Aiding Human Rights? The Effect of U.S., European, and Chinese Development Assistance on Rights Practices in Recipient Countries, 2001 to 2017

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIOLOGY International Journal of Sociology Pub Date : 2022-05-11 DOI:10.1080/00207659.2022.2067629
W. Cole
{"title":"Aiding Human Rights? The Effect of U.S., European, and Chinese Development Assistance on Rights Practices in Recipient Countries, 2001 to 2017","authors":"W. Cole","doi":"10.1080/00207659.2022.2067629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Official development assistance (ODA) refers to aid intended to promote economic development and wellbeing in developing countries. The effect of ODA from Western donors continues to be debated, but the impact of aid from non-Western countries such as China is a relatively new field of inquiry and analysis. Using data on Western ODA and a new dataset of “ODA-like” disbursements from China, this article analyzes the relationship between bilateral aid receipts from three sources—the United States, major European donors, and China—and two sets of human rights practices: physical integrity and “empowerment” (i.e., civil and political) rights. Analyses are conducted using panel fixed-effects regression models with and without instrumental variables. U.S. ODA, in particular, improves human rights in recipient countries. Estimated effects of bilateral ODA from European donors and China are far less robust. These results suggest that U.S. aid is not as ineffective nor Chinese aid as pernicious as is commonly assumed.","PeriodicalId":45362,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2022.2067629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Official development assistance (ODA) refers to aid intended to promote economic development and wellbeing in developing countries. The effect of ODA from Western donors continues to be debated, but the impact of aid from non-Western countries such as China is a relatively new field of inquiry and analysis. Using data on Western ODA and a new dataset of “ODA-like” disbursements from China, this article analyzes the relationship between bilateral aid receipts from three sources—the United States, major European donors, and China—and two sets of human rights practices: physical integrity and “empowerment” (i.e., civil and political) rights. Analyses are conducted using panel fixed-effects regression models with and without instrumental variables. U.S. ODA, in particular, improves human rights in recipient countries. Estimated effects of bilateral ODA from European donors and China are far less robust. These results suggest that U.S. aid is not as ineffective nor Chinese aid as pernicious as is commonly assumed.
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
帮助人权?2001年至2017年美国、欧洲和中国发展援助对受援国人权实践的影响
官方发展援助(ODA)是指旨在促进发展中国家经济发展和福祉的援助。来自西方捐助者的官方发展援助的影响仍在辩论中,但来自中国等非西方国家的援助的影响是一个相对较新的调查和分析领域。本文利用西方官方发展援助数据和中国“类官方发展援助”支出的新数据集,分析了来自三个来源(美国、主要欧洲援助国和中国)的双边援助收入与两套人权实践(人身安全和“赋权”(即公民权利和政治权利)之间的关系。分析使用面板固定效应回归模型进行,有和没有工具变量。特别是,美国的官方发展援助改善了受援国的人权。来自欧洲和中国的双边官方发展援助的估计效果远没有那么强劲。这些结果表明,美国的援助并不像人们通常认为的那样无效,中国的援助也不像人们通常认为的那样有害。
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Including Marine-Related Items in the ISSP Environment Module is Important for a More Holistic Measure of Public Environmental Perceptions When do Women Take the Lead? Exploring the Intersection Between Gender Equality and Women’s Environmental Political Participation from a Comparative Perspective Automated Futures, Altered Priorities: The Impact of Technological Change on Environmental Attitudes and Policies Using the Campbell Paradigm to Understand the Role of Institutional Trust in Environmental Policy Support Do “environmental losers” pay the price? The role of individual and country vulnerabilities in the relationship between environmental concern and willingness to pay to protect the environment
×
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