Suchergebnisse

AbstractWe show that the impact of foreign aid on bureaucratic quality in recipient countries varies with the mode of delivery. Specifically, grants are found to impair the functioning of the bureaucracy, whereas loans are not. The negative impact of grants is larger when they are given as budget support rather than as assistance for specific projects or for programmes in general. Our results thus suggest that the probability of adverse effects rises with the degree of discretion recipients have over the incoming resources, which is in conflict with donors' recent emphasis on strengthening local ownership by limiting the conditions attached to foreign aid. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We show that the impact of foreign aid on bureaucratic quality in recipient countries varies with the mode of delivery. Specifically, grants are found to impair the functioning of the bureaucracy, whereas loans are not. The negative impact of grants is larger when they are given as budget support rather than as assistance for specific projects or for programs in general.

The paper examines empirically the proposition that aid to poor countries is detrimental for external competitiveness, giving rise to Dutch disease type effects. At the aggregate level, aