MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1563811582 · doi:10.25071/1496-6778.8027

The Politics of Foreign Aid: U.S. Assistance for Reform in Ukraine and Poland

2002· article· en· W1563811582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tanya Narozhna

Bibliographic record

Venuespacesofidentity net · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreign aid is first and foremost a technique of statecraft.It is, in other words, a means by which one nation tries to get other nations to act in desired ways" (Baldwin ). is statement was made almost four decades ago.Yet when one looks at the U.S. support for the post-Soviet countries in transition, one realizes that Western assistance has been and continues to be driven by inherently political considerations.Indeed, following the Soviet demise, traditional Cold War rationales for assistance strategies disappeared, prompting reconsiderations of donors' priorities.e prospects of the former socialist states' transition to liberal democracy and a market economy opened up new opportunities for donor governments and agencies.Many of them redirected resources from the ird World and became actively involved in the formulation, financing and implementation of multiple aid programs in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.By the mid-s they had disbursed nearly  billion in aid funds to the region.e transition has increasingly become a strategy implemented by Western donors, illuminating the fundamental and ongoing tension between the economic and political self-interests of donors and the developmental needs of recipients.More importantly, beginning in the early days of the transition, the U.S., and the West more generally, did not view the entire post-socialist world as monolithic.Western donors tended to discriminate in favor of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe and treat them more as potential partners, while the Soviet nations, except for the Baltic states and Russia, were denied recognition of the right to statehood.In this paper I will analyze U.S. support, or lack thereof, for transition reforms in two neighboring countries.I will demonstrate that in contrast to Poland, stumbling U.S.-Ukraine relations made the challenge of maintaining independence a far greater task than was expected.is explains much of the frustration with transition reforms and much of the blame discourse over Western unwillingness to embrace Ukraine.However, I will also argue that the donor's self-interested policy toward Ukraine is not a single reason for developmental under-achievement in this country.Many of today's prob-

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0000.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuespacesofidentity netSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207