Aiding and abetting: foreign aid and state coercion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effects of US bilateral foreign aid policy on the internal security dynamics of aid recipient states. I draw upon the international security and contentious politics literatures to develop a theory of the coercive effect of foreign aid. I analyze how US foreign assistance affects the state capacity of recipient countries and, as a consequence, the government's ability to employ violence as a tool for ensuring its continued tenure. I argue that as a consequence of fungibilityâthe ability to use foreign aid as a general government resourceâforeign aid may increase the likelihood of state coercion by funding increases in the state's coercive capacity, including changes in military expenditure, force structure and arms acquisitions. I test this argument through a statistical analysis of a cross-sectional time-series dataset of annual US bilateral foreign aid for 132 developing countries during the period of 1976 to 2005. This analysis is complemented by an in-depth case study of Indonesia and shorter analyses of El Salvador and South Korea. I find that the coercive effect of foreign aid is conditioned by the recipient country's political institutions and conflict history. This research links the study of political violence with the changing nature of international relations and provides considerable insight into international influences on intrastate conflict. The research further suggests that foreign aid undermines aid donor goals by creating conditions propitious to increased political violence in recipient countries.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it