The Politics of Aid from the Perspective of International Relations Theories

1 THE POLITICS OF AID FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES Bernabé Malacalza Introduction The investigation of aid concepts associated with International Relations (IR) requires systematic readings. Hence, broad and robust reviews in which a body of literature is aggregated and assessed are an inevitably necessary part of providing researchers with a wide-ranging spectrum of knowledge. Generally speaking, some works have allowed us to examine the IR literature on aid and certain of its conceptual propositions, as well as to identify themes that require further investigation (Holdar, 1993; Sanahuja, 1996; Schraeder et al., 1998; Hattori, 2001; Pankaj, 2005; Ayllón, 2007; Pauselli, 2013; Malacalza, 2014; Robledo, 2015). However, little has been assessed and summarised on the question of how IR theories can explain the ways states and other actors seek to shape aid politics and policies. The aim of this chapter is to systematise the theoretical IR knowledge that contributes to explaining the politics that shape aid, and to distinguishing between different standpoints and research agendas. In order to do this, we examine distinct groups of works within the IR literature and underscore how these theoretical perspectives have analysed the politics of aid, examining core assumptions and lines of enquiry that recur in this area in order to gain an overview of the various research agendas. The chapter is structured as follows. It begins by juxtaposing explanations of aid policies against the backdrop of IR theories, conceived from the beginning of the Cold War to present day. It then discusses the contributions and limitations of the various theoretical perspectives on foreign aid. Finally, the article illuminates the contrasts, connections, and complementarities among the various cognitive problems, levels of analysis, and mechanisms posited by the different lines of research. 12 Bernabé Malacalza Study of the politics of foreign aid has been a contested issue among theorists since the early 1960s. However, although several systematic analyses have generated a certain amount of accumulated knowledge on the topic, the fragmented and multi-thematic nature of development cooperation studies makes it difficult to gain a clear picture of the range of theoretical debates in the field. With this as a starting point, the goal of this section is to sample the diverse ways in which the politics of aid have been explained since that time, within the framework of IR theories. Considering the conceptual frameworks provided by (1) realism and neo-realism, (2) liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the cosmopolitan perspective, (3) constructivism, (4) international political economy (IPE), (5) structuralism and critical theories, and (6) foreign policy analysis (FPA), we point out that each research strategy has its peculiar contributions and limitations, depending on four different criteria. These are (a) the type of research question, (b) the conceptual boundaries and definition of the level of analysis, (c) the unit of analysis chosen as the focus of the work, and (d) the definition of foreign aid and its identified purposes. Realism and neo-realism Realism has been the dominant conceptual lens for understanding the foreign aid regime of the Cold War era. Studies have mainly focussed on how US foreign aid was an instrument primarily driven by the security interests motivated by East-West competition.1 In realist and neo-realist analyses, international relations are conducted in a Hobbesian state of nature in which national security and self-preservation become the primary objectives (Schraeder et al., 1998, p. 296). Fundamentally important is the assumption that anarchy completely determines the goals that states choose to pursue. As result, realists emphasise systemic and structural determinants, and they repeatedly use the formula of ‘interest defined in terms of power’. Indeed, power is seen as the immediate aim of international politics, and it is associated with the idea of controlling the actions of others through influence (Morgenthau, 1950). From the perspective of many realist observers, foreign aid is governed by the structural power patterns in the international system. According to Baldwin (1966, p. 79), aid is an instrument of statecraft, like diplomacy, propaganda, or military action. It serves to promote diplomatic relations with recipient countries, to enhance stability within countries of strategic importance, to expand export markets and procure strategic imports, and to boost reputation in international forums, among other political and economic objectives. It can also provide moral (or rhetorical) justification for a donor’s allocation of resources. Hans Morgenthau (1962, p. 301) – the founding father of classic realism – helped pioneer articulation of the vision that foreign aid can be an appropriate weapon when interests abroad cannot be secured by military means, or by the traditional methods of diplomacy. He distinguishes six types of foreign aid, namely humanitarian, subsistence, military, bribery, prestige, and foreign aid Politics of aid 13 for economic development. Of all these types, he claims that “much of what goes by the name foreign aid today is in the nature of bribes” and that, after the Second World War, bribery in the form of foreign aid was justified as supporting the economic development of the recipient (Morgenthau, 1962, p. 302). George Liska (1960) was another early realist who argued that foreign aid is a tool of political power for pursuing the national interest. In defining aid, he cites the basic tenet of political realism, that is, the continuous struggle for power as the essence of international relations (Liska, 1960, p. 14). Aid effects are also a particular focus of early realists, who were sceptical of the idea that economic development could actually be promoted through aid. Morgenthau (1962, p. 302) claims that there was no evidence of correlations between aid and economic development, social stability, democracy, or a peaceful foreign policy. Edward Banfield (1963, p. 11) follows this argument by pointing out that “only in the most backward countries can either kind of aid make a crucial difference, or perhaps even an important one”. Mason (1964, p. 26) also reminds us that aid should be driven exclusively by the mutual security objective, “sufficiently persuasive to secure continuing support from the Congress and the voting public”. Although the early realists traditionally conceived the donor’s security concerns and alliances as the primary purpose of aid, a handful of historically oriented studies have examined the aid effects on the recipients, stressing that aid can serve political leaders’ survival, along with other political aspects of the recipient (Packenham, 1966; Black, 1968; Nelson, 1968; Eberstadt & Schultz, 1988; Hook, 1995). During the 1970s and 1980s, there emerged a keen interest in using formal empirical models based on regression analysis to explain the correlations between aid allocation patterns and characteristics of the recipient countries (Dudley & Montmarquette, 1976; McKinlay, 1979; Maizels & Nissanke, 1984). Authors writing from these perspectives gave further support to ‘the instrumental premise’ that bilateral aid donors have been driven primarily by their own interests: For example, the US has been motivated by securing UN votes in the General Assembly and France by consolidating a post-colonial sphere of influence (Wittkopf, 1973; Rai, 1980; Kuziemko & Werker, 2016). Hook (2008), for example, has explained how aid conditionality is used as a legitimate instrument to promote democratic regimes and free market economies in the developing world. Realists and neo-realists have proved very useful in explaining historical and systemic roots of foreign aid policies, by examining states as rational actors who engage in cost/benefit analysis of their actions within an anarchical international system. However, they have found it impossible to capture the non-monolithic nature of states, in which multiple domestic actors compete for resources and have the power to shape the interests at play in the execution of aid policy ( Packenham, 1966, p. 215). They are also imprecise around the content of national interests; that is, they do not give the concept operational meaning, thus accentuating the vagueness of the key terms (Lundsgaarde, 2012). 