INTRODUCTION

The global political and economic strategy of the United States in the new geopolitical realities consists of a number of components, one of which is the promotion of international development in the format of economic assistance. In terms of its volume, the United States still remains the world leader and uses it to achieve its national interests; each president adjusts and changes the volumes, directions, and formats of assistance based on their views on international development and the role of the United States in this process. This work is devoted to the peculiarities of approaches to economic assistance implemented during the presidency of Donald Trump and the transformation that took place in this area with the advent of Joseph Biden; general issues of the development of the assistance system are touched upon.

Numerous scientific works, primarily by American authors, are devoted to the topic. Speaking about the Trump presidency, the focus of research has shifted to the negative consequences for the US international aid system associated with his initiatives (Harris et al., 2017). In general, Trump’s election campaign and rise to power initiated numerous proposals to modernize the American aid system (Ingram, 2017). Russian authors working on issues of US international assistance, including during the presidencies of Trump and Biden, include V.I. Bartenev (2018, 2019, and 2022) and A.A. Davydov (2018).

SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND ITS PRINCIPLES

International economic assistance is a multifaceted phenomenon in global economic policy. Throughout its existence, the system has been formed and developed along with changes in the world political structure and economy.

Experts identify different periods of formation and development of the assistance system (Their and Alexander, 2019; Mateo, 2020; Zaremba, 2019) [1]; however, in a generalized form, it can be argued that it has gone through four stages. First is the initial period after the World War II, when the modern system was born. At this time, its goal was to contribute to the restoration of Europe. Second is the period from the 1960s to the late 1980s, when development institutions were being formed, including the establishment of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1961) and the change in goals from postwar reconstruction to helping poor countries develop industry and agriculture, as well as defining the category of the least developed countries. The third period began after the end of the Cold War, in 1990. At that time, official aid shifted towards poverty reduction and development assistance, with the poorest and most needy countries becoming priority recipients. In addition, significant assistance was provided to postcommunist countries in their transition to a market economy. The fourth period is associated with the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (2000). This can be called the period of solving development problems and global problems. The current stage began in 2015 after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Millennium Development Goals have been replaced by the broader and more comprehensive Sustainable Development Goals.

The modern system of international cooperation is based on several basic principles, including the possibility of participation of developed and developing countries and the principles of partnership as the main format for providing assistance and ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

At the same time, it should be noted that, if initially the assistance system was built within the framework of the relationship between donor countries and recipient countries, then at the current stage this model is being transformed towards partnership between countries and cooperation for development. In practice, this means that the donor country provides development assistance to the recipient country based more on the interests of the recipient.

Of course, the very philosophy of providing assistance, as well as questions about its effectiveness, is still the subject of discussion, despite the fact that the system has been in existence for almost a hundred years.

Today, what is referred to as official development assistance (ODA, defined as official concessional financing flows to promote the economic development and welfare of low- and middle-income countries) accounts for more than two-thirds of all external financial flows to the least developed countries. The volume of assistance provided by countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) are constantly growing. In 1960, when aid was first quantified, ODA was less than $40 billion (at 2020 prices). In 2021, international development assistance from official donors hit a record $168 billion. The increase in the volume of official assistance over the past two years was also due to the COVID-19 pandemic, for which donor countries have sent significant funds. ODA provided by members of the OECD DAC in 2021 included $6.3 billion for COVID-19 vaccines for developing countries, which is equivalent to 3.5% of the total ODA [2].

THE UNITED STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE SYSTEM

The United States stood at the origins of the modern aid system and ranks first among the donor countries of the OECD DAC.

The total amount of funds allocated by the United States for various types of assistance at current prices before Trump took office (from 1946 to 2016) exceeded $1 trillion, including almost $800 billion for economic assistance.

In terms of providing official development assistance (according to DAC methodology), the United States is the undisputed leader, although its ODA volumes do not reach the target of 0.7% of gross national income (GNI).

