Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence and support for foreign aid: Evidence from the United States and China

  • Published:
The Review of International Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When do members of the public support outgoing foreign aid? Existing research often focuses on individual and sociotropic sources of support based on economic, ideological, and emotional considerations. This article examines a potentially under-appreciated source of attitudes toward outgoing aid: foreign policy influence for one’s country. I argue that observers can make intuitive associations between different types of aid and different influence outcomes, and that the prospect of influence will generally increase support for outgoing aid. To test these claims, I conduct parallel survey experiments in the two largest donor and lender countries, the United States and China. I find that an aid project’s mode of delivery and degree of visibility affect its perceived value for influence-seeking, and that respondents understand and generally support the use of aid for influence. While direct aid to governments does not appear to increase support, project visibility does, and support is particularly high for visible aid provided directly to host country governments. The findings contribute to existing international relations and political economy research on aid and public opinion, international influence, and Chinese development finance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Replication data and code are available on the website of the Review of International Organizations.

Notes

  1. See https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-rebranding-united-states-foreign-assistance-advance-american-influence/.

  2. Milner (2006) shows that concern about domestic public opinion is an important reason why governments opt to contribute substantial multilateral aid even though doing so relinquishes control relative to providing aid bilaterally. Others argue that public opinion toward aid only sometimes affects actual aid allocation (e.g. Otter , 2003.

  3. Though, governments with relatively strong domestic support bases for aid giving, such as the U.K., may be able to protect aid budgets during economic downturns (Paxton & Knack, 2012).

  4. As a recent example, in 2018 Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs began a domestic promotional campaign featuring an “ODA-man” anime character to bolster popular support for its overseas development assistance amid rising domestic demographic and economic pressures (Lindgren, 2020).

  5. Public foreign policy preferences are shaped by political ideology, partisanship, as well as a host of individual-level attributes. Attitudes are also mediated by framing by the media and cue taking from elites (Zaller, 1992; Baum & Potter, 2008; Berinsky, 2009; Baum & Groeling, 2009).

  6. Relatedly, constituents may support aid to the extent it increases their own economic welfare or reflects humanitarian values they support (Milner & Tingley, 2011; Heinrich, 2013).

  7. Such perceptions may depend on respondents’ education levels (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2006, 2010), in-group and out-group dynamics (Mansfield & Mutz, 2009), information on and comprehension of policies (Bearce & Tuxhorn, 2017), and other individual characteristics such as gender (Mansfield et al., 2015).

  8. A diverse set of economic, political, and security interests motivate donor governments’ provision of development finance (e.g. Maizels and Nissanke , 1984; Meernik et al. , 1998; Burnside and Dollar , 2000; Katada , 2001; Milner and Tingley , 2010).

  9. Soft power is usually defined as governments’ ability to advance their interests via attraction rather than coercion (Nye Jr, 2004). Favorable foreign public opinion is a common measure in international relations for soft power (e.g., Nye Jr , 2004; Goldsmith and Horiuchi , 2012; Rose , 2016).

  10. Not doing so can be costly. For instance, popular anti-American sentiment abroad serves as a symbolic resource for mobilizers in other countries to affect policy change locally and internationally (Schatz, 2021).

  11. Earlier studies consider how project-specific features, such as sector (e.g. economic or military) and financing type (e.g. grant or loan), affect the strategic utility of projects for both donors and recipients (e.g. Poe and Meernik , 1995; Dube and Naidu , 2015; Bermeo , 2016; Dreher et al. , 2018). Several other studies examine how variation in donor identity produces different popular reactions (Findley et al., 2017a, b; Cha, 2020; Blair & Roessler, 2021).

  12. Some exceptions exist. For instance, Dietrich et al. (2019) examine different levels of project branding, and Milner et al. (2016) investigate attitudinal effects caused by different project funder identities.

  13. A sizeable literature in political science conceptualizes influence. One classic definition is “a relation among actors in which one actor induces other actors to act in some way they would not otherwise act” (Dahl , 1973, 40). This literature suggests that states’ ability to translate raw power into political influence takes on various forms (Lukes, 1974; Nye Jr, 2004; Gaventa, 1982; Barnett & Duvall, 2005).

