An Empirical Analysis of China’s Aid Allocation’, Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique 48(3): 988–1023.

  23. Dreher, Axel, Peter Nunnenkamp and Rainer Thiele (2011) ‘Are ‘New’ Donors Different? Comparing the Allocation of Bilateral Aid Between NonDAC and DAC Donor Countries’, World Development 39(11): 1950–68.

  24. Dreher, Axel, Peter Nunnenkamp, Hannes Oehler and Johannes Weisser (2009a) ‘Acting Autonomously or Mimicking the State and Peers? A Panel Tobit Analysis of Financial Dependence and Aid Allocation by Swiss NGOs’, Kiel, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 2617.

  25. Dreher, Alex, Jan-Egbert Sturm and James Raymond Vreeland (2009b) ‘Development aid and international politics: Does membership on the UN Security Council influence World Bank decisions?’, Journal of Development Economics 88(1): 1–18.

  26. Faizullaev, Alisher and Jérémie Cornut (2017) ‘Narrative Practice in International Politics and Diplomacy: The Case of the Crimean Crisis’, Journal of International Relations and Development 20(3): 578–604.

  27. Feeny, Simon and Mark McGillivray (2008) ‘What Determines Bilateral Aid Allocations? Evidence From Time Series Data’, Review of Development Economics 12(3): 515–29.

  28. Fleck, Robert K. and Christopher Kilby (2010) ‘Changing aid regimes? U.S. foreign aid from the Cold War to the War on Terror’, Journal of Development Economics 91(2): 185–97.

  29. Freedom House (2017) ‘Freedom in the World | Freedom House’, available at https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world (last accessed on 3 November, 2017).

  30. Grabowska, Mirosława (2017) ‘Religiosity, the Catholic Church, and Politics in Poland’, in Sabrina Ramet and Irena Borowik, eds, Religion, Politics, and Values in Poland. Continuity and Change Since 1989, 257–88, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  31. Grim, Brian, Todd Johnson, Vegard Skirbekk and Gina Zurlo (2015) ‘World Religions by Country’, in Brian Grim, Todd Johnson, Vegard Skirbekk and Gina Zurlo, eds, Yearbook of International Religious Demography 2015, 241–69, Leiden/Boston: Brill.

  32. Harrigan, Jane and Chengang Wang (2011) ‘A New Approach to the Allocation of Aid Among Developing Countries: Is the USA Different from the Rest?’, World Development 39(8): 1281–93.

  33. Hoeffler, Anke and Verity Outram (2011) ‘Need, Merit, or Self-Interest-What Determines the Allocation of Aid?’, Review of Development Economics 15(2): 237–50.

  34. Hoch, Tomáš, Vincenc Kopeček and Vladimír Baar (2017) ‘Civil Society and Conflict Transformation in De Facto States’, Problems of Post-Communism 64(6): 329–41.

  35. Horký, Ondřej (2012) ‘The Transfer of the Central and Eastern European “Transition Experience” to the South: Myth or Reality?’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 13(1): 17–32.

  36. Horký, Ondřej (2011) ‘Depoliticization, Instrumentalization and Legitimacy of Czech Development Cooperation: A Case of Imposed Altruism?’, Éthique et économique/Ethics and Economics 8(1): 120–32.

  37. Horký-Hlucháň, Ondřej (2015) ‘Czechia: The Foreign Development Cooperation as a Policy without Politics’, in Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň and Simon Lightfoot, eds, Development Cooperation of the New EU Member States, 25–42, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  38. Horký, Ondřej and Simon Lightfoot (2012) ‘From Aid Recipients to Aid Donors? Development Policies of Central and Eastern European States’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 13(1): 1–16.

  39. Horký-Hlucháň, Ondřej and Balázs Szent-Iványi (2015) ‘Neither security nor development? Czech and Hungarian identities and interests in the provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan’, East European Politics 31(4): 388–406.

  40. Hynes, William and Simon Scott (2013) ‘The Evolution of Official Development Assistance: Achievements, Criticisms and a Way Forward’, OECD Publishing, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 12.

  41. Janoušková, Svatava, Tomáš Hák and Bedřich Moldan (2018) ‘Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators?’, Sustainability 10(5): 1540.

  42. Opršal, Zdeněk, and Jaromír Harmáček (2019a) ‘Clean aid or dirty aid? The environmentalization of Czech foreign aid’, Journal of Cleaner Production 224: 167–74.

  43. Opršal, Zdeněk, and Jaromír Harmáček (2019b) ‘Is foreign aid responsive to environmental needs and performance of developing countries? Case study of the Czech Republic’ Sustainability, 11(2): 401.

  44. Opršal, Zdeněk, Jaromír Harmáček, and Miroslav Syrovátka (2017) ‘Geography of Czech aid: Where and why Czechia promotes development?’ Geografie 122(2): 169–89.

  45. Harmáček, Jaromír, Miroslav Syrovátka, and Zdeněk Opršal (2017) ‘Factors of Czech Aid Selection and Allocation: Panel Probit and Tobit Analysis’ Politicka Ekonomie 65(2): 179–97.