14 Bernabé Malacalza Liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the cosmopolitan perspective From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, liberal and neoliberal institutionalism approaches led to a different interpretation of international system from that offered by realists and neo-realists. Back in 1795, Immanuel Kant had outlined the conditions for perpetual peace in the international system: The first step is a domestic republican constitution; the second is the shaping of defensive arrangements and a peaceful confederation of democracies; and finally, a web of norms of “hospitality” and cooperation are required to stabilise the cosmopolitan system. In contrast to realist belief, liberals assert that “the international system can, and will, be transformed by peaceful and wealth-inducing cooperation” (Cederman & Rao, 2001, p. 819). For neoliberal institutionalists, international cooperation would be a result of the increasing necessity of states to answers to the challenges resulting from complex interdependence (Keohane & Nye, 1977). Robert Keohane, the central figure in the neoliberal school, provides an important point of departure, endorsing the concept of policy coordination to define international cooperation as a mutual adjustment process (Keohane, 1984, p. 64). In his words, this entails the “process through which policies actually followed by governments come to be regarded by their partners as facilitating realisation of their own objectives” (Keohane, 1984, pp. 63–64). Like realists, neoliberals share the view that states are rational actors maximising their own self-interest. Where neoliberal institutionalism analysis differs from realists is in its stress on interactions, international organisations, rules, norms, and international regimes, and in the assumption that cooperation involves different types of reciprocity that vary among issues and over time (Axelrod, 1984; Axelrod & Keohane, 1985). According to Krasner (1985, p. 4), an international regime contains “the principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge”. For John Ruggie (1983), who introduced the concept of international regimes into the literature of international politics in 1975, the international regime of finance and aid can be categorised as a quasi-regime. His reasoning is that there has been little coherence between the parts of the aid regime and the behaviours of Western donors. In turn, targets of foreign aid have served as aspirations rather than commitments for great powers. The loose character of aid rules and organisation does not make it fully comparable to other regimes. Interest in norms and interactions has not been limited to neoliberal institutionalism, but extends to the cosmopolitan perspective and the literature on global public goods (GPGs). For Held (2006), aid is a crucial factor in the case for cosmopolitan democracy and the creation of new political institutions, assuming the global entrenchment of rights and obligations for states in the globalisation era. For Kaul, Grungberg, and Stern (1999), Alonso (2002), and Barret (2007), aid is part of a state’s commitment to provide GPGs, such as the containment of Politics of aid 15 pandemics or, since the 1990s, the fight against climate change. Kaul, Grunberg, and Stern (1999, pp. 2–3) have defined these as “goods, whose benefits or costs are of nearly universal reach or potentially affecting anyone anywhere”. This definition opened up a classification of three types of GPG, namely the natural global commons (such as the ozone shield or the atmosphere), human-made commons (such as the world’s knowledge stock, or universal norms and standards), and policy outcomes (such as financial stability, equity, peace and security, environmental sustainability, or health). In more recent times, however, this line of argument has been expanded to explain collective policy responses to the Millennium Development agenda (Kaul, 2005). Other contributions have offered different interpretations on how ideas shape foreign aid policies or international institutions. The relation between aid, democracy, and peace has been the starting point for Knack (2004), Brown (2005), and Cornell (2013), who see aid as a potential contribution to democratisation when focussing on electoral processes, the strengthening of legislatures and judiciaries as checks on executive power, or the promotion of civil society organisations and education. Others, however, have viewed these issues through theories around soft power and attractive power, emphasising aid’s role as an instrument of public diplomacy (Nye, 1990; Alexander, 2018). In sum, liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the cosmopolitan perspectives have provided a framework for analysis of aid regimes, ideas, and institutions. It is also worth noting that certain ambiguities in the concept of regime have been avoided. As highlighted by Keohane (1984, p. 57), norms are often confused with rules and principles, when in fact all have very different scopes. A distinction needs to be drawn; while norms are standards of behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations, rules are more specific, referring to the specific rights and obligations of members, which can be altered more easily. Principles, in turn, define the purposes that their supporters are expected to pursue, while procedures provide ways of implementing those principles. Another subject that generates substantial debate and controversy is what is understood by the ‘universe of aid’, which is much broader and more complex than situations falling within the scope of regime theory. Relations within states necessarily involve civil society organisations, corporations, philanthropy, and local governments, among other actors.2 Constructivism Ethical and moral justifications for foreign aid have been the key concerns of the constructivist perspectives. From their viewpoint, narratives such as social justice or altruism take place both upstream and downstream from aid practices. This means that both material and discursive aspects of power are necessary for the understanding of social practices or intersubjective meanings that constitute social structures and actors alike. In constructivist analysis, anarchy in the international system is an intersubjective social convention, and there are different 16 Bernabé Malacalza domains of international politics that are understood by actors as more, or less, anarchic (Hopf, 1998). An important element in constructivism is that domestic conceptions have an impact on shaping international practices. The seminal work of David H. Lumsdaine (1993, p. 5) is organised around the idea that moral conceptions affect international aid in three ways: (i) through the systematic transfer to the international level of domestic political conceptions of justice and attitudes towards poverty in the development of the social welfare state; (ii) through social and moral dialogue that constitutes international society; and (iii) through normative meaning implicit in international regimes and practices, where the principle of helping those in great need is implicit in the very idea of aid. According to Lumsdaine (1993, p. 23), specific expression of the norm can be distinguished in that countries with strong domestic social welfare programmes are the most generous donors of foreign