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 in-
vestigation (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 ex-
amine 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 over-
view 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 limita-
tions 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 gener-
ated 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 econ-
omy (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 defi-
nition 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 rela-
tions 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 coun-
tries, to enhance stability within countries of strategic importance, to expand
export markets and procure strategic imports, and to boost reputation in interna-
tional 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 appropri-
ate 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 C ­ ongress and the
voting public”.
Although the early realists traditionally conceived the donor’s security con-
cerns 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 G­ eneral 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 ac-
tors 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 ar-
rangements 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, en-
dorsing 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
­m aximising their own self-interest. Where neoliberal institutionalism analysis
­d iffers from realists is in its stress on interactions, international organisations,
rules, norms, and international regimes, and in the assumption that coopera-
tion involves d­ ifferent types of reciprocity that vary among issues and over time
(­A xelrod, 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 in-
ternational regime of finance and aid can be categorised as a quasi-regime. His rea-
soning 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 insti-
tutionalism, 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 pol-
icy 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, de-
mocracy, 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 judi-
ciaries as checks on executive power, or the promotion of civil society organisa-
tions 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 perspec-
tives have provided a framework for analysis of aid regimes, ideas, and institu-
tions. 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 ‘uni-
verse 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 inter-
national 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 inter-
national 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 norma-
tive 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 con-
cept 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 c­ orrelation
between the prevailing social democratic traditions at home and the exten-
sion 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). Sev-
eral 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 em-
ployed 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 tak-
ing 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 ex-
ploration of the interaction between states and markets to determine the distri-
bution 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 corpo-
rations’ 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 de-
velopment 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 com-
mercial objectives and political tools in a given environment (Okano-Heijmans,
2011, p. 27). The conceptual framework of economic diplomacy facilitates dis-
tinction 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 un-
mask 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) eco-
nomic 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 con-
ception, 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 neo-­
realists, 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) high-
lighted 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), under-
stands 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 behav-
iour of states and for those forces of civil society that act across national bound-
aries” (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 de-
bate 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 condi-
tions 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 cooper-
ation in particular.4 They have provided interesting research on the issues of de-
velopment, 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 enquir-
ies 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 constitu-
encies 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 conclu-
sion 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 gov-
ernments, 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 so-
ciety organisations, many other groups take an active interest in advocacy, in-
cluding 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 unlock-
ing the black box of aid by examining how the nature of the different motiva-
tions of these distinct actors and their interests actually shape unique types of aid
policies. On the one hand, understanding the domestic interaction of bureaucra-
cies 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 inter-
action between domestic and international realms. This makes it difficult to re-
construct 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 stud-
ies 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 lit-
erature 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  I R theoretical perspectives on foreign aid

• Realism and • 

Liberalism, neoliberal •  Constructivism • International • Structuralism and • Foreign Policy
neo-realism institutionalism, and political economy critical theories Analysis
the cosmopolitan
perspective