  46. Konrád, Milan (2015) ‘Case Study 1: The Transfer of the Transition Experience: What Contribution to the EU Development Policy?’, in Ondřej Horký-Hlucháň and Simon Lightfoot, eds, Development Cooperation of the ‘New’ EU Member States, 234–38, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  47. Kopiński, Dominik (2012) ‘Visegrad Countries’ Development Aid to Africa: Beyond the Rhetoric’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 13(1): 33–49.

  48. Kuziemko, Ilyana and Eric Werker (2006) ‘How Much Is a Seat on the Security Council Worth? Foreign Aid and Bribery at the United Nations’, Journal of Political Economy 114(5): 905–30.

  49. Lancaster, Carol (2007) Foreign aid : diplomacy, development, domestic politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  50. Leichtová, Magda and Linda Piknerová (2013) Rozvojová Spolupráce Východního Bloku v Době Studené Války [Eastern Block and Development Cooperation in the Cold War Era], Prague: Dokořán.

  51. Lightfoot, Simon (2010) ‘The Europeanisation of International Development Policies: The Case of Central and Eastern European States’, Europe-Asia Studies 62(2): 329–50.

  52. Lightfoot, Simon and Balázs Szent-Iványi (2014) ‘Reluctant Donors? The Europeanization of International Development Policies in the New Member States’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 52(6): 1257–72.

  53. Lovenduski, Joni and Jean Woodall (1987) ‘The External Relations of the East European Socialist States’, in Vincent Wright, ed., Politics and Society in Eastern Europe, 388–420, London: Macmillan Education.

  54. Lumsdaine, David Halloran (1993) Moral vision in international politics : the foreign aid regime, 1949‒1989, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  55. Lundsgaarde, Erik, Christian Breunig and Aseem Prakash (2007) ‘Trade versus aid: donor generosity in an era of globalization’, Policy Sciences 40(2): 157–79.

  56. Lundsgaarde, Erik, Christian Breunig and Aseem Prakash (2010) ‘Instrumental Philanthropy: Trade and the Allocation of Foreign Aid’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(3): 733–61.

  57. Mayer, Thierry and Soledad Zignago (2006) Notes on CEPII’s Distances Measures, Munich: University Library of Munich.

  58. McGillivray, Mark (2003) Modelling Aid Allocation: Issues, Approaches and Results, Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

  59. McKinlay, Robert. D. and Richard Little (1977) ‘A Foreign Policy Model of U.S. Bilateral Aid Allocation’, World Politics 30(1): 58–86.

  60. MFA CZ (2017) Development Cooperation Strategy of the Czech Republic 2018–2030, Prague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.

  61. MFA CZ (2015) Transition Promotion Program, Prague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.

  62. MFA PL (2018) Multiannual Development Cooperation Programme for 2016–2020, Warsaw: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland.

  63. Mihálik, Ján, Věra Veselá, Briggita Jaksa and Marcin Wojtalik (2010) Least but not Last? Least Developed Countries in Official Development Assistance of Visegrad Four Countries, Prague: People in Need.

  64. OECD (2018a) Development Co-operation Report 2018, Paris: OECD Publishing.

  65. OECD (2018b) Making Blended Finance Work for the Sustainable Development Goals, Paris: OECD Publishing.

  66. OECD (2018c) OECD Statistics. GeoBook: Geographical flows to developing countries, available at https://stats.oecd.org/ (last accessed on 3 November, 2018).

  67. OECD (2017) OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Poland 2017, Paris: OECD Publishing.

  68. OECD (2016) OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Czech Republic 2016, Paris: OECD Publishing.

  69. Öhler, Hannes and Peter Nunnenkamp (2014) ‘Needs-Based Targeting or Favoritism? The Regional Allocation of Multilateral Aid within Recipient Countries’, Kyklos 67(3): 420–46.

  70. Orbie, Jan and Maurizio Carbone (2016) ‘The Europeanisation of Development Policy’, European Politics and Society 17(1): 1–11.

  71. Oxfam (2017) Private-Finance Blending for Development: Risks and opportunities, Oxford: Oxfam International.

  72. Petrova, Tsveta (2016) ‘Trade and freedom or trading freedom? How strategic and normative interests shape foreign policy and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe’, in Benedetta Berti, Kristina Mikulova and Nicu Popescu, eds, Democratization in EU Foreign Policy: New member states as drivers of democracy promotion, 1–9, London: Routledge.

  73. Petrova, Tsveta (2014) From Solidarity to Geopolitics, New York: Cambridge University Press.

  74. Petrova, Tsveta (2011) The New Role of Central and Eastern Europe in International Democracy Support, Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

  75. Polish Aid (2019) Solidarity Fund PL : Polish Aid, available at https://www.polskapomoc.gov.pl/Solidarity,Fund,PL,1882.html (last accessed on 1 July, 2019).

