Do diplomatic visits promote official development aid? Evidence from Japan

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1080/00323187.2021.1948344
Hiroyuki Hoshiro
{"title":"Do diplomatic visits promote official development aid? Evidence from Japan","authors":"Hiroyuki Hoshiro","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2021.1948344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do diplomatic visits by political leaders of recipient countries to donors influence the amount of bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) granted by donors? Some might argue that as aid allocation is already determined by a donor’s cost and benefit calculation, diplomatic visits do not affect the donor’s aid allocation behaviour. Despite the importance of answering such questions regarding the determinants of aid allocation, no research has been conducted on this topic. Focusing on the case of Japan, this study explores the relationship between diplomatic visits from recipients and aid allocation. Since the 1960s, Japan has been one of the top five aid-giving countries of the world; however, its motives have been criticised as self-interested and solely in pursuit of ulterior economic interests. Through an analysis of panel data measuring ODA given by Japan to 179 recipient countries between 1969 and 2015, this paper reached the following conclusions. First, diplomatic visits to Japan by political leaders from aid recipient countries resulted in said countries receiving increased bilateral ODA from Japan in cases where countries were already receiving aid from Japan. The more diplomatic visits made to Japan, the greater the increase in aid. This result can be explained by three mechanisms: (1) diplomatic visits are a costly signal of developing countries’ need for aid, (2) visits to donor countries would create domestic political pressure in donor countries when visitors openly require financial assistance, and (3) face-to-face talks are likely to provide opportunities for leaders of a donor to gain greater knowledge of recipients’ needs. This result was verified using different models and several robustness checks such as an instrumental variables approach that accounts for reverse causality and endogeneity, error-correction model (ECM), which can control for temporal dependence and the problem of co-integration. Second, diplomatic visits were shown to have no relation with the initiation of new aid agreements in cases of developing countries that have not received aid from Japan in the past. This is because, there are only few countries such as North Korea that do not receive ODA from Japan when their leaders visit Japan for the first time. This result implies that aid initiation has other causes rather than diplomatic visits. This study makes two contributions to the study of aid allocation and international relations. Although a considerable amount of quantitative research on aid allocation","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"207 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.1948344","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Do diplomatic visits by political leaders of recipient countries to donors influence the amount of bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) granted by donors? Some might argue that as aid allocation is already determined by a donor’s cost and benefit calculation, diplomatic visits do not affect the donor’s aid allocation behaviour. Despite the importance of answering such questions regarding the determinants of aid allocation, no research has been conducted on this topic. Focusing on the case of Japan, this study explores the relationship between diplomatic visits from recipients and aid allocation. Since the 1960s, Japan has been one of the top five aid-giving countries of the world; however, its motives have been criticised as self-interested and solely in pursuit of ulterior economic interests. Through an analysis of panel data measuring ODA given by Japan to 179 recipient countries between 1969 and 2015, this paper reached the following conclusions. First, diplomatic visits to Japan by political leaders from aid recipient countries resulted in said countries receiving increased bilateral ODA from Japan in cases where countries were already receiving aid from Japan. The more diplomatic visits made to Japan, the greater the increase in aid. This result can be explained by three mechanisms: (1) diplomatic visits are a costly signal of developing countries’ need for aid, (2) visits to donor countries would create domestic political pressure in donor countries when visitors openly require financial assistance, and (3) face-to-face talks are likely to provide opportunities for leaders of a donor to gain greater knowledge of recipients’ needs. This result was verified using different models and several robustness checks such as an instrumental variables approach that accounts for reverse causality and endogeneity, error-correction model (ECM), which can control for temporal dependence and the problem of co-integration. Second, diplomatic visits were shown to have no relation with the initiation of new aid agreements in cases of developing countries that have not received aid from Japan in the past. This is because, there are only few countries such as North Korea that do not receive ODA from Japan when their leaders visit Japan for the first time. This result implies that aid initiation has other causes rather than diplomatic visits. This study makes two contributions to the study of aid allocation and international relations. Although a considerable amount of quantitative research on aid allocation
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外交访问能促进官方发展援助吗?来自日本的证据
受援国政治领导人对援助国的外交访问是否会影响援助国提供的双边官方发展援助数额?有些人可能会争辩说,由于援助分配已经由捐助国的成本和收益计算决定,外交访问不会影响捐助国的援助分配行为。尽管回答这些关于援助分配决定因素的问题很重要,但尚未对这一主题进行研究。本研究以日本为例,探讨受援国外交访问与援助分配之间的关系。自20世纪60年代以来,日本一直是世界五大援助国之一;然而,它的动机被批评为自私自利,仅仅是为了追求不可告人的经济利益。本文通过对1969 - 2015年间日本向179个受援国提供的官方发展援助的面板数据进行分析,得出以下结论:首先,受援国政治领导人对日本的外交访问导致受援国在已经接受日本援助的情况下从日本获得更多的双边官方发展援助。对日外交访问越多,援助增加越多。这一结果可以用三种机制来解释:(1)外交访问是一个代价高昂的信号,表明发展中国家需要援助;(2)访问捐助国,当访问者公开要求财政援助时,会给捐助国造成国内政治压力;(3)面对面会谈可能为捐助国领导人提供机会,使他们更了解受援国的需求。这一结果是通过不同的模型和几个稳健性检查来验证的,例如解释反向因果关系和内生性的工具变量方法,可以控制时间依赖性和协整问题的误差校正模型(ECM)。第二,对于过去没有得到日本援助的发展中国家来说,外交访问与启动新的援助协议没有关系。这是因为,像北韩这样在首脑首次访日时没有得到日本官方发展援助的国家很少。这一结果表明,援助启动有其他原因,而不是外交访问。本研究对援助分配和国际关系的研究有两个贡献。虽然对援助分配的定量研究相当多
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Sloppy targeting of Chinese voters in the 2020 New Zealand general election: an exploration of National and Labour’s targeting strategies Leaderless Movements? Rethinking Leaders, Spontaneity, and Organisation-Ness The Realpolitik of small states: explaining New Zealand’s silence on human rights violations in Turkey (Türkiye) and China Identity and institutional thickening of Asia and the Pacific: narrating regional belonging in the foreign policy of Indonesia Referendum campaign financing by political parties: the case of the United Kingdom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1