Semrau, Finn Ole and Thiele, Rainer 2017. Brazil's Development Cooperation: Following in China's and India's Footsteps?. Journal of International Development, Vol. 29, Issue. 3, p. 287.
Bermeo, Sarah Blodgett 2017. Aid Allocation and Targeted Development in an Increasingly Connected World. International Organization, p. 1.
Uzonyi, Gary and Rider, Toby 2017. Determinants of Foreign Aid: Rivalry and Domestic Instability. International Interactions, Vol. 43, Issue. 2, p. 272.
Dietrich, Simone and Murdie, Amanda 2017. Human rights shaming through INGOs and foreign aid delivery. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 12, Issue. 1, p. 95.
Findley, Michael G. Milner, Helen V. and Nielson, Daniel L. 2017. The choice among aid donors: The effects of multilateral vs. bilateral aid on recipient behavioral support. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 12, Issue. 2, p. 307.
Wiens, David 2017. COSMOPOLITANISM AND COMPETITION: PROBING THE LIMITS OF EGALITARIAN JUSTICE. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 33, Issue. 01, p. 91.
Cochrane, Logan and Thornton, Alec 2017. The Geography of Development Studies: Leaving No One Behind. Forum for Development Studies, p. 1.
Peterson, Timothy M. and Scott, James M. 2017. The Democracy Aid Calculus: Regimes, Political Opponents, and the Allocation of US Democracy Assistance, 1981–2009. International Interactions, p. 1.
Reinsberg, Bernhard Michaelowa, Katharina and Knack, Stephen 2017. Which Donors, Which Funds? Bilateral Donors' Choice of Multilateral Funds at the World Bank. International Organization, p. 1.
Kim, Nam Kyu and Kroeger, Alex 2017. Rewarding the introduction of multiparty elections. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 49, p. 164.
Rahman, Muhammad Habibur Anbarci, Nejat Bhattacharya, Prasad Sankar and Ulubaşoğlu, Mehmet Ali 2017. Can extreme rainfall trigger democratic change? The role of flood-induced corruption. Public Choice, Vol. 171, Issue. 3-4, p. 331.
Heinrich, Tobias and Loftis, Matt W. 2017. Democracy Aid and Electoral Accountability. Journal of Conflict Resolution, p. 002200271772396.
Bodenstein, Thilo and Faust, Jörg 2017. Who Cares? European Public Opinion on Foreign Aid and Political Conditionality. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 55, Issue. 5, p. 955.
Young, Karen E. 2017. A New Politics of GCC Economic Statecraft: The Case of UAE Aid and Financial Intervention in Egypt. Journal of Arabian Studies, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 113.
Smith, Benjamin 2017. Resource wealth as rent leverage: Rethinking the oil–stability nexus. Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 34, Issue. 6, p. 597.
Strange, Austin M. Dreher, Axel Fuchs, Andreas Parks, Bradley and Tierney, Michael J. 2017. Tracking Underreported Financial Flows: China’s Development Finance and the Aid–Conflict Nexus Revisited. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 61, Issue. 5, p. 935.
Tokdemir, Efe 2017. Winning hearts & minds (!). Journal of Peace Research, p. 002234331770883.
Heinrich, Tobias Machain, Carla Martinez and Oestman, Jared 2017. Does counterterrorism militarize foreign aid? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 54, Issue. 4, p. 527.
Findley, Michael G. Harris, Adam S. Milner, Helen V. and Nielson, Daniel L. 2017. Who Controls Foreign Aid? Elite versus Public Perceptions of Donor Influence in Aid-Dependent Uganda. International Organization, p. 1.
We model how the size of a leader's support coalition and government revenues affect trades between policy concessions and aid. We find that aid benefits donor and recipient leaders, while harming the recipient's, but not the donor's, citizenry. The willingness to grant policy concessions for aid depends on how easily leaders can reimburse supporters for their concession. As coalition size increases, incumbents rely more on public goods to reward supporters, making it difficult to compensate for policy concessions. Small-coalition leaders rely more on private goods to retain office, making it easier for them to grant policy concessions for aid. Empirical tests of bilateral aid transfers by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations between 1960 and 2001 support the predictions that (1) aid is given by wealthy, large-coalition systems; (2) relatively poor, small-coalition systems are most likely to get aid; but, (3) conditional on receiving aid, the amount increases as the recipient's coalition size, wealth, and policy salience increase. Evidence suggests that OECD members have little humanitarian motivation for aid giving.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.