aid. In the 1980s, a Canadian-Scandinavian research cooperation programme study of North-South relations and development cooperation endorsed the concept of humane internationalism as a point of departure for their analyses regarding the aid policies of Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden (Pratt, 1989; Stokke, 1989; Helleiner, 1990; Pratt, 1990). Olav Stokke’s (1989) work explains aid policies with reference to welfare policies, respect for human rights, and responsiveness to the needs of the Third World. Aid is understood as an expression of “a conviction that a more equitable world would be in the best long-term interests of the Western, industrial nations” (Stokke, 1989, p. 11). As a result, dominant socio-political norms as well as certain overarching interests of Western donors shape aid policies, a point also made in Chapter 5 of this book. Other scholarly articles have referred to empirical aspects of domestic politics that influence foreign aid policy (Noël & Thérien, 1995; Tingley, 2010; Brech & Potraf ke, 2014). Noël and Thérien (1995), for example, suggest a correlation between the prevailing social democratic traditions at home and the extension abroad of domestic conceptions of social justice and income redistribution. Another topic of interest for narrative-discursive perspectives is the relation between norms, discourses, and practices of aid (Engberg-Pedersen, 2018). Several studies have also interpreted aid through the prism of ‘securitisation’, which has been popularised in the study of international relations by the writings of the Copenhagen School (Buzan, Wæver & De Wilde, 1998). For most scholars building on this tradition, securitisation of aid can be said to occur, for instance, when donors discursively justify aid in terms of national or international security (Petřík, 2008; Sanahuja & Schünemann, 2012; Brown & Grävingholt, 2016; and Chapter 10). Some controversies arise over the units of analysis and research methods employed in constructivist studies on aid. According to Lundsgaarde (2012, p. 5), the first point at issue here is that they often select the same cases, without taking into consideration “the substantial variation in the degree to which states have accepted or internalised benevolent development assistance norms”. In fact, Politics of aid 17 the choice of Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Canada, or other donors from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) as units of analysis assumes a level of coherence across policy areas that may not always exist outside the Western world. Another concern is that the choice in approach to the question of a moral dimension of foreign aid leads to controversy over epistemology and the use of scientific methods. Constructivist studies frame their enquiries as a search for a specific type of practice, taking discursive claims as an important clue; however, for positivist constructivists, altruism or moral values are hard to define, identify, and measure (Farias, 2018). International political economy IPE emerged as a significant and heterogeneous field of study in the early 1970s. For Susan Strange (1994, p. 219), for example, the starting point of IPE is to ask: Cui bono? Who does it benefit? Who gains, and who loses? In her viewpoint, power is structural and relational; the structure of the international finance system is a result of an unequal path of distribution of power, and, at the same time, it contributes to its maintenance. According to Robert Gilpin (1975, p. 43), IPE comprises the systematic exploration of the interaction between states and markets to determine the distribution of power and wealth in international relations. Since economic forces shape the political interests of states, aid is likewise determined by those forces, as by lobbying groups and companies and the bargaining process within the state structure (Gilpin & Gilpin, 2001). In Gilpin’s (1987, p. 311) terms, the nature and patterns of aid have been influenced by “the donor’s desire to establish spheres of political influence, to bolster military security or to obtain economic advantage”. From this perspective, aid can be a “mechanism of stabilisation and dissemination of constitutive values for the maintenance of the world hegemonic order”, as Björn Hettne (1995, p. 154) makes clear. Efforts to broaden aid as a field of study within IPE have included works by other scholars. Under the influence of the sociological tradition of the Spanish school of IR, Sanahuja (1996) follows IPE’s socio-historical approach in his study of US aid in Central America. In his view, there is a dialectical relation between transformations in the international system and changes in aid policies; the aid system is hegemonic and hierarchical. As result, aid inflows barely offset outflows of indebtedness, capital flight, and repatriation of transnational company profits (Sanahuja, 2001, p. 7). Certain other theorists explain foreign aid as one component of a wider range of flows, including military assistance, arms sales, trade, multinational corporations’ transactions, foreign direct investment, capital flight, or tax evasion. They seek to understand this larger view of the whole in which aid is just one component, explaining the phenomenon from the perspective of recipient or Southern countries (Woods, 2005; Tandon, 2008). For David Sogge (2002), the 18 Bernabé Malacalza focus should be on the role of counter-flows, upward redistribution, rent-seeking, and hidden subsidisation of the donors. From his standpoint, aid operates “in the foreground, advertised as public largesse for the needy, while in the background substantial counter-flows work discretely in behalf of the wealthy” (Sogge, 2015, p. 3). This author argues that aid should be understood as a contradiction, or “a problem posing as a solution”. Certain other IPE analyses on the political economy of aid assume that development aid is a specific expression of economic diplomacy (de Haan, 2011). According to Okano-Heijmans (2011, pp. 29–30), economic diplomacy is “the use of political means as leverage in international negotiations, with the aim of enhancing national prosperity, and the use of economic leverage to increase the political stability of the nation”. This involves a mix of foreign policy objectives: financial, economic, and commercial tools, and (conversely) economic and commercial objectives and political tools in a given environment (Okano-Heijmans, 2011, p. 27). The conceptual framework of economic diplomacy facilitates distinction between ‘business’ and ‘power-play ends’. It also assumes that the state is neither the only player nor a coherent unity conducting economic diplomacy (Bayne & Woolcock, 2003). One thing IPE contributions have in common is their determination to unmask and interrogate power relations both within and beyond the aid realm. They take into account the questions of ‘what’ (instruments), ‘where’ (theatres), and ‘how’ (processes) in order to inform the question of ‘why’ (motivations) economic diplomacy exists as a strategy by which actors pursue different interests comprising economic and political motivations. IPE perspectives have provided interesting research on the structures of trade and finance, while issues relating to aid have received less attention. There is also room for debate over IPE’s tendency towards determinism and teleological conceptions, wherein economic diplomacy is considered as merely deriving from power and wealth motivations. One important limitation is that aid relationships are here viewed within the framework of an international system, rather than through a ‘local’ lens. Structuralism and critical theories Structuralism and critical theories of aid comprise a very heterogeneous group of approaches on international relations, namely structuralism, dependency, neo-Marxism, imperialism, and underdevelopment theories; neo-Gramscian approaches; and