This target was agreed upon by the majority of donor countries in 1970, and subsequently reaffirmed at high-level international forums [3]. For many decades it has been fixed in various UN and OECD documents. It is also enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals [4]. Goal 17 sets out to strengthen the global partnership for sustainable development. It recorded development aid donors reaffirming their commitments, including the commitment made by many developed countries to achieve ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI for developing countries and 0.15–0.2% GNI for the least developed countries.

Today the United States provides assistance to more than 100 countries around the world, and more than 20 government organizations are involved in this process, including as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the African Development Fund (ADF), the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and various governmental departments.

Assistance is regulated by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [5]. It has been repeatedly refined, but remains the basic document in this area.

The law defines the definition of international assistance: “foreign assistance” means any tangible or intangible item provided by the United States government to a foreign country or international organization under this or any other Act, including but not limited to any training, service, or technical advice, any item of real, personal, or mixed property, any agricultural commodity, United States dollars, and any currencies of any foreign country which are owned by the United States government; and ‘provided by the United States Government’ includes, but is not limited to, foreign assistance provided by means of gift, loan, sale, credit, or guaranty.”

THE POLICY OF DONALD TRUMP AND JOSEPH BIDEN IN THE SPHERE OF INTERNATIONAL AID

The attitude towards international cooperation in the United States has always fluctuated and depended not only on external factors, but also on which party was in power. However, these fluctuations cannot be said to have been significant—Democratic and Republican presidents have almost always requested development assistance in excess of what Congress eventually approved.

This situation remained relatively stable until Donald Trump took office in 2017.

The previous administration of Barack Obama adhered to principles that contributed to reducing inequality and improving the standard and quality of life in countries through partnerships aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. In the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, Obama stressed that a secure, sustainable, and prosperous world order cannot be achieved when a third of the world’s population cannot provide themselves and their children with a decent existence, and hundreds of millions of young people are unemployed and see no prospects for the future. To create an effective aid system, the Transparency and Accountability Act was adopted [6]; it was actually implemented during the Trump presidency.

Trump briefly expressed his views on international activities at the July 22, 2016, GOP convention: “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo” [7]. This view of international relations determined his approach to the need to reduce American aid to other countries.

Trump distrusted the policies of international organizations and held a negative attitude towards international treaties (Jakupec and Kelly, 2019). Under Trump, the United States has left many international organizations, most of which were part of the UN system. Looking ahead, it is worth noting that the process of returning the United States to international organizations and expanding participation in them has begun under Biden.

President Trump chose the slogan Make America Great Again as fundamental to its policies and attempted to shift the aim of aid from countries most in need to more self-interested political and economic ends.

Almost immediately after Trump was elected president, he set out to significantly reduce international assistance: this was reflected in the budget proposals for FY2018. There was also the question of the full inclusion of USAID in the structure of the State Department (Harris et al., 2017). In general, these efforts fit into the concept of reducing the number of civil servants and simplifying the state apparatus.

However, the Trump administration did not take into account the peculiarities of budget policy—the long-term nature of many ongoing assistance programs and the inertia of the budget process. His administration also faced opposition from American elites. As a result, Trump’s proposal to cut international aid spending was met with opposition in Congress. Thus, a situation arose that was not typical of the established traditions of the budget process: usually, legislators reduce the amount of funding requested by the president for international assistance, but in this case, legislators blocked the proposals of the president to reduce funding (Karol, 2018). The administration proposed a 32% reduction in aid funding in 2018 when compared to 2017, but when considered in Congress, this reduction was only 6% [8]. A 33% cut for FY2019 was also blocked by Congress. More details on the interaction between the Trump administration and lawmakers are disclosed below.

The most fundamental areas of international cooperation are formulated in national security strategies that reflect a president’s approaches to the current situation. In the National Security Strategy, adopted in December 2017 [9], Trump’s policy in the field of international assistance was formulated as follows:

(1) Aid should transition from grants to commercial projects.