Research Power, influence, International regimes, Moral dimension Power and market, World orders, Bureaucratic
topics UN voting, international of foreign aid, economic dependency politics, domestic
political and institutions, global social justice, statecraft, theory, hegemonic constituencies,
economic governance, GPGs, humane counter-flows, regimes, power and Policy-making,
interests, Millennium internationalism, international social structures governmental
geopolitics, Development Goals, welfare states, finance, processes,
international democratic peace, securitisation international parliaments,
security, US soft power, public of aid, social trade, economic political parties
containment diplomacy, role of democracy diplomacy, and civil society,
strategy and ideas financial aid budgets
the Cold War, diplomacy, aid
bribes diplomacy
Theoretical Realism, Neoliberal Constructivism International Neo-Marxism Behaviourism
roots Neo-realism institutionalism Humane Political and theories of Middle-range theories
Complex Internationalism Economy underdevelopment Foreign policy analysis
interdependence school Theory of and imperialism, Bureaucratic politics
theory Copenhagen school hegemonic Neo-Gramscian model
Regime theory stability Structuralism/ Public policy analysis
Institutionalism Dependency Theories on
Liberal theory decision-making
internationalism Post-structuralism,
Global Public Goods post-colonialism,
theory decolonialism
The cosmopolitan
school
IR core Instruments of International regimes ‘Like-minded’ Economic Aid dependence Issue-area
concepts foreign policy Norms and rules donors diplomacy Hegemony Foreign policy
Interests defined Global Public Goods Welfare states Aid diplomacy World order making
in terms of States as rational Social democratic Economic and Social forces, Social Bureaucratic politics
power actors parties political interests Movements model
Mutual security Policy coordination. Humane Counter-flows Imperialism Domestic
Geopolitics and Global governance internationalism Economic statecraft Neo-colonialism constituencies of
geo-economics Ideas, beliefs, and Identity Foreign economic Power and social aid
Cold War democratic peace International policy structures Negotiations
Power and practices Coalitions
influence Norms
States as rational Securitisation
actors
Research Empirical questions Empirical questions Empirical questions Empirical questions Empirical questions Empirical questions
questions Why is aid Why do actors To what extent Cui bono? To whom What are the Why do aid policies
given? What interact and create can aid policies is it a benefit? mechanisms for differ across
purposes did international be explained Who gains maintaining national settings
governments institutions/ with reference and who loses? hegemony in a and why do they
pursue with regimes in order to dominant (Strange, 1994) particular historical change over time?
their aid? And to tackle common socio-political structure? (Cox, What are the
why did they challenges within a norms, welfare 1981) domestic sources
choose those specific issue-area? state ideologies of support for
purposes and (Keohane, 1984) and international foreign aid? How
not others? practices? and when does the
(Morgenthau, (Lumsdaine, donor’s domestic
1962) 1993) political and
economic forces
influence its ‘aid
effort’? (Lancaster,
2007)
(Continued)
 • Realism and • Liberalism, neoliberal •  Constructivism • 
International • 
Structuralism and • 
Foreign Policy
neo-realism institutionalism, and political economy critical theories Analysis
the cosmopolitan
perspective

Normative Normative questions Normative questions Normative questions Normative questions Normative questions
questions How should the Are there good and What are the What can be done What are the
What are the international aid bad aid policies? political to encourage the most desirable
political regime be changed What are the consequences change of the aid bureaucratic
purposes that to create better policy coherence that a foreign aid regime? designs in each
a foreign aid conditions for challenges in policy should context? How
policy should implementation donor countries? serve? can cross-
serve? of our global governmental
development coordination be
commitments? improved?
Research To explain To investigate the To investigate To explain the To unmask and To understand
goals how political evolution of the domestic different interrogate power variations in aid
interests are norms and rules of influence, motivations relations within commitments
reflected in a regime over time international of economic and beyond the across countries
patterns of (long-term patterns norms, and diplomacy aid realm, looking and over time;
aid allocation of behaviour), the inherent in its wealth at the problem of examining how
among using the concept meanings and power the world order in societal actors,
developing of international of various dimensions. the whole, giving governmental
countries regime both to international proper attention actors, and the
explore continuity practices, taking to social forces and institutions that
and to investigate discursive processes and seeing regulate their
change in the world claims as an how they relate to interactions
political economy important clue the development influence
(Keohane, 1984, (Lumsdaine, of states and world development aid
p. 64) 1993). orders policy
 To identify the To probe what
extent to is known and
which different unknown about
outcomes of aid’s deployment
foreign aid can ‘upstream’
be explained
with reference to
the basic values
and ideologies
predominant in
these countries
as varieties
of humane
internationalism
(Stokke, 1989)
Level of System level System and Intermediate State and system System and state levels System level State level
analysis States as rational level levels Economic World hegemonic Bureaucratic
actors Regimes as Domestic diplomacy as orders and core/ politics processes
intervening forces (social a process with periphery (North- (governmental
variables, between democracy, different tools South) relations agencies, aid
states and system welfare state, organisations
political parties, and domestic
legislative power constituencies)
and elites’ values)
and international
practices
(Continued)
 • Realism and • Liberalism, neoliberal •  Constructivism • 
International • 
Structuralism and • 
Foreign Policy
neo-realism institutionalism, and political economy critical theories Analysis
the cosmopolitan
perspective

