查明捐助者在官方发展援助长期分配方面的异同

Q2 Social Sciences Development Studies Research Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965
Paulo Francisco, Sandrina B. Moreira, Jorge Caiado
{"title":"查明捐助者在官方发展援助长期分配方面的异同","authors":"Paulo Francisco, Sandrina B. Moreira, Jorge Caiado","doi":"10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Advanced countries have pledged to mobilize additional financial resources to developing countries, including funding from multiple sources other than official development assistance (ODA), known as foreign aid. However, the effect of the novel coronavirus pandemic has raised doubts about the feasibility of such a pledge, highlighting, once again, the possible role of ODA and the importance of explaining its allocation, which could be of vital relevance for understanding its effectiveness. This study analyzes a vast number of bilateral and multilateral donors by applying a novel methodology in the context of aid allocation – principal-component factor analysis – covering the period 1990–2015. The results revealed four distinct clusters of donors: (i) the proportionally largest Western European donors, characterized by a significant number of beneficiaries, especially low-income countries; (ii) donors that are predominantly driven by structural links with recipients, especially links derived from colonial connections; (iii) a group of mainly Eastern European donors who are engaged with lower-income countries in Eastern Europe and Western Asia; and (iv) a group of Asian and Oceanian donors that select their partners mainly based on the geographical proximity criterion.","PeriodicalId":37781,"journal":{"name":"Development Studies Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"181 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying differences and similarities between donors regarding the long-term allocation of official development assistance\",\"authors\":\"Paulo Francisco, Sandrina B. Moreira, Jorge Caiado\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Advanced countries have pledged to mobilize additional financial resources to developing countries, including funding from multiple sources other than official development assistance (ODA), known as foreign aid. However, the effect of the novel coronavirus pandemic has raised doubts about the feasibility of such a pledge, highlighting, once again, the possible role of ODA and the importance of explaining its allocation, which could be of vital relevance for understanding its effectiveness. This study analyzes a vast number of bilateral and multilateral donors by applying a novel methodology in the context of aid allocation – principal-component factor analysis – covering the period 1990–2015. The results revealed four distinct clusters of donors: (i) the proportionally largest Western European donors, characterized by a significant number of beneficiaries, especially low-income countries; (ii) donors that are predominantly driven by structural links with recipients, especially links derived from colonial connections; (iii) a group of mainly Eastern European donors who are engaged with lower-income countries in Eastern Europe and Western Asia; and (iv) a group of Asian and Oceanian donors that select their partners mainly based on the geographical proximity criterion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development Studies Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"181 - 198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development Studies Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development Studies Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2021.1954965","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要发达国家承诺为发展中国家调动更多的财政资源,包括来自官方发展援助(ODA)以外的多种来源的资金,即外国援助。然而,新型冠状病毒大流行的影响使人们对这一承诺的可行性产生了怀疑,再次强调了官方发展援助的可能作用以及解释其分配的重要性,这可能对理解其有效性至关重要。这项研究通过在1990-2015年期间的援助分配背景下应用一种新的方法——主要成分因素分析——对大量双边和多边捐助者进行了分析。结果显示有四类不同的捐助者:(一)按比例最大的西欧捐助者,其特点是受益人数众多,特别是低收入国家;(ii)捐助者主要受与受援者的结构性联系的驱动,特别是来自殖民地关系的联系;三与东欧和西亚低收入国家合作的一组主要是东欧捐助者;四一组亚洲和大洋洲捐助者,主要根据地理邻近标准选择其合作伙伴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Identifying differences and similarities between donors regarding the long-term allocation of official development assistance
ABSTRACT Advanced countries have pledged to mobilize additional financial resources to developing countries, including funding from multiple sources other than official development assistance (ODA), known as foreign aid. However, the effect of the novel coronavirus pandemic has raised doubts about the feasibility of such a pledge, highlighting, once again, the possible role of ODA and the importance of explaining its allocation, which could be of vital relevance for understanding its effectiveness. This study analyzes a vast number of bilateral and multilateral donors by applying a novel methodology in the context of aid allocation – principal-component factor analysis – covering the period 1990–2015. The results revealed four distinct clusters of donors: (i) the proportionally largest Western European donors, characterized by a significant number of beneficiaries, especially low-income countries; (ii) donors that are predominantly driven by structural links with recipients, especially links derived from colonial connections; (iii) a group of mainly Eastern European donors who are engaged with lower-income countries in Eastern Europe and Western Asia; and (iv) a group of Asian and Oceanian donors that select their partners mainly based on the geographical proximity criterion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Development Studies Research
Development Studies Research Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Development Studies Research ( DSR) is a Routledge journal dedicated to furthering debates in development studies. The journal provides a valuable platform for academics and practitioners to present their research on development issues to as broad an audience as possible. All DSR papers are published Open Access. This ensures that anyone, anywhere can engage with the valuable work being carried out by the myriad of academics and practitioners engaged in development research. The readership of DSR demonstrates that our goal of reaching as broad an audience as possible is being achieved. Papers are accessed by over 140 countries, some reaching over 9,000 downloads. The importance of the journal to impact is thus critical and the significance of OA to development researchers, exponential. Since its 2014 launch, the journal has examined numerous development issues from across the globe, including indigenous struggles, aid effectiveness, small-scale farming for poverty reduction, sustainable entrepreneurship, agricultural development, climate risk and the ‘resource curse’. Every paper published in DSR is an emblem of scientific rigour, having been reviewed first by members of an esteemed Editorial Board, and then by expert academics in a rigorous review process. Every paper, from the one examining a post-Millennium Development Goals environment by one of its architects (see Vandermortele 2014), to ones using established academic theory to understand development-imposed change (see Heeks and Stanforth 2015), and the more policy-oriented papers that contribute valuable recommendations to policy-makers and practitioners (see DSR Editor’s Choice: Policy), reaches a multidisciplinary audience.
期刊最新文献
Tourism development and carbon emissions in sub-Saharan African countries: is there an inverted U-shaped relationship? The Impact of financial Inclusion on financial Stability: review of Theories and international Evidence Negative interaction between democratization and economic development on changes in average life satisfaction: evidence from European countries between 1981 and 2022 Land use and crimes in Indonesian rural and urban areas Examining the link between tax revenue mobilization efforts and capital flight in African countries
×
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