Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The domestic political impact of foreign aid: recalibrating the research agenda

By Peter J. Burnell


The recent concentration of attention by some political scientists on evaluating the effectiveness of democracy assistance, drawing on the transient policy concerns of major donors, is a welcome innovation to a research agenda traditionally biased towards aid's significance for economic development. But its focus is restricted and unrepresentative. This article argues the case for a more comprehensive assessment of the domestic political consequences - both direct and indirect - of all forms of aid, in principle for aid recipients everywhere. This recommendation offers the advantage of serving the limited purposes of analysts of democratisation generally and democracy aid specifically, but more importantly reconnects their approach with the broader political analysis of aid by a wider social science community. It is important to 'think outside the box' of contemporary donor concerns, recalibrating the research agenda in ways that raise other political priorities. The article offers a framework for this purpose. Comprehending the political dynamics in aid-receiving countries should be the primary orienting principle, rather than viewing countries as objects of aid and proceeding to interpret their politics through the distorting lens of donor perspectives

Topics: JC
Publisher: Routledge
Year: 2004
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. 1987, ‘The Role of Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Assistance Policy: A Critique and Reappraisal’, doi
  2. 2002b, ‘Aid Conditionality as a Tool for Peace-building: Opportunities and Constraints’,
  3. 2003b, ‘Promoting Democracy From Without – doi
  4. (2002). Age of Reverse Aid: Neo-liberalism as Catalyst of Regression’, doi
  5. (2002). Aid and Poverty Reduction in Zambia. Mission Unaccomplished, Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. doi
  6. (2000). Aid as a Catalyst’, Development and Change, doi
  7. (2000). Aid dependence and governance.
  8. (2003). Aid probably has not yet exhausted its potential to contribute to violent internal conflict, but ways in which aid can help pull societies back from such conflict and/or prevent its recurrence are beginning to be addressed. See for example Addison
  9. (1999). Aiding Democracy Abroad. The Learning Curve, doi
  10. Assessing Aid. What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why, doi
  11. (2004). Assessing Civil Society Impact for Democracy Programmes: Using an Advocacy Scale doi
  12. (2003). Breaking the Conflict Trap, doi
  13. (1998). Clarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle. doi
  14. (2000). Democracy Assistance, doi
  15. (1997). Democracy Assistance: doi
  16. (2003). Democracy from Without: Learning from doi
  17. (2003). Democracy Promotion Effective? Comparing Conditionality and doi
  18. (1999). Democracy’s Value, Cambridge: doi
  19. (2003). Democratization through the looking-glass, Manchester:
  20. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of doi
  21. (2001). Empowerment at Last?’, doi
  22. (1981). Equality, the Third World and Economic Delusion, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. doi
  23. Exporting Democracy: Rhetoric vs Reality, doi
  24. (2001). Foreign Aid and Political Reform, doi
  25. (2001). Foreign Aid and Statehood in Africa’, doi
  26. (2003). From Conflict to Reconstruction in Africa, Oxford: doi
  27. (2002). Good Governance and Aid: Selectivity Criteria doi
  28. (2001). Good Governance”: The Rise and Decline of a Policy Metaphor?’, doi
  29. (1984). Institutional Destruction Resulting from Donor and Project Proliferation in sub-Saharan doi
  30. (1992). Interest Group Politics and the Implementation of Adjustment Policies in sub-saharan Africa’, doi
  31. (2003). Jump-starting Democracy: Adult Civic Education and Democratic Participation doi
  32. Liberal America and the Third World. Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid and Social Science, doi
  33. (2002). New Politics of Taxation and Accountability’. doi
  34. (1997). NGOs, States and Donors. Too Close for Comfort?, doi
  35. (1998). On the World Bank’s doi
  36. (1985). On this a pioneering article was Cohen, Grindle and Walker
  37. (1999). Politics and Poverty: A Background Paper for the World Development Report 2000/1, at http:/ 24Morrissey, O.,
  38. (1971). Polyarchy: participation and opposition, doi
  39. (2003). Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror’, Foreign Affairs, doi
  40. (2000). Promoting Democratic Governance in the South’, doi
  41. (2000). Promotion of Democracy as a Foreign Policy Instrument of “Europe”: Limits to doi
  42. (2001). PRSP Institutionalisation Study: Final Report,
  43. (2000). Putting politics into poverty reduction? The WDR on empowerment.
  44. (1973). Relevant themes are discussed by Pakenham
  45. (2003). Responding to Democratic Decay and Crises of Governance: doi
  46. (1996). The Aid Relationship in Zambia. A Conflict Scenario, Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstituet. doi
  47. (2001). The European Union and the Promotion of Democracy, doi
  48. (1985). The Political Economy of Foreign Aid: A Model for the Market for a Public Good’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, doi
  49. (1999). The Politics of Civil Society Building, doi
  50. (1978). The Second Image Reversed: the International Sources of Domestic Politics’, doi
  51. (2000). These are the only aid evaluations that make sense’. Pronk
  52. Unpacking Aid’, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.