Chinese Development Aid and Finance: Effective Soft Power Tool or Public Diplomacy Liability? A Spatial Study of Project Influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China has risen to become a significant donor of foreign aid and assistance in recent years. As with other major donors, such economic flows in the provenance of China are tied to the latterʼs strategic aims. Specifically, the use of economic outlays as a tool of soft power and public diplomacy has been identified as a key motivation in Chinese disbursement decisions. However, studies examining the empirical success of Chinese foreign aid and assistance in acting as such have, so far, come to diverging conclusions. This study offers an investigation of the spatially diffused effects of infrastructure project sites tied to Chinese funding sources on local public opinion in Ecuador, a country that offers an interesting case showcasing the effects of the unfolding great power competition on local public opinion. We find, that controlling for socio-economic and ideological individual characteristics holding the potential to affect survey respondentsʼ views on China, project influence is significantly and negatively correlated with levels of trust in the Chinese government. These results suggest that the frequently mediatized negative local spillover effects of Chinese-funded or financed infrastructure projects make it unlikely for Chinaʼs foreign aid and assistance to achieve its envisioned purpose of furthering the countryʼs soft power and positive image beyond its borders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".