Unit of Great powers’ Inter-state interactions Elite discourses and All economic All financial flows Domestic agents
analysis / foreign policy Cases: International practices diplomacy flows (aid, trade, foreign Cases: Western donors
Cases Cases: American regime of aid and Cases: Scandinavian (trade, finance, direct investment, (also emerging
foreign policy, finance, OECD- countries, investments and capital flight, tax donors)
Soviet foreign DAC regime, Canada, the aid) evasion)
policy European Union Netherlands, Cases: US Cases: US hegemony
European Union economic in world order,
diplomacy, global South, social
China, India, movements.
Russia, others
Foreign aid “The transfer “Cooperation takes “Concessional “Economic “Mechanism of “The gift of public
definition of money, place when the economic diplomacy is a stabilisation and resources from
goods and policies actually assistance, foreign policy dissemination one government
services from followed by one direct and practice and of constitutive to another (or to
one nation government indirect, from strategy that is values for the an international
to another” are regarded the developed based on the maintenance of the organisation or
(Morgenthau, by its partners democracies to premise that world hegemonic nongovernmental
1962, p. 301) as facilitating the Third World economic/ order” (Hettne, organisation),
realisation of their (less developed commercial 1996, p. 54). It sizable and sustained
own objectives, countries)” interests and also serves as a over time, an
as the result of a (Lumsdaine, political interests contra-hegemonic important purpose
process of policy 1993, p. 38). reinforce one instrument of of which is to
coordination” another and non-governmental help improve the
(Keohane, 1998, should thus be organisations and human condition in
pp. 51–52) seen in tandem” social movements countries receiving
(Okano-Heijmans, the aid” (Lancaster,
2011, p. 34) 2007, p. 1)
Foreign Aid is Aid as an international Aid as an Aid is subordinatedAid is subordinate to Aid as an outcome
policy / subordinated regime that serves autonomous to foreign policy the foreign policy of a political
Foreign to foreign global governability practice with its of the hegemon. governmental
aid nexus policy own purposes It is also seen as a process within an
and dynamics contra-hegemonic issue-area of foreign
instrument of policy with its own
social forces dynamics
Foreign aid’s Political and Mutual interests Moral and Political and economic Political and economic Multiple purposes
purposes security interests Development humanitarian interests, power, interests of the Foreign aid is used for
of donor cooperation values and wealth hegemon four main purposes:
countries is a result of Aid is a result of Aid is seen as a tool Aid is seen as a form diplomatic,
Aid policies are the increasing welfare state of economic of imperialism, developmental,
instruments necessity of policy ideologies that diplomacy. The with the donor humanitarian relief,
driven coordination among legitimise the main purposes of states’ aid policies and commercial.
primarily by states to answer sharing of wealth aid are power and being determined The purposes of
the strategic to the challenges within the wealth (Okano- by the economic aid are frequently
interests of originated donor societies, Heijmans, 2011) interests of their as much the result
nation-states by complex and that also national capitalist of what happens
(Morgenthau, interdependence influence their classes (Hayter, inside of a donor
1962) (Keohane, 1984) foreign policy, 1971) government’s
using aid to borders as what
alleviate world happens outside
poverty and to them (Lancaster,
share the wealth 2007)
between rich and
poor countries
(Lumsdaine,
1993)

Source: Author’s elaboration.

28  Bernabé Malacalza

A key finding is that the IR literature on determining the nature of the pol-
itics 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 prin-
ciples, 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 identi-
fied 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 structur-
alism and critical theories. In contrast, IPE and FPA have shown a determi-
nation 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 nec-
essary 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. Per-
spectives 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 exist-

ing 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 so-
ciety and social movements) shape development cooperation policies. It is worth
noting that there is a need to better comprehend the political dynamics in recip-
ients 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 col-
leagues 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 N ­ acional 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 Diplo-
macy 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 jus-
tificaciones 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 Interna-
tional 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 Interna-
tional 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 Rela-
tions 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 Enter-
prise Institute, Washington DC.
Engberg-Pedersen, L. (2018) Do Norms Travel? The Case of Gender in Danish Develop-
ment 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 Econ-
omy, 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 Eco-
nomic 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. Inter-
national 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 Inter-
national 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 Econ-
omy. 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. Univer-
sity 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 Develop-
ment Landscape. ZED, London.
McKinlay, R. (1979) The Aid Relationship: A Foreign Policy Model and Interpreta-
tion 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 Re-
view, 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 Enter-
prise 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 Devel-
opment 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. Jour-
nal 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 Neo-
realist 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 dis-
sertation, Departamento de Derecho Internacional Público y Relaciones Internacion-
ales, 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 con-
strucción 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 Com-
parison 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 Econ-
omy: 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 Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Varrall, M. (2016) Domestic Actors and Agendas in Chinese Aid Policy. The Pacific Re-
view, 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 Soci-
ety, 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.