  14. Combinations of non-governmental actors such as NGOs, INGOs, and commercial contractors implement a growing share of development finance projects (Dietrich, 2013).

  15. High-visibility projects, in addition to their conspicuous physical presence relative to low-visibility projects, also tend to receive more publicity, particularly around key milestones such as a project’s announcement, commencement, or completion ceremonies (e.g. Menga , 2015).

  16. National leaders similarly often possess political incentives to pursue domestically-financed infrastructure and other visible development projects (Mani & Mukand, 2007; Harding, 2015; Lei & Zhou, 2022).

  17. Alternatively, opportunistic opposition politicians can exploit negative sentiment toward visible aid projects (or their proponents) for domestic political gain (O’Brien-Udry, 2020).

  18. See https://stats.oecd.org/.

  19. The surveys and embedded experiments were not pre-registered. All outcome questions included in the surveys are discussed in the manuscript and reported in Appendix 2. The online appendix is available on the Review of International Organizations’ webpage.

  20. Lucid was acquired by the Cint Group. See https://www.cint.com/blog/lucid-and-the-trade-desk-power-advertisers-brand-impact.

  21. It was placed in the fifth of six short question blocks prior to treatment. This follows suggestions to place attention checks shortly before treatment since attentiveness can vary while taking a survey (Kane et al., 2023). It asked respondents “To verify that you are paying attention, please select the ‘somewhat disagree’ response option.”

  22. In the power analysis, the minimum effect of interest was .5, the standard deviation was 1.5, and the significance level was .01, inputs that were informed by other recent experimental studies I have conducted in order to achieve 80% power. Power was calculated for direct tests of differences in means between treatment groups. This analysis suggested that each treatment group should include about 211 respondents.

  23. In Appendix 3, Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 plot treatment group balance for a set of pre-treatment covariates. Tables 2 and 3 further examine balance across treatment groups for the American and Chinese samples.

  24. Moreover, as reflected in Appendix 5 (for example, Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12), neither age nor other covariates for which the samples are unrepresentative appear strongly associated with perceptions of aid’s influence functions or outcomes. In the American sample, age is negatively associated with perceptions of influence functions while it is positively associated with them in the China sample. The results for other covariates–such as gender, education, and income–are generally not significant.

  25. See https://foreignassistance.gov/.

  26. https://www.foreignassistance.gov/cd/kenya/2017/disbursements/0. Disbursement data is not publicly available for Chinese development finance.

  27. The survey administered online to Chinese respondents initially used a seven-point scale to measure the same questions, and the results herein are transformed to five-point scale in order to make apples-to-apples comparisons about effect magnitudes. The substantive results are unchanged when using the original scale.

  28. Base covariates include respondent age, gender, level of education (whether one has a college degree), income (based on an 11- and 14-tiered scale of income ranges for the US and China, respectively), and political ideology (US only; coded as 1 if a respondent identifies as conservative along a seven-point numerical spectrum). In addition to the covariates included in these regressions, the surveys also captured additional pre-treatment factors such as measures of nationalism, support for democracy, and foreign policy ideology. Including these covariates does not change the results.

  29. Again, results here are presented in terms of raw five-point scales.

  30. As this study examines multiple outcomes to probe potential mechanisms, I also compute Bonferroni-corrected p-values for each hypothesis test. The significance of the main results holds and the differences in means remain statistically significant at more stringent thresholds (e.g. .01).

  31. Though it is also unclear the extent to which American respondents were familiar with bypass aid prior to the survey treatment.

  32. These questions also serve as implicit post-treatment manipulation checks. For example, respondents treated with a visible project should report higher level of agreement that the project will be highly visible.

  33. Non-governmental actors such as international NGOs also prioritize project visibility among donor and host country audiences to attract financing and improve their public reputation (Phillips, 2019).

References

  • Ahlquist, J. S., Clayton, A. B., & Levi, M. (2014). Provoking Preferences: Unionization, Trade Policy, and the ILWU Puzzle. International Organization, 68(1), 33–75.

  • Aldrich, J. H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J., & Sharp, K. T. (2006). Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 477–502.

  • Aldrich, J. H., Sullivan, J. L., & Borgida, E. (1989). Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates ‘Waltz Before a Blind Audience?’. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 123–141.