(2) Targeted assistance is prioritized over general assistance.

(3) Aid projects should have clear time limits.

(4) Development aid must support US national interests.

(5) Work with partner countries to expand purchases of US goods and increase investment.

(6) Unstable states should be assisted in preventing threats to the United States.

(7) Assistance should be provided through international organizations supporting US interests.

One important feature of the international development assistance policy of Trump’s presidency was the expansion of the blocking aid to influence a number of countries and its use as a tool for “voting correctly” in the UN (Bartenev, 2018). These mechanisms are not new, but their use has become more explicit and targeted [10].

At the same time, confrontations with China in connection with its own international assistance have led to a certain additional administrative adjustment of the system. As a new federal agency that Biden eventually inherited, the International Development Finance Corporation merged the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), which was established in 1971 to finance and help US businesses establish themselves in new markets, with USAID’s Development Credit Office. Through this structure, it is supposed to carry out lending and technical assistance for development.

One of the most fundamental differences between Trump and Biden was the attitude towards international activities in general.

In his election campaign, Biden repeatedly emphasized that he would return the United States to the international arena as an active participant in the processes of international cooperation. One can gauge his administration’s intentions in this regard with the help of the Interim National Security Strategic Manual [11]. This document was promptly adopted after Biden took office in 2021.

In it, the implementation of international cooperation and development assistance programs is designated as “the right and reasonable thing to do.” The Interim Strategic Guide also declares that US interests at home are strengthened by improving life around the world.

Throughout the document, emphasis is repeatedly placed on the important role of international cooperation, including participation in international organizations as leaders. The main areas of activity, including those related to international assistance, are formulated as follows:

• The return of the US to the world stage as a leader.

• Restoring the US as a leader in international organizations.

• Fighting COVID-19 and other infectious diseases with pandemic potential.

Regional priorities are also indicated:

• Deepening partnership with India, ASEAN member states.

• Expanding partnerships throughout the Western Hemisphere and increased assistance to the countries of Central America.

• Continued security efforts in the Middle East and providing humanitarian assistance.

• Establishing partnerships in Africa and cooperation with the dynamically developing and rapidly growing economies of African countries.

Global development has been cited as one of the best ways to articulate and embody US values while pursuing national security interests.

The change of course in the field of aid, as expected, was not met with support from those who favored a more conservative approach. The Biden administration has been accused of aggressively ignoring bipartisan consensus, viewing the U.S. foreign aid system as a global platform from which to implement domestically divisive policies (combating climate change, gender equality, and racial justice). All of this could undermine the prospects for aid beneficiaries, and likely also undermine long-term ongoing congressional bipartisan support for continued foreign aid funding. In addition, the Biden administration has moved away from its predecessor’s policy of distributing vaccines abroad, relying more on global organizations to distribute American-made vaccines, and thereby worsened the international perception of the United States among countries using vaccines [12].

SUSTAINABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL AID FINANCING

Over the decades of providing international assistance, a system or scheme of interaction between presidential administrations and the legislature on the issue of financing international assistance has formed. As was already noted, the characteristics of this system were that declared amounts of aid funding were often adjusted downwards (cut) by legislators and, to varying degrees, there was consensus between presidents and legislators on aid issues, as well as in most other issues of international cooperation. Some studies note that most Democratic lawmakers and most Republican lawmakers have effectively taken sides on the most important foreign policy issues since the end of the Cold War. Strong polarization, in which more than 90% of members of the two parties vote for opposite decisions, is rare in foreign policy (Bryan and Tama, 2021).

However, during the presidency of Donald Trump, these features have changed. Trump provoked for the first time a situation where lawmakers blocked the administration’s proposed cuts in international aid. At the same time, a broad bipartisan consensus was demonstrated. These features are visualized in the figure, which shows a sharp decrease in budget requests for FY2018–2021, while actually maintaining the amount of funds provided for financing.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Bilateral assistance for the financial year (funds requested in the previous year and actual funds allocated) in billions of dollars, adjusted for inflation. Author’s calculations are based on information from the following documents: US Department of State. Congressional Budget Justice: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. 2012–2023.

