Prospects of the U.S. Participation in the International Development Assistance System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article provides an analysis of the USA foreign development aid system. The United States has a long history of providing international development assistance. The system is currently undergoing significant changes. The article analyzes the changing approaches to assistance and the reforms of institutions through which the United States provides assistance to other countries. The experience of the United States clearly demonstrates all the difficulties faced by the global aid system: fragmentation, bureaucracy, low productivity. At the same time, private business investing in various projects aimed at the development of individual industries in other countries is often more successful in achieving its goals. The article emphasizes that in general, despite the fact that the United States is the largest donor providing state development assistance, the amount of private aid in the United States exceeds the amount of state aid. The article draws attention to the fact that the United States has already decreased number of recipient countries under the influence of the socalled “new donors”, while President Donald Trump proposes to radically decrease the amount of aid and focus only on countries loyal to USA. This initiative does not yet find full support due to the inertia of the international aid system, its institutions and opposition from the legislature. At the same time, the modernization of institutions providing international aid has begun. The article concludes that these innovations can lead to further growth of inequality between countries receiving international development aid and become a factor negatively affecting the achievement of a balanced and sustainable world development and economic growth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".