  • Allan, B., Vucetic, S., & Hopf, T. (2018). The Distribution of Identity and the Future of International Order: China’s Hegemonic Prospects. International Organization, 72(4), 839–869.

  • Allendoerfer, M. G. (2017). Who Cares About Human Rights? Public Opinion About Human Rights Foreign Policy. Journal of Human Rights, 16(4), 428–451.

  • Alrababa’h, A., Myrick, R., & Webb, I. (2020). Do Donor Motives Matter? Investigating Perceptions of Foreign Aid in the Conflict in Donbas. International Studies Quarterly, 64(3), 748–757.

  • Baker, A. (2015). Race, Paternalism, and Foreign Aid: Evidence from US Public Opinion. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 93–109.

  • Baldwin, K., & Winters, M. S. (2020). How Do Different Forms of Foreign Aid Affect Government Legitimacy? Evidence from an Informational Experiment in Uganda. Studies in Comparative International Development, 55(2), 160–183.

  • Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization, 59(01), 39–75.

  • Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2009). Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War. Political Behavior, 31(2), 157–186.

  • Baum, M. A., & Potter, P. B. K. (2008). The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 39–65.

  • Bayram, A. B. (2017). Aiding Strangers: Generalized Trust and the Moral Basis of Public Support for Foreign Development Aid. Foreign Policy Analysis, 13(1), 133–153.

  • Bayram, A. B., & Holmes, M. (2020). Feeling their Pain: Affective Empathy and Public Preferences for Foreign Development Aid. European Journal of International Relations, 26(3), 820–850.

  • Bayram, A. B., & Thomson, C. P. (2022). Ignoring the Messenger? Limits of Populist Rhetoric on Public Support for Foreign Development Aid. International Studies Quarterly, 66(1), sqab041.

  • Bearce, D. H., & Tuxhorn, K.-L. (2017). When are Monetary Policy Preferences Egocentric? Evidence from American Surveys and an Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 178–193.

  • Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., & Margalit, Y. (2014). Preferences for International Redistribution: the Divide Over the Eurozone Bailouts. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 835–856.

  • Berinsky, A. J. (2009). In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739–753.

  • Berman, E., Shapiro, J. N., & Felter, J. H. (2011). Can Hearts and Minds be Bought? The Economics of Counterinsurgency in Iraq. Journal of Political Economy, 119(4), 766–819.

  • Bermeo, S. B. (2016). Aid is not Oil: Donor Utility, Heterogeneous Aid, and the Aid-Democratization Relationship. International Organization, 70(1), 1–32.

  • Blair, R. A., & Roessler, P. (2021). Foreign Aid and State Legitimacy Evidence on Chinese and US Aid to Africa from Surveys, Survey Experiments, and Behavioral Games. World Politics, 73(2), 315–357.

  • Blair, R. A., Marty, R., & Roessler, P. (2022). Foreign Aid and Soft Power: Great Power Competition in Africa in the Early Twenty-First Century. British Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 1355–1376.

  • Brautigam, D. (2009). The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, R. C. (2012). Electrifying the Base? Aid and Incumbent Advantage in Ghana. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 50(4), 603–624.

  • Brown, S. (2018). All About that Base? Branding and the Domestic Politics of Canadian Foreign Aid. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 24(2), 145–164.

  • Brutger, R., Kertzer, J. D., Renshon, J., Tingley, D., & Weiss, C. M. (2020). Abstraction and Detail in Experimental Design. Working Paper. https://bit.ly/3juYJ0A.

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B. B., & Smith, A. (2007). Foreign Aid and Policy Concessions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(2), 251–284.

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Smith, A. (2009). A Political Economy of Aid. International Organization, 63(2), 309–340.

  • Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, Policies, and Growth. American Economic Review, 90(4), 847–868.

  • Bush, S. S., & Clayton, A. (2022). Facing Change: Gender and Climate Change Attitudes Worldwide. American Political Science Review pp. 1–18.

  • Bush, S. S., & Jamal, A. A. (2015). Anti-Americanism, Authoritarian Politics, and Attitudes About Women’s Representation: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Jordan. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), 34–45.

  • Cha, S. (2020). Does Foreign Aid Raise Awareness of Corruption? Evidence from Chinese Aid in 30 African States. AidData Working Paper #95. Williamsburg, VA: AidData at William & Mary.

