DOES OLD-FASHIONED FOREIGN AID STILL HAVE A PLACE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY? CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT This study investigates the impact of foreign aid on the economic growth of recipients in less-developed countries. Using a sample of 81 of these countries over a ten-year period (1990-2000), this study reveals that foreign aid has a negative and insignificant impact on their economic growth. INTRODUCTION Foreign aid is granted for different purposes: humanitarian and disaster relief, military and security assistance, and development aids. For example, the United States, the largest contributor, provides about $14 billion a year in federal funding to these projects. Of this $14 billion, 38 percent is allocated to disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, security assistance, and military aid. Approximately 53 percent of the entire foreign aid budget is dedicated to development and economic aids, either bilaterally or through multilateral institutions. Another 5 percent is parceled as corporate welfare through various export promotion programs. The remaining 1 percent goes to supporting foreign aid programs. However, these programs have failed to help Less-developed countries (LDCs) develop economically (Johnson & Schaefer, 1997). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2002) reported that development assistance from western nations was $56.378 billion in 1999, $53.058 billion in 2000, and $51.353 billion in 2001 (see Appendix 1). In addition, $1.4 trillion was transferred from developed countries to (LDCs) as foreign aid between 1960 and 1996 (The Economist, 1996). Such foreign aid from western nations can increase the welfare of both the recipient and the donor country. Foreign aid serves as an enforcement mechanism in the absence of any global organization that can rule on private contracts across borders. Foreign aid is not motivated by altruism in all cases. The rich country provides aid only if doing so increases its utility. If an altruistic motive to alleviate poverty is also present, this will result in an increase in aid and thereby further enhance the poor LDC's welfare (Villamil & Asiedu, 2001). On the other hand, several researchers (e.g., Clad & Stone, 1993; Islam, 1992; Griffin & Enos, 1970; Boone, 2002) demonstrated that despite this huge amount of foreign aid received by many LDCs, there is no real evidence to prove that these resources improved their economic growth. In contrast, they are worse off today in terms of economic growth, poverty, and disease than they were in the 1960s. Recognizing that foreign aid may not contribute much to the economic development of LDCs, many authorities involved in the foreign aid business are calling for a shift in the orthodox ways of aiding these countries (Schmitz, 1996). Despite this realization, the clamor for foreign aid to LDCs continues unabated (Bowen, 1995; Dhakal, Upadhyaya & Upadhyay, 1996; Tanner, 2002). However, it is appropriate that before we suggest the replacement of foreign aid by other types of capital inflows (foreign direct investment, portfolios, foreign loans, etc.), a proper investigation of the relative impact of foreign aid on the economic growth should be conducted. This study utilizes an extensive data set covering 81 LDCs over a ten-year period (1990-2000) in order to determine the effects of foreign aid on the economic development of LDCs. BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY This section includes a brief classification and description of the world countries. In addition, it includes selected studies for and against foreign aid. World's Classification and Description Chaliand (2002) classifies the whole world into four categories: The First World is the developed world including the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. The World was the Communist world led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). With the demise of the USSR and the communist block, there is no longer a Second World. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».