  76. Polity IV (2017) ‘Polity IV Project: Country Reports 2010’, available at https://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm (last accessed on 7 November, 2018).

  77. Pospieszna, Paulina (2014) Democracy Assistance from the Third Wave. Polish Engagement in Belarus and Ukraine, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  78. Pospieszna, Paulina (2010) ‘When Recipients Become Donors’, Problems of Post-Communism 57(4): 3–15.

  79. Republic of Poland (2011) Development Cooperation Act of 16 September, 2011.

  80. Roberts, Kari (2017) ‘Understanding Putin: The Politics of Identity and Geopolitics in Russian Foreign Policy Discourse’, International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 72(1): 28–55.

  81. Round, Jeffery I. and Matthew Odedokun (2004) ‘Aid effort and its determinants’, International Review of Economics & Finance 13(3): 293–309.

  82. Scott, James M. and Ralph G. Carter (2019) ‘Distributing dollars for democracy: changing foreign policy contexts and the shifting determinants of US democracy aid, 1975–2010’, Journal of International Relations and Development 22(3): 640–75.

  83. Souleimanov, Emil Aslan, Eduard Abrahamyan and Huseyn Aliyev (2018) ‘Unrecognized States as a Means of Coercive Diplomacy? Assessing the Role of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Russia’s Foreign Policy in the South Caucasus’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 18(1): 73–86.

  84. Staar, Richard Felix (1988) Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, fifth edition, Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.

  85. Stępień, Jakub (2017) ‘The Polish Development Programme for Ghazni Province (Afghanistan): Outputs and Challenges’, Journal of International Development 29(2): 229–48.

  86. Szent-Iványi, Balázs (2014) ‘The EU’s Support for Democratic Governance in the Eastern Neighbourhood: The Role of Transition Experience from the New Member States’, Europe-Asia Studies 66(7): 1102–21.

  87. Szent-Iványi, Balázs (2012) ‘Aid Allocation of the Emerging Central and Eastern European Donors, Journal of International Relations and Development 15(1): 65–89.

  88. Szent-Iványi, Balázs and Zsuzsanna Végh (2018) ‘Is Transition Experience Enough? The Donor-Side Effectiveness of Czech and Polish Democracy Aid to Georgia’, Democratization 25(4): 614–32.

  89. Szent-Iványi, Balázs and Simon Lightfoot (2016) ‘Central and Eastern European Transition Experience: A Depoliticisation of Democracy Aid’, in Benedetta Berti, Kristina Mikulova and Nicu Popescu, eds, Democratization in EU Foreign Policy: New member states as drivers of democracy promotion, 1–9, London: Routledge.

  90. Szent-Iványi, Balázs, Bernhard Reinsberg and Simon Lightfoot (2018) ‘Small Donors in World Politics: The Role of Trust Funds in the Foreign Aid Policies of Central and Eastern European Donors’, European Journal of Development Research 13(3): 663–83.

  91. Thier, Alexander and Douglas Alexander (2019) ‘How to Save Foreign Aid in the Age of Populism’, Foreign Policy, available at https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/13/how-to-save-foreign-aid-in-the-age-of-populism-usaid-dfid/ (last accessed on 10 November, 2019).

  92. Tingley, Dustin (2010) ‘Donors and domestic politics: Political influences on foreign aid effort’, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50(1): 40–49.

  93. United Nations (2017) ‘UN Comtrade: International Trade Statistics’, available at https://comtrade.un.org/data/ (last accessed on 27 October, 2017).

  94. World Bank (2017) ‘Worldwide Governance Indicators’, available at https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home (last accessed on 21 October, 2017).

  95. World Bank (2018a) ‘Droughts, Floods, Extreme Temperatures (% of Population, Average 1990–2009) | Data’, available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.CLC.MDAT.ZS (last accessed on 3 November, 2018).

  96. World Bank (2018b) ‘World Development Indicators (WDI) | Data Catalog’, available at https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-development-indicators (last accessed on 11 October, 2018).

  97. Wróbel, Piotr (2010) ‘The Rise and Fall of Parliamentary Democracy in Interwar Poland’, in Mieczysław B. Biskupski, James S. Pula and Piotr Wróbel, eds, The Origins of Modern Polish Democracy, 110–64, Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

  98. Younas, Javed (2008) ‘Motivation for Bilateral Aid Allocation: Altruism or Trade Benefits’, European Journal of Political Economy 24(3): 661–74.

  99. Zídek, Petr and Karel Sieber (2007) Československo a Subsaharská Afrika v Letech 1948–1989 [Czechoslovakia and Sub-Saharan Africa in 1948–1989], Prague: Ústav mezinárodních vztahů.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zdeněk Opršal.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Opršal, Z., Harmáček, J., Vítová, P. et al. Polish and Czech foreign aid: a ‘mélange’ of geopolitical and developmental objectives. J Int Relat Dev 24, 279–305 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-020-00192-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Aid allocation
  • Czech Republic
  • Democracy aid
  • Foreign aid
  • Geopolitics
  • Poland