  • Cheng, Z., & Smyth, R. (2016). Why Give it Away When you Need it Yourself? Understanding Public Support for Foreign Aid in China. The Journal of Development Studies, 52(1), 53–71.

  • Chiba, D., & Heinrich, T. (2019). Colonial Legacy and Foreign Aid: Decomposing the Colonial Bias. International Interactions, 45(3), 474–499.

  • Christiansen, W., Heinrich, T., & Peterson, T. M. (2019). Foreign Policy Begins at Home: the Local Origin of Support for us Democracy Promotion. International Interactions, 45(4), 595–616.

  • Chu, J. A. (2021). Liberal Ideology and Foreign Opinion on China. International Studies Quarterly, 65(4), 960–972.

  • Chubb, D., & McAllister, I. (2023). Global Values or National Interest? Public Opinion Towards Foreign Aid in Australia. Australian Journal of International Affairs pp. 1–14.

  • Chung, E., Pechenkina, A. O., & Skinner, K. K. (2022). Competitors in Aid: How International Rivalry Affects Public Support for Aid Under Various Frames. Political Research Quarterly.

  • Coppock, A., & McClellan, O. A. (2019). Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1), 2053168018822174.

  • Cruz, C., & Schneider, C. J. (2017). Foreign Aid and Undeserved Credit Claiming. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 396–408.

  • Custer, S., Dreher, A., Elston, T.-B., Fuchs, A., Ghose, S., Lin, J. J., Malik, A., Parks, B., Russell, B., Solomon, K., Strange, A., Tierney, M. J., Walsh, K., Zaleski, L., & Zhang, S. (2021). Tracking Chinese Development Finance: an Application of AidData’s TUFF 2.0 Methodology. Williamsburg, VA: AidData at William & Mary.

  • Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Caughey, D. (2018). Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 399–416.

  • Dahl, R. A. (1973). Modern Political Analysis. Pearson College Division.

  • Dietrich, S. (2013). Bypass or Engage? Explaining Donor Delivery Tactics in Foreign Aid Allocation. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 698–712.

  • Dietrich, S., & Winters, M. S. (2015). Foreign Aid and Government Legitimacy. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 164–171.

  • Dietrich, S., Hyde, S. D., & Winters, M. S. (2019). Overseas Credit Claiming and Domestic Support for Foreign Aid. Journal of Experimental Political Science pp. 1–12.

  • Dietrich, S., Mahmud, M., & Winters, M. S. (2017). Foreign Aid, Foreign Policy, and Domestic Government Legitimacy: Experimental Evidence from Bangladesh. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 133–148.

  • Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Hodler, R., Parks, B. C., Raschky, P. A., & Tierney, M. J. (2019). African Leaders and the Geography of China’s Foreign Assistance. Journal of Development Economics, 140, 44–71.

  • Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Parks, B., Strange, A. M., & Tierney, M. J. (2018). Apples and Dragon Fruits: the Determinants of Aid and Other Forms of State Financing from China to Africa. International Studies Quarterly, 62(1), 182–194.

  • Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Parks, B., Strange, A., & Tierney, M. J. (2022). Banking on Beijing: the Aims and Impacts of China’s Overseas Development Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dreher, A., Sturm, J.-E., & Vreeland, J. R. (2009). Development Aid and International Politics: Does Membership on the UN Security Council Influence World Bank Decisions? Journal of Development Economics, 88(1), 1–18.

  • Dube, O., & Naidu, S. (2015). Bases, Bullets, and Ballots: the Effect of US Military Aid on Political Conflict in Colombia. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 249–267.

  • Dupuy, K., Ron, J., & Prakash, A. (2016). Hands Off my Regime! Governments’ Restrictions on Foreign Aid to Non-Governmental Organizations in Poor and Middle-Income Countries. World Development, 84, 299–311.

  • Findley, M. G., Harris, A. S., Milner, H. V., & Nielson, D. L. (2017). Who Controls Foreign Aid? Elite Versus Public Perceptions of Donor Influence in Aid-Dependent Uganda. International Organization, 71(4), 633–663.

  • Findley, M. G., Milner, H. V., & Nielson, D. L. (2017). The Choice Among Aid Donors: the Effects of Multilateral vs. Bilateral Aid on Recipient Behavioral Support. The Review of International Organizations, 12(2), 307–334.

