Global Frictions: Foreign Aid, Donor–Recipient Relations and LGBT+ Rights in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In 2018, a Tanzanian government official announced a crackdown on homosexuality. International actors rapidly expressed their disapproval and temporarily suspended some foreign aid, which elicited a negative response from the Tanzanian government and soured donor–recipient relations. The incident was short‐lived, however, and expressed mainly at the symbolic level and does not appear to have achieved any change in policies or practices either among the donors or in Tanzania. How should one interpret this sudden eruption of frictions and its lack of impact and what are its implications? I argue that international actors felt pressure to take quick, visible action, regardless of how ineffective those steps could be expected to be. Politicians from Tanzania's ruling party seized this occasion to ramp up anti‐LGBT+ and anti‐donor rhetoric, attempting to strengthen their standing domestically. Both sides used the opportunity to express their identity as either defenders or opponents of LGBT+ rights. This case shows how donor–recipient frictions can be primarily performative and reflect both sides' desire to please their own constituencies without implementing any lasting changes to aid flows or domestic policy in the recipient country.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".