Full size image

Thus, despite all the statements made by Trump during the election campaign and during his presidency, the level of US aid provided has hardly decreased, although the funding requested has been sharply reduced.

Trump’s inability to translate his ideological guidelines into foreign policy can be explained by strong domestic political pressure, including support from national elites, as well as strong bipartisan opposition from Congress (Regilme, 2022).

Therefore, when discussing the budget for FY2018, an unprecedented campaign was launched to maintain funding for international aid. In particular, a letter to legislators from 121 retired generals and admirals in support of nonmilitary solutions to development problems was widely publicized. As noted in the letter, international assistance plays a decisive role in preventing conflicts and reducing the need to use armed forces [13]. Public letters from 106 Christian leaders [14] and 225 business leaders [15] were also sent with their arguments.

The same situation was reproduced in subsequent periods. As some authors note, despite the strong polarization of the legislature, the topic of international assistance has led to concerted action, on the one hand, because of the relatively small importance on the scale of the entire budget and, on the other, because of the consensus of a large number of American elites on this issue (Tama, 2019).

At the same time, with Biden’s accession to the presidency, the picture became more familiar: the requested assistance started to exceed the actual assistance. Against the background of the ongoing pandemic and increased global instability, it can be argued with some certainty that no reduction in the volume of economic assistance is expected.

In addition to the consolidation of the elites around the issue of international assistance and increasing their activity regarding the preservation of the volume of funding in this direction, a number of other factors worked. Among them is a certain inertia of the international aid system. It is defined by a complex and branched structure consisting of many organizations and agencies involved in the distribution of aid, the presence of long-term obligations and a long period of decision-making regarding the amount of funding, and the existence of a de facto separate sector of the economy dedicated to aid. One of the significant factors is that international aid funding is spent not only on its provision, but also on the maintenance of the system itself. For example, according to a study by Foreign Policy (Kenny and Morris, 2022), of the $51 billion in aid provided by the United States in FY2020 (here we mean economic and military assistance), about 40% was spent by the US government itself for the purchase of goods and payroll; 20% went to firms and nonprofit organizations based in the US; and just over 30% was contributions to international organizations, including UN organizations and international nonprofits. About 5% of the assistance was received by nonprofits and companies outside the United States. Partner governments in developing countries accounted for just 3.9%, and much of that assistance went to Afghanistan and Jordan.

This is supported by other studies, which show that, contrary to the popular notion of foreign aid as a handout to recipient countries, a significant portion of aid spending is related to purchases from companies and nongovernmental organizations located in the donor country. At the same time, legislators have incentives to support international aid requirements by increasing purchases and employment in certain US regions (Heinrich and Peterson, 2020). In addition, some authors cite evidence of a connection between meetings of American legislators with representatives of recipient countries and the financing of this aid (Marco et al., 2002).

In general, we can note the wide range of factors and stakeholders in maintaining and increasing funding for international assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

The global system of international development assistance has been largely shaped by the efforts and initiatives of the United States. This country has been and remains one of the leaders in providing international assistance. At the same time, Trump’s policy has had a serious impact on approaches to resolving international issues, which was expressed, among other things, in attempts to reduce and reformat international assistance. Trump’s aid line has called into question the position of the United States as a leader in international aid. The COVID-19 pandemic also dealt an additional serious blow to leadership claims from the United States and other developed countries. Currently, theoretical and practical steps are being taken to search for new formats of international cooperation and international assistance. Now, in the period of development of multipolarity, as some authors believe, the United States needs to move to a “network-centric” approach in foreign relations and in the field of international assistance and rely on distributed structures without pronounced claims to single leadership (Struye de Swielande, 2021). We are talking about hidden leadership, which is expressed in the special role of “network administrator.”