  • Fleck, R. K., & Kilby, C. (2010). Changing Aid Regimes? US Foreign Aid From the Cold War to the War on Terror. Journal of Development Economics, 91(2), 185–197.

  • Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, B. E., & Horiuchi, Y. (2012). In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy? World Politics, 64(3), 555–585.

  • Goldsmith, B. E., Horiuchi, Y., & Matush, K. (2021). Does Public Diplomacy Sway Foreign Public Opinion? Identifying the Effect of High-Level Visits. American Political Science Review pp. 1–16.

  • Goldsmith, B. E., Horiuchi, Y., & Wood, T. (2014). Doing Well by Doing Good: the Impact of Foreign Aid on Foreign Public Opinion. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9(1), 87–114.

  • Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2006). Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade. International Organization, 60(2), 469–498.

  • Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes Toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 61–84.

  • Hammerschmidt, D., Meyer, C., & Pintsch, A. (2021). Foreign Aid in Times of Populism: the Influence of Populist Radical Right Parties on the Official Development Assistance of OECD Countries. Cambridge Review of International Affairs pp. 1–22.

  • Harding, R. (2015). Attribution and Accountability: Voting for Roads in Ghana. World Politics, 67(4), 656–689.

  • Harding, R., & Stasavage, D. (2014). What Democracy Does (and Doesn’t Do) for Basic Services: School Fees, School Inputs, and African Elections. The Journal of Politics, 76(1), 229–245.

  • Hattori, T. (2001). Reconceptualizing Foreign Aid. Review of International Political Economy, 8(4), 633–660.

  • Heinrich, T. (2013). When is Foreign Aid Selfish, When is it Selfless? The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 422–435.

  • Heinrich, T., & Kobayashi, Y. (2020). How Do People Evaluate Foreign Aid to’ Regimes? British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 103–127.

  • Heinrich, T., & Peterson, T. M. (2020). Foreign Policy as Pork-Barrel Spending: Incentives for Legislator Credit Claiming on Foreign Aid. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(7–8), 1418–1442.

  • Heinrich, T., Kobayashi, Y., & Bryant, K. A. (2016). Public Opinion and Foreign Aid Cuts in Economic Crises. World Development, 77, 66–79.

  • Heinrich, T., Kobayashi, Y., & Lawson, E., Jr. (2021). Populism and Foreign Aid. European Journal of International Relations, 27(4), 1042–1066.

  • Heinrich, T., Kobayashi, Y., & Long, L. (2018). Voters Get What they Want (When they Pay Attention): Human Rights, Policy Benefits, and Foreign Aid. International Studies Quarterly, 62(1), 195–207.

  • Jones, E. A. (2018). Winning Hearts and Minds or Stoking Resentment? Exploring the Effects of Chinese Foreign Aid on Africans’ Perceptions of China. Working Paper.

  • Kane, J. V., Velez, Y. R., & Barabas, J. (2023). Analyze the Attentive and Bypass Bias: Mock Vignette Checks in Survey Experiments. Political Science Research and Methods, 11(2), 293–310.

  • Kastner, S. L., & Pearson, M. M. (2021). Exploring the Parameters of China’s Economic Influence. Studies in Comparative International Development, 56(1), 18–44.

  • Katada, S. N. (2001). Why did Japan Suspend Foreign Aid to China? Japan’s Foreign Aid Decision-Making and Sources of Aid Sanction. Social Science Japan Journal, 4(1), 39–58.

  • Kim, S. (2019). The Misadventure of Korea Aid: Developmental Soft Power and the Troubling Motives of an Emerging Donor. Third World Quarterly, 40(11), 2052–2070.

  • Kim, E., & Kim, K.W. (2023). Public Perception of Foreign Aid in South Korea: The Effects of Policy Efficacy in an Emerging Donor. Development Policy Review .

  • Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic Politics: the American Case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.

  • Kobayashi, Y., Heinrich, T., & Bryant, K. A. (2021). Public Support for Development Aid During the Covid-19 Pandemic. World Development, 138, 105248.

  • Kohno, M., Montinola, G. R., Winters, M. S., & Kato, G. (2021). Donor Competition and Public Support for Foreign Aid Sanctions. Political Research Quarterly, 74(1), 212–227.