post-structuralism and decolonialism. They look at the problem of the world order as a whole, giving proper attention to economic interests and social forces and seeing how they relate to the development of political and economic structures. Despite disagreement among theorists, they share the view that the normative and explanatory fields cannot be analytically separated from one another. Thus, structural approaches are a reflection upon what ‘world order’ may mean in any given or possible context, as well as an account of the potential for changing them (Shapcott, 2008, p. 328). Politics of aid 19 Structuralism was influenced by intellectual and political developments of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s; and the structural turn in international relations was influenced by the legacy of decolonisation processes and tensions created by the political and economic subordination of the South to the North. Raúl Prebisch’s groundbreaking ideas on import substitution and creation of tariff barriers for products of advanced countries have served as guides, even though his position is considerably less radical than that of later structuralists. Subsequently, theories – dependency, core/periphery, and world-systems analyses – have a common point of departure: the idea that “North and South are in a structural relationship one to another; that is, both areas are part of a structure which determines the pattern of relationships that emerges” (Brown & Ainley, 2009, p. 151). From this conception, aid is seen as another capitalist tool used by the elite/core to exploit the marginalised/periphery (Weissman, 1975). Neo-Marxism, and theories of underdevelopment and imperialism, have also explained aid as an extension of highly exploitative North-South relationships that either “preserve or widen economic disparities between the capitalist centres and the Third World” (Schraeder et al., 1998, p. 296). Like realists and neorealists, the neo-Marxist school sees aid as an instrument or vehicle of interests, or imperialism. Where structural analyses differ from realists is in their stress on the economic interest of capitalist centres. This phenomenon was termed ‘the development of underdevelopment’ by Andre Gunder Frank (1966). His work is focussed on the economic conditions of North-South relations, where foreign aid is only a small part of the process. By contrast, Theresa Hayter (1971) highlighted the idea of neo-imperialism in the sense that aid, on balance, did more harm than good to the poor of the Third World.3 The ‘neo-Gramscian’ perspective, initiated by Robert Cox (1981), understands aid as one mechanism for maintaining hegemony in a particular historical structure. The notion of hegemony explains the origin, growth, and demise of world orders as particular configurations of material capabilities, ideologies, and institutions. World hegemony, in Cox’s terms, is expressed in the “universal norms, institutions and mechanisms, which lay down general rules for the behaviour of states and for those forces of civil society that act across national boundaries” (Cox, 1981, p. 172). Ideologies, in turn, are supported by historic blocs, or class alliances, led by internationally oriented class fractions (Cox, 1979). Cox identifies two broader ideologies of aid: the so-called establishment and market efficiency perspective, supported by experts in organisations such as the Trilateral Commission and parts of the directorates of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF); and what Cox terms the third-world forum focussed on equity and redistribution for promoting development (Holdar, 1993, p. 456). Last but not least, post-colonial and decolonial theories critique the very debate around what development is, and how this teleological narrative is built to maintain least-developed and developing countries as poor imitations of the core countries. According to Esteva and Babones (2013, p. 1), “development is at the center of a powerful but fragile semantic constellation. It shaped the dominant 20 Bernabé Malacalza mentality of the second half of the 20th century, which can thus be legitimately called the era of development”. Post-colonial works also seek to portray the South not as the periphery that never reached development, but rather (under the conditions of possibility) as essential to the current success and condition of the North. Most commentators agree on one matter: Structuralism and critical theories have been useful mainly for tracing the origins of South-South discourse and for understanding ideas on world orders that feed international development cooperation in particular.4 They have provided interesting research on the issues of development, whereas issues relating to the politics of aid have received less attention from this direction. There is also room for debate over this school’s tendency to undervalue the state, considering it to be monolithic and derivative of its position within the system (strong states at the core and weak states around the periphery) (Cox, 1981, p. 127). Some scholars have further suggested that structuralism and critical theories should demonstrate lower levels of abstraction in order to take into account disparities and variations within the global South (Farias, 2018). Foreign policy analysis Beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, the behaviourist reaction to classic paradigm methods in IR led to the development of middle-range theories, or what was called later ‘Foreign Policy Analysis’ (FPA), a systematic overview of foreign policy-making subsystems through cross-national comparisons. Such enquiries have sharpened the focus on bureaucratic politics by providing insights into the linkages between problems faced within any issue-area and the nature of the decision-making employed to handle them. As Allison and Zelikow (1971) argued, among this field’s most important assumptions are that governmental decisions result from compromise, conflict, and the confusion of officials with diverse interests and unequal influence; also that actors and domestic constituencies vary more widely from issue-area to issue-area; and that various factors impose limits on decision-making, including uncertainty, time constraints, and competing objectives and motives (Allison & Zelikow, 1971, pp. 162–163). Much of the literature relating to aid policy-making has led to the conclusion that foreign aid is not the same tool at all times (Morley & Morley, 1961; Montgomery, 1967; Hughes, 1978). Viviani (1979) observed that politics are present in the balance between security, economic, and commercial motives, in terms of which recipients should get the most aid, the weight to be given to recipient countries’ needs, and the extent to which domestic constituencies can influence the aid budget. Ruttan (1996) has illustrated that the complexity and ambiguity of US foreign aid are born of twin traditions of American thought, realism, and idealism. This dialectic has led to the launching of aid programmes with multiple and often contradictory purposes, also suggesting that competing ideas and norms on aid, political institutions, interests, and the organisation of governments in managing their aid shape different and sometimes contradictory aid preferences. Van der Veen (2011, p. 2), for instance, argues that aid purposes Politics of aid 21 are multiple, competing, and changing; “aid can serve goals from security (e.g., fighting terrorism), to financial gain (promoting exports), to humanitarianism”. What are the domestic sources of support for foreign aid? Specifically, how do donors’ domestic political and economic coalitions shape aid policies? Another argument made by middle-range theories is that the distribution of authority in the aid arena is fragmented, with numerous departments and executive agencies having responsibilities for managing portions of the aid budget. Lancaster (2007, p. 61) reminds us that a