In a certain sense, such a scheme in relation to international assistance is beginning to mature, for example, within the framework of the US Build Back Better World (B3W), which was announced in June 2021 at the meeting of the Group of Seven (G7). Involving large investments in the infrastructure of developing countries, this initiative competes with China’s ongoing Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which also provides support to a wide range of countries. As had been noted in a number of studies, a complementarity of projects would be more effective for developing countries, since none can completely cover the need of recipient countries for financing (Mwadi Makengo et al., 2022).

The US system of international aid has some inertia. It covers a significant number of interested persons, organizations, and companies, which ensures its relative stability. Therefore, Trump’s statements and intentions about an actual reduction in aid were never fully implemented or even modified, especially against the backdrop of challenges from China; this led to an increase in aid in a number of areas and the creation of a new institution of international assistance: the US International Development Finance Corporation. With the arrival of the Biden administration, there has been more than just restoration of the volumes requested for funding aid funds. In the current complex international environment, it should be expected that the increase in the volume of international assistance from the United States will increase. This position will be maintained by a number of parties involved in this process. At the same time, discussions about the goals, objectives, and mechanisms for implementing aid will grow and intensify.

In general, the general conclusion is that the institution of development assistance will continue to change and modify, while remaining an important tool that ensures the political, economic, and other interests of countries and their groups.

SOURCES

1. Foreign Assistance Website. https://www.foreignassistance.gov/. Cited May 20, 2022.

2. COVID-19 assistance to developing countries lifts foreign aid in 2021—OECD. 12.04.2022. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/development/covid-19-assistance-to-developing-countries-lifts-foreign-aid-in-2021-oecd.htm. Cited May 15, 2022.

3. The 0.7% ODA/GNI target—a history. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/the07odagnitarget-ahistory.htm. Cited May 15, 2022.

4. UN 2020. Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 17. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ru/globalpartnerships/. Cited May 15, 2022.

5. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. USAID. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/faa.pdf. Cited May 15, 2022.

6. Foreign aid transparency and accountability act of 2016 Public Law 114-191. July 15, 2016. https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/114/191.pdf. Cited May 15, 2022.

7. Donald Trump’s 2016 Republican National Convention Speech, ABC News, 2016. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-text-donald-trumps-2016-republican-national-convention/story?id=40786529. Cited May 10, 2022.

8. Saldinger A. 2018. Congress again rejects steep cuts to US foreign assistance in new budget, Devex. https://www.devex.com/news/congress-again-rejects-steep-cuts-to-us-foreign-assistance-in-new-budget-92403. Cited May 15, 2022.

9. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December, 2017. http://nssarchive.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2017.pdf. Cited May 15, 2022.

10. Rose, S. 2018. Linking US foreign aid to UN votes: What are the implications? Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/linking-us-foreign-aid-un-votes-what-are-implications. Cited May 20, 2022.

11. Renewing America’s advantages, Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, March 2021. https://nssarchive.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021_Interim.pdf. Cited May 10, 2022.

12. Primorac, M. and Roberts, J.M. Congress must stop Biden’s misuse of US foreign aid to impose his radical social agenda on the world, The Heritage Foundation, No. 3706, May 10, 2022. http://report.heritage.org/bg3706. Cited May 10, 2022.

13. Letter from 121 retired generals and admirals to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (February 27, 2017). https://www.usglc.org/downloads/2017/02/FY18_ International_Affairs_Budget_House_Senate.pdf. Cited May 10, 2022.

14. Letter from 106 Christian leaders to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (March 16, 2017). https://www.worldvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Faith-Letter-to-House_Senate-Leadership-on-International-Affairs-Budget-03162017.pdf. Cited May 10, 2022.

15. Letter from 225 business leaders to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (May 22, 2017). https://www.usglc.org/downloads/2017/05/Business-Letter-Tillerson-May-22.pdf. Cited May 10, 2022.