  • Komiya, Y., Miyagawa, M., & Tago, A. (2018). Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: the Effect of Information Stimulus on Levels of Support for Foreign Aid and Coalition Withdrawal. In: M. Tadokoro, S. Egashira, K. Yamamoto (eds.) Emerging Risks in a World of Heterogeneity: Interactions Among Countries with Different Sizes, Polities and Societies. Springer pp. 135–155.

  • Lei, Z., & Zhou, J. A. (2022). Private Returns to Public Investment: Political Career Incentives and Infrastructure Investment in China. The Journal of Politics, 84(1), 455–469.

  • Lindgren, W. Y. (2020). WIN-WIN! with ODA-Man: Legitimizing Development Assistance Policy in Japan. The Pacific Review pp. 1–31.

  • Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.

  • Maizels, A., & Nissanke, M. K. (1984). Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries. World Development, 12(9), 879–900.

  • Mani, A., & Mukand, S. (2007). Democracy, Visibility and Public Good Provision. Journal of Development Economics, 83(2), 506–529.

  • Mansfield, E. D., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety. International Organization, 63(03), 425–457.

  • Mansfield, E. D., Mutz, D. C., & Silver, L. R. (2015). Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets. International Studies Quarterly, 59(2), 303–315.

  • Marx, B. (2018). Elections as Incentives: Project Completion and Visibility in African Politics. Working Paper.

  • Mattingly, D. C., & Sundquist, J. (2023). When Does Public Diplomacy Work? Evidence from China’s "Wolf Warrior" Diplomats. Political Science Research and Methods, 11(4), 921–929.

  • Mauss, M. (1967). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawdsley, E. (2014). Public Perceptions of India’s Role as an International Development Cooperation Partner: Domestic Responses to Rising ‘Donor’ Visibility. Third World Quarterly, 35(6), 958–979.

  • Meernik, J., Krueger, E. L., & Poe, S. C. (1998). Testing Models of US Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid During and After the Cold War. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 63–85.

  • Menga, F. (2015). Building a Nation Through a Dam: the Case of Rogun in Tajikistan. Nationalities Papers, 43(3), 479–494.

  • Milner, H. V. (2006). Why Multilateralism? Foreign Aid and Domestic Principal-Agent Problems. In: D.L. Nielson, M.J. Tierney, D.G. Hawkins, D.A. Lake (eds.) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, Cambridge University Press Cambridge pp. 107–139.

  • Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. H. (2010). The Political Economy of us Foreign Aid: American Legislators and the Domestic Politics of Aid. Economics & Politics, 22(2), 200–232.

  • Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. H. (2011). Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? the Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy. International Organization, 65(01), 37–68.

  • Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2013a). The Choice for Multilateralism: Foreign Aid and American Foreign Policy. The Review of International Organizations, 8(3), 313–341.

  • Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2013b). Public Opinion and Foreign Aid: A Review Essay. International Interactions, 39(3), 389–401.

  • Milner, H. V., Nielson, D. L., & Findley, M. G. (2016). Citizen Preferences and Public Goods: Comparing Preferences for Foreign Aid and Government Programs in Uganda. The Review of International Organizations, 11(2), 219–245.

  • Moore, W. G. (2018). The Case Against Branding Development Aid in Fragile States. center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/case-against-branding-development-aid-fragile-states.

  • Noël, A., & Thérien, J.-P. (2002). Public Opinion and Global Justice. Comparative Political Studies, 35(6), 631–656.

  • Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft Power: the Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

  • O’Brien-Udry, Cleo. (2020). Avoiding the Blame Game: the Domestic Political Costs of Aid Withdrawal. Working paper.

  • Otter, M. (2003). Domestic Public Support for Foreign Aid: Does it Matter? Third World Quarterly, 24(1), 115–125.

  • Owen, J. M., IV. (2010). The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510–2010 (Vol. 123). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Paxton, P., & Knack, S. (2012). Individual and Country-Level Factors Affecting Support for Foreign Aid. International Political Science Review, 33(2), 171–192.

  • Phillips, S. D. (2019). Putting Humpty Together Again: How Reputation Regulation Fails the Charitable Sector. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 10(4), 1–11.