constituency for aid took shape “inside and outside governments, reinforced by a variety of international organisations that discussed, debated, and pressed the donors’ governments to expand the quantity and quality of their aid”. Lundsgaarde (2012, p. 56), for example, has proposed a model that attributes policy outcomes to the interaction of factors (preferences and resources of societal actors), institutional setting (interest intermediation and dispersion of governmental authority), and preferences of governmental actors. Alongside civil society organisations, many other groups take an active interest in advocacy, including business groups, aid contractors, farmers, and ethnic interest groups (see more on this in Chapters 3, 4, and 8). Unlike international system-based approaches, which tend to reduce donors’ policies to a monolithic state with a single interest, FPA gives us keys to unlocking the black box of aid by examining how the nature of the different motivations of these distinct actors and their interests actually shape unique types of aid policies. On the one hand, understanding the domestic interaction of bureaucracies and politicians, citizens, businesses, or interest groups is necessary to gain a more complete knowledge of the politics of aid. On the other hand, however, this approach is very much focussed on domestic influences rather than the interaction between domestic and international realms. This makes it difficult to reconstruct the causal process whereby inputs from a specific international context emerge. Another criticism of research on the influence of domestic politics on aid outcomes is that it often presents a static view of the political process, being almost entirely based on deviant cases, such as the US, Denmark, or Switzerland, something that this book intends to avoid in Part B. However, some recent studies based on emerging powers and South-South development cooperation have appeared in the academic literature (Hirst, 2010; Mawdsley, 2012; Pinheiro & Milani, 2015; Malacalza, 2015; Varrall, 2016; Farias, 2018). Conclusions: towards a research agenda in IR on the politics of aid This chapter has reviewed numerous works central to the research agenda on how IR can explain the politics of aid, examining core assumptions and lines of enquiry that recur in this area. Table 1.1 summarises the main findings of the literature review, which reflects different perspectives, each containing a particular mix of research questions and goals, levels and unit of analysis, and foreign aid definitions and purposes. TABLE 1.1 IR theoretical perspectives on foreign aid • Realism and neo-realism Research topics Theoretical roots • Liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the cosmopolitan perspective Power, influence, International regimes, international UN voting, institutions, global political and governance, GPGs, economic Millennium interests, Development Goals, geopolitics, democratic peace, international soft power, public security, US diplomacy, role of containment ideas strategy and the Cold War, bribes Realism, Neoliberal Neo-realism institutionalism Complex interdependence theory Regime theory Institutionalism Liberal internationalism Global Public Goods theory The cosmopolitan school • Constructivism • International political economy Power and market, Moral dimension economic of foreign aid, statecraft, social justice, counter-flows, humane international internationalism, finance, welfare states, international securitisation trade, economic of aid, social diplomacy, democracy financial diplomacy, aid diplomacy International Constructivism Political Humane Economy Internationalism Theory of school hegemonic Copenhagen school stability • Structuralism and critical theories • Foreign Policy Analysis Bureaucratic World orders, politics, domestic dependency constituencies, theory, hegemonic Policy-making, regimes, power and governmental social structures processes, parliaments, political parties and civil society, aid budgets Neo-Marxism and theories of underdevelopment and imperialism, Neo-Gramscian Structuralism/ Dependency theory Post-structuralism, post-colonialism, decolonialism Behaviourism Middle-range theories Foreign policy analysis Bureaucratic politics model Public policy analysis Theories on decision-making IR core concepts Research questions Instruments of foreign policy Interests defined in terms of power Mutual security Geopolitics and geo-economics Cold War Power and influence States as rational actors Empirical questions Why is aid given? What purposes did governments pursue with their aid? And why did they choose those purposes and not others? (Morgenthau, 1962) Economic diplomacy Aid diplomacy Economic and political interests Counter-flows Economic statecraft Foreign economic policy Aid dependence Hegemony World order Social forces, Social Movements Imperialism Neo-colonialism Power and social structures Issue-area Foreign policy making Bureaucratic politics model Domestic constituencies of aid Negotiations Coalitions International regimes Norms and rules Global Public Goods States as rational actors Policy coordination. Global governance Ideas, beliefs, and democratic peace ‘Like-minded’ donors Welfare states Social democratic parties Humane internationalism Identity International practices Norms Securitisation Empirical questions Why do actors interact and create international institutions/ regimes in order to tackle common challenges within a specific issue-area? (Keohane, 1984) Empirical questions Empirical questions Empirical questions Empirical questions Why do aid policies Cui bono? To whom What are the To what extent differ across mechanisms for is it a benefit? can aid policies national settings maintaining Who gains be explained and why do they hegemony in a and who loses? with reference change over time? particular historical (Strange, 1994) to dominant What are the structure? (Cox, socio-political domestic sources 1981) norms, welfare of support for state ideologies foreign aid? How and international and when does the practices? donor’s domestic (Lumsdaine, political and 1993) economic forces influence its ‘aid effort’? (Lancaster, 2007) (Continued) Research goals • Constructivism • International political economy • Realism and neo-realism • Liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the cosmopolitan perspective Normative questions What are the political purposes that a foreign aid policy should serve? Normative questions Normative questions Normative questions Are there good and What are the How should the political bad aid policies? international aid consequences regime be changed What are the that a foreign aid policy coherence to create better policy should challenges in conditions for serve? donor countries? implementation of our global development commitments? To explain the To investigate To investigate the different domestic evolution of the motivations influence, norms and rules of of economic international a regime over time diplomacy norms, and (long-term patterns in its wealth the inherent of behaviour), and power meanings using the concept dimensions. of various of international international regime both to practices, taking explore continuity discursive and to investigate claims as an change in the world important clue political economy (Lumsdaine, (Keohane, 1984, 1993). p. 64) To explain how political interests are reflected in patterns of aid allocation among developing countries • Structuralism and critical theories • Foreign Policy Analysis Normative questions What are the most desirable bureaucratic designs in each context? How can crossgovernmental coordination be improved? To understand To unmask and variations in aid interrogate power commitments relations within across countries and beyond the and over time; aid realm, looking examining how at the problem of societal actors, the world order in governmental the whole, giving actors, and the proper attention institutions that to social forces and regulate their processes and seeing interactions how they relate to influence the development development aid of states and world policy orders Normative questions What can be done to encourage the change of the aid regime? Level of analysis System level States as rational actors To probe what To identify the is known and extent to unknown about which different aid’s deployment outcomes of ‘upstream’ foreign aid can be explained with reference to the basic values and ideologies predominant in these countries as varieties of humane internationalism (Stokke, 1989) System and state levels System level System and Intermediate State and system World hegemonic Economic levels level orders and core/ diplomacy as Domestic Regimes as periphery (Northa process with forces (social intervening South) relations different tools democracy, variables, between welfare state, states and system political parties, legislative power and elites’ values) and international practices State level Bureaucratic politics processes (governmental agencies, aid organisations and domestic constituencies) (Continued) • Constructivism • International political economy • Structuralism and critical theories • Foreign Policy Analysis • Realism and neo-realism • Liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the cosmopolitan perspective Unit of analysis / Cases Great powers’ foreign policy Cases: American foreign policy, Soviet foreign policy Foreign aid definition “The transfer of money, goods and services from one nation to another” (Morgenthau, 1962, p. 301) Domestic agents All financial flows Inter-state interactions Elite discourses and All economic (aid, trade, foreign Cases: Western donors diplomacy flows practices Cases: International (also emerging direct investment, (trade, finance, Cases: Scandinavian regime of aid and donors) capital flight, tax investments and countries, finance, OECDevasion) aid) Canada, the DAC regime, Cases: US hegemony Cases: US Netherlands, European Union in world order, economic European Union global South, social diplomacy, movements. China, India, Russia, others “The gift of public “Mechanism of “Economic “Concessional “Cooperation takes resources from stabilisation and diplomacy is a economic place when the one government dissemination foreign policy assistance, policies actually to another (or to of constitutive practice and direct and followed by one an international values for the strategy that is indirect, from government organisation or maintenance of the based on the the developed are regarded nongovernmental world hegemonic premise that democracies to by its partners organisation), order” (Hettne, economic/ the Third World as facilitating sizable and sustained 1996, p. 54). It commercial (less developed realisation of their over time, an also serves as a interests and countries)” own objectives, important purpose contra-hegemonic political interests (Lumsdaine, as the result of a of which is to instrument of reinforce one 1993, p. 38). process of policy help improve the non-governmental another and coordination” human condition in organisations and should thus be (Keohane, 1998, countries receiving social movements seen in tandem” pp. 51–52) the aid” (Lancaster, (Okano-Heijmans, 2007, p. 1) 2011, p. 34) Foreign policy / Foreign aid nexus Aid is subordinated to foreign policy Foreign aid’s Political and purposes security interests of donor countries Aid policies are instruments driven primarily by the strategic interests of nation-states (Morgenthau, 1962) Source: Author’s elaboration. Aid is subordinate to the foreign policy of the hegemon. It is also seen as a contra-hegemonic instrument of social forces Political and economic Political and economic Moral and Mutual interests interests of the interests, power, humanitarian Development hegemon and wealth values cooperation Aid is seen as a tool Aid is seen as a form Aid is a result of is a result of of imperialism, of economic welfare state the increasing with the donor diplomacy. The ideologies that necessity of policy states’ aid policies main purposes of legitimise the coordination among being determined aid are power and sharing of wealth states to answer by the economic wealth (Okanowithin the to the challenges interests of their Heijmans, 2011) donor societies, originated national capitalist and that also by complex classes (Hayter, influence their interdependence 1971) foreign policy, (Keohane, 1984) using aid to alleviate world poverty and to share the wealth between rich and poor countries (Lumsdaine, 1993) Aid as an international Aid as an autonomous regime that serves practice with its global governability own purposes and dynamics Aid is subordinated to foreign policy Aid as an outcome of a political governmental process within an issue-area of foreign policy with its own dynamics Multiple purposes Foreign aid is used for four main purposes: diplomatic, developmental, humanitarian relief, and commercial. The purposes of aid are frequently as much the result of what happens inside of a donor government’s borders as what happens outside them (Lancaster, 2007) 28 Bernabé Malacalza A key finding is that the IR literature on determining the nature of the politics of aid has (at the very least) three main strands. First, foreign aid might be seen as ‘the carrot’, a technique of statecraft, meaning it should be considered as subordinate to foreign policy. Many analysts focus on aid as an instrument to explain observed patterns of foreign policy. This approach is fundamental to realism and neo-realism, but it is also a key issue in many studies from IPE and structuralism, and from critical perspectives. Second, aid might also be seen as an autonomous status divorced from the geopolitical rationale. Foreign aid, in this view, is an end in itself, carrying its own justification, both transcending and independent of foreign policy. Many scholars making this assumption have observed that aid typically involves an international regime with its own principles, norms, and rules, along with a moral obligation to help the poor citizens of poor countries. Central to this conception are constructivist approaches on aid, and it is a key element in many neoliberal approaches on aid regime. Finally, aid might be an outcome of a political governmental process involving actors at multiple levels: the individual decision makers, the bureaucracy, and the interest groups. Many middle-range theorists working on decision-making are identified with this idea – that is, foreign aid is neither subordinate nor independent; rather, it is a constituent part (an issue-area) of the changing domestic politics of foreign policy. This chapter has further provided an overview of the level of analysis problem. When the level of discussion is that of the international system, states are treated as rational, unitary, and monolithic actors in pursue of a self-evident, immutable, and synoptic national interest. This is fundamental to realism and neo-realism, to neoliberal institutionalism, and to structuralism and critical theories. In contrast, IPE and FPA have shown a determination to penetrate the politics of aid, where multiple controversies over aid purposes have arisen. Understanding the interaction of the bureaucracy and politicians, citizens, businesses, and non-governmental organisations is necessary to gain a more complete knowledge of the politics of aid; however, the literature review highlights few published articles on the interaction between international systems and domestic forces. Research in these areas would help in the consideration of all sorts of pressing concerns in order to explain changes in aid policies. The literature review has drawn distinctions between different perspectives, but once we move beyond this theoretical plurality, affinities also exist. Perspectives are not incompatible; rather, they can contribute, each at their own level of analysis, to understanding historical contexts different from their own core concepts. The task then for development cooperation studies is to highlight how international structures have different significance depending on the way in which specific agents, or domestic constituencies, relate to them. This focus on the interaction between agency and structure is necessary to bypass theoretical and traditional disputes and instead try to interpret each concrete situation, in Politics of aid 29 the spirit of analytical eclecticism and interdisciplinary research. According to Katzenstein and Sil (2008, p. 118), the value–added of eclectic scholarship thus lies not in neglecting existing research traditions but in self–consciously engaging them in pursuit of empirical and conceptual connections that recognise the complexity of international life in ways that no single research tradition can. Finally, the chapter has attempted to show that little research in IR has been dedicated to explaining the political-institutional factors behind the organisation of development cooperation in Southern countries. To take this research agenda further, we must improve our empirical and theoretical understandings of what we are witnessing in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Also important is to move beyond the state by examining how non-state actors (from businesses to civil society and social movements) shape development cooperation policies. It is worth noting that there is a need to better comprehend the political dynamics in recipients or partners, rather than viewing countries as objects of aid and examining their politics through the donor’s lens. Acknowledgements This manuscript benefited immensely from the insightful comments of my colleagues Iliana Olivié, Aitor Pérez, Monica Hirst, Gabriela Villacis, and Camila Amorim Jardim. I am especially grateful to José Antonio Sanahuja and Gino Pauselli for offering attentive feedback during the early stages of this project. I have endeavoured to incorporate many of their suggestions into this chapter, but it goes without saying that any mistakes are my own. This work was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina, and the Universidad Nacional de Quilmes [grant number PUNQ 1403]. Notes 1 Chapters 3 and 6 on the US and Japan refer to the link between international aid and security. 2 On the link between aid and democracy promotion, and the liberal perspective. 3 On the relevance of norms, discourse, and agendas for aid practice, see Part 3 of this book. 4 See, for instance, the Brazilian approach to South-South cooperation in Chapter 9. Bibliography Alexander, C. (2018) The Soft Power of Development: Aid and Assistance as Public Diplomacy Activities. Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change, pp. 1–14. Allison, G.T. & Zelikow, P. (1971) Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little, Brown, Boston. 30 Bernabé Malacalza Alonso, J.A. (2002) Bienes públicos globales y cooperación al desarrollo. La realidad de la ayuda: una evaluación independiente de la ayuda oficial al desarrollo internacional, pp. 127–153. Axelrod, R. & Keohane, R.O. (1985) Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics, 38(1), pp. 226–254. Axelrod, R.M. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York. Ayllón, B. (2007) La Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo: fundamentos y justificaciones en la perspectiva de la Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales. Carta internacional, 2(2), pp. 32–47. Baldwin, D. A. (1966) Analytical Notes on Foreign Aid and Politics. Background, 10(1), pp. 66–90. Banfield, E.C. (1963) American Foreign Aid Doctrines. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington. Barret, S. (2007) Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bayne, N. & Woolcock, S. (2003) The New Economic Diplomacy: Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Economic Relations. Aldlershot, Burlington. Bennett, A. & Elman, C. (2008) Case Study Methods. In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (pp. 499–517). Black, L. (1968) The Strategy of Foreign Aid. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ. Brech, V. & Potraf ke, N. (2014) Donor Ideology and Types of Foreign Aid. Journal of Comparative Economics, 42(1), pp. 61–75. Brown, C. & Ainley, K. (2009) Understanding International Relations. Macmillan International Higher Education, London. Brown, S. (2005) Foreign Aid and Democracy Promotion: Lessons from Africa. The European Journal of Development Research, 17(2), pp. 179–198. Brown, S. & Grävingholt, J. (2016) Security, Development and the Securitization of Foreign Aid. In Brown, S. & Grävingholt, J. The Securitization of Foreign Aid (pp. 1–17). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Buzan, B., Wæver, O. & De Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder. Cederman, L.-E. & Rao, M.P. (2001) Exploring the Dynamics of the Democratic Peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(6), pp. 818–833. Cornell, A. (2013). Does Regime Type Matter for the Impact of Aid on Democracy? Democratization, 20(4), pp. 642–667. Cox, R.W. (1979) Ideologies and the New International Economic Order: Reflections on Some Recent Literature. International Organization, 33(2), pp. 257–302. Cox, R.W. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2). De Haan, A. (2011) Development Cooperation as Economic Diplomacy? The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6(1), pp. 203–217. Dudley, L. & Montmarquette, C. (1976) A Model of the Supply of Bilateral Foreign Aid, American Economic Review, 66(1), pp. 132–142. Eberstadt, N. & Schultz, T.W. (1988) Foreign Aid and American Purpose. American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC. Engberg-Pedersen, L. (2018) Do Norms Travel? The Case of Gender in Danish Development Cooperation. Progress in Development Studies, 18(3), pp. 153–171. Esteva, G. & Babones, S.J. (2013) The Future of Development: A Radical Manifesto. Policy Press. Farias, D.B.L. (2018) Aid and Technical Cooperation as a Foreign Policy Tool for Emerging Donors: The Case of Brazil. Routledge, London. Politics of aid 31 Frank, A.G. (1966) El Subdesarrollo del desarrollo. IEPALA, Madrid. Gilpin, R. (1975) Three Models of the Future. International Organization, 29(1). Gilpin, R. (1987) The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press, p. 311. Gilpin, R. & Gilpin, J. M. (2001) Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton University Press. Hattori, T. (2001) Reconceptualizing Foreign Aid. Review of International Political Economy, 8(4), pp. 633–660. Hayter, T. (1971) Aid as Imperialism. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy. Polity, London. Helleiner, G.K. (1990) The Other Side of International Development Policy: The Non-aid Economic Relations with Developing Countries of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Hettne, B. (1995) Development Theory and the Three Worlds: Towards an International Political Economy of Development. Longman, Harlow. Hirst, M. (2010) América Latina y la Cooperación Sur–Sur: reflexiones conceptuales y políticas. La Cooperación Sur–Sur en Latinoamérica. Catarata/IUDC-UCM, pp. 17–39. Holdar, S. (1993) The Study of Foreign Aid: Unbroken Ground in Geography. Progress in Human Geography, 17(4), 453–470, p. 456. Hook, S.W. (1995) National Interest and Foreign Aid. Lynne Rienner Publications. Hook, S.W. (2008) Ideas and Change in U.S. Foreign Aid: Inventing the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Foreign Policy Analysis, 4, pp. 147–167. Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23(1), pp. 171–200. Hughes, B.H. (1978) The Domestic Context of American Foreign Policy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. Katzenstein, P. & Sil, R. (2008) Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations. In Reus-Smith, C. & Snidal, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 116–118. Kaul, I. (2005) Global Public Goods: A Key to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Office of Development Studies, UNDP, New York. Kaul, I., Grungberg, I. & Stern, M.A. (1999) Global Public Goods. International Cooperation for the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press. Keohane, R.O. & Nye, J.S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown, Boston. Knack, S. (2004) Does Foreign Aid Promote Democracy? International Studies Quarterly, 48(1), pp. 251–266. Krasner, S.D. (1985) Structural Conflict: The Third World against Global Liberalism. University of California Press. Kuziemko, I. & Werker, E. (2006) How Much Is a Seat on the Security Council Worth? Foreign Aid and Bribery at the United Nations. Journal of Political Economy, 114(5), pp. 905–930. Lancaster, C. (2007) Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, Domestic Politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Liska, G. (1960) The New Statecraft: Foreign aid in American Foreign Policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lumsdaine, D.H. (1993 [1987]) Moral Vision in International Politics. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, p. 5. 32 Bernabé Malacalza Lundsgaarde, E. (2012) The Domestic Politics of Foreign Aid. Routledge, London. Magdoff, H. (1969) The Age of Imperialism: The Economics of US Foreign Policy (vol. 21). New York University Press, New York. Maizels, A. & Nissanke, M. (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries. World Development, 12(9), pp. 879–900. Malacalza, B. (2014) La política de cooperación al desarrollo como dimensión de la política exterior desde la Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales. Mural Internacional, 5(2), pp. 163–176. Malacalza, B. (2015) The Domestic Sources of South-South Development Cooperation Policy of Argentina. Brazilian Journal of International Relations, 4(2), pp. 198–235. Mason, E.S. (1964) Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy. Harper & Row, New York. Mawdsley, E. (2012) From Recipients to Donors: Emerging Powers and the Changing Development Landscape. ZED, London. McKinlay, R. (1979) The Aid Relationship: A Foreign Policy Model and Interpretation of the Distributions of Official Bilateral Economic Aid of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, 1960–1970. Comparative Political Studies, 11(4), pp. 411–463. Montgomery, J.D. (1967) The Politics of Foreign Aid. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Morgenthau, H. (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid. American Political Science Review, 56(2), pp. 301–309. Morgenthau, H.J. (1950) Politics among Nations. Knopf, New York. Morley, L. & Morley, F.M. (1961) The Patchwork History of Foreign Aid. American Enterprise Association, Washington. Nelson, J. (1968) Aid Influence and Foreign Policy. The Macmillan Company, New York. Noël, A. & Thérien, J.P. (1995) From Domestic to International Justice: The Welfare State and Foreign Aid. International Organization, 49(3), pp. 523–553. Nye, J.S., Jr. (1990) Soft Power. Foreign Policy (Autumn, 80), pp. 153–171. Okano-Heijmans, M. (2011) Conceptualizing Economic Diplomacy: The Crossroads of International Relations, Economics, IPE and Diplomatic Studies. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6(1), pp. 7–36. Packenham, R. (1966) Foreign Aid and the National Interest. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10(2). Pankaj, A.K. (2005) Revisiting foreign Aid theories. International Studies, 42(2), pp. 103–112. Pauselli, G. (2013) Teorías de relaciones internacionales y la explicación de la ayuda externa. Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios de Desarrollo – Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies, 2(1), pp. 72–92. Petřík, J. (2008) Securitization of Official Development Aid: Analysis of Current Debate. In International Peace Research Conference, ( July), Leuven, Belgium, pp. 14–19. Pinheiro, L. & Milani, C. R. (2015) Política externa brasileira: as práticas da política e a política das práticas. Editora FGV Pratt, C. (ed.) (1989) Internationalism under Strain: The North-South Policies of Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Toronto University Press, Toronto. Pratt, C. (ed.) (1990) Middle Power Internationalism: The North-South Dimension. McGill – Queen’s University Press, Kingstone and Montreal. Rai, K.B. (1980) Foreign Aid and Voting in the UN General Assembly, 1967–1976. Journal of Peace Research, 17(3), pp. 269–277. Robledo, C. (2015) New Donors, Same Old Practices? South-South Cooperation of Latin American Emerging Donors. Bandung: Journal of the global South, 2(1), p. 3. Politics of aid 33 Ruggie, J.G. (1983) Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. World Politics, 35(2), pp. 261–285. Ruttan, V.W. (1996) United States Development Assistance Policy: The Domestic Politics of Foreign Economic Aid. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Sanahuja, J.A. (1996) La ayuda norteamericana en Centroamérica, 1980–1992 (Doctoral dissertation, Departamento de Derecho Internacional Público y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Complutense, Madrid). Sanahuja, J.A. (2001) Del interés nacional a la ciudadanía global: la ayuda al desarrollo y las transformaciones de la sociedad internacional. In Gómez, G. & Sanahuja, J.A. (eds.) La cooperación al desarrollo en un mundo en cambio, Madrid: CIDEAL. Sanahuja, J.A., & Schünemann, J. (2012) El nexo seguridad-desarrollo: entre la construcción de la paz y la securitización de la ayuda. In Construcción de la paz, seguridad y desarrollo: Visiones, políticas y actores (pp. 17–70). Universidad Complutense, Madrid. Schraeder, P.J., Hook, S.W. & Taylor, B. (1998) Clarifying the Foreign Aid puzzle: A Comparison of American, Japanese, French, and Swedish Aid Flows. World Politics, 50(2). Shapcott, R. (2008) Critical Theory. In Reus-Smit, C. & Snidal, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sogge, D. (2002) Give and Take: What’s the Matter with Foreign Aid? Zed Books, London. Sogge, D. (2009) Sistema de ayuda extranjera: ¿Régimen o vehículo hegemónico? (The Foreign Aid System: Regime or Hegemonic Vehicle?), Relaciones Internacionales, (Octubre, 12), pp. 11–31. Sogge, D. (2015) Donors Helping Themselves. Handbook on the Economics of Foreign Aid, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 280–304. Stokke, O. (ed.) (1989) Western Middle Powers and Global Poverty: The Determinants of the Aid Policies of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Nordic Africa Institute. Strange, S. (1994) Rethinking Structural Change in the International Political Economy: States, Firms and Diplomacy. Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, 1, pp. 103–115. Tandon, Y. (2008) Ending Aid Dependence. Fahamu/Pambazuka, Geneva. Tingley, D. (2010) Donors and Domestic Politics: Political Influences on Foreign Aid Effort. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 50(1), pp. 40–49. Van der Veen, A.M. (2011). Ideas, Interests and Foreign Aid (vol. 120). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Varrall, M. (2016) Domestic Actors and Agendas in Chinese Aid Policy. The Pacific Review, 29(1), pp. 21–44. Viviani, N. (1979) Problems of Aid Administration and Policy Formulation among Western Countries. In Shand, R.T. & Richter, H. (eds.) International Aid: Some Political, Administrative and Technical Realities. The Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 46–90. Warmerdam, W. & de Haan, A. (2011) The Roles of Aid in Politics: Putting China in Perspective. Annotated Bibliography. Weissman, S. (1975) The Trojan Horse: A Radical Look at Foreign Aid. Science and Society, 39(2), pp. 243–246. Wittkopf, E.R. (1973) Foreign Aid and United Nations Votes: A Comparative Study. American Political Science Review, 67(3), pp. 868–888. Woods, N. (2005) The Shifting Politics of Foreign Aid. International Affairs, 81(2), pp. 393–409.