  • Plantan, E. (2022). Not All NGOs are Treated Equally: Selectivity in Civil Society Management in China and Russia. Comparative Politics, 54(3), 501–524.

  • Poe, S. C., & Meernik, J. (1995). US Military Aid in the 1980s: a Global Analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 32(4), 399–411.

  • Prather, L. (2020). Transnational Ties and Support for Foreign Aid. International Studies Quarterly, 64(1), 133–147.

  • Robinson, D., & Tannenberg, M. (2019). Self-Censorship of Regime Support in Authoritarian States: Evidence from List Experiments in China. Research & Politics, 6(3), 2053168019856449.

  • Rose, A. K. (2016). Like Me, Buy Me: the Effect of Soft Power on Exports. Economics & Politics, 28(2), 216–232.

  • Rudyak, M. (2019). CIDCA Issues Draft of ’Measures for the Use of Foreign Aid Logo’. China Aid Blog. http://china-aid-blog.com/2019/11/04/cidca-issues-draft-of-measures-for-the-use-of-chinese-aid-logo/.

  • Sacks, A. (2012). Can Donors and Non-State Actors Undermine Citizens’ Legitimating Beliefs? Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11997.

  • Schatz, E. (2021). Slow Anti-Americanism: Social Movements And Symbolic Politics in Central Asia. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

  • Simon, C. A., & Moltz, M. C. (2019). Immigrant Citizens and Racial Resentment in International Policy Perspective: the Role of Nativity and Racial Resentment in Shaping Support for us Foreign Assistance Expenditure, 2002–2016. Development, 62(1), 186–195.

  • Singh, R., & Williamson, S. (2022). Where is the Money From? Attitudes Toward Donor Countries and Foreign Aid in the Arab World. International Studies Quarterly, 66(4), sqac068.

  • Smith, A. (2008). The Perils of Unearned Income. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 780–793.

  • Steinberg, G. M. (1987). Large-Scale National Projects as Political Symbols: the Case of Israel. Comparative Politics, 19(3), 331–346.

  • Stern, M. (1998). Development Aid: What the Public Thinks. Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations: Office of Development Studies.

  • Vollmer, F. (2012). “Increasing the Visibility and Effectiveness of Development Cooperation: How to Reconcile Two Competing Objectives?” Studies, No. 67, Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn.

  • Wang, Y. (2022). Executive Agency and State Capacity in Development: Comparing Sino-African Railways in Kenya and Ethiopia. Comparative Politics, 54(2), 349–373.

  • Wang, H., & Cooper, A. F. (2023). Public Opinion on Chinese Foreign Aid Policy: Calculated Opposition or General Discontent? Journal of Contemporary China, 32(141), 455–472.

  • Weghorst, K. R., & Lindberg, S. I. (2013). What Drives the Swing Voter in Africa? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 717–734.

  • Wellner, L., Dreher, .A, Fuchs, A., Parks, B., & Strange, A. (2022). Can Aid Buy Foreign Public Support? Evidence from Chinese Development Finance. Working paper.

  • Wood, T., Hoy, C., & Pryke, J. (2021). The Effect of Geostrategic Competition on Public Attitudes to Aid. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(3), 285–295.

  • Woods, N. (2008). Whose Aid? Whose Influence? China, Emerging Donors and the Silent Revolution in Development Assistance. International Affairs, 84(6), 1205–1221.

  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Seed Fund for Basic Research for New Staff (“Understanding China’s High-Profile International Development Projects”) within the University of Hong Kong’s University Research Committee. The Harvard Digital Lab for the Social Sciences (DLABSS) supported the project’s early development. The author thanks the editor and three anonymous reviewers, Tyler Jost, Azusa Katagiri, Boram Lee, Dov Levin, Ryan Powers, and Kevin Troy for helpful comments on earlier versions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Austin Strange

Authors
  1. Austin Strange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Not applicable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Austin Strange.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

Human subjects data collection for this study is approved by the University of Hong Kong’s Human Research Ethics Committee (EA200143).

Additional information

Responsible editor: Axel Dreher.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (pdf 804 KB)

Supplementary file 2 (zip 156 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strange, A. Influence and support for foreign aid: Evidence from the United States and China. Rev Int Organ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-023-09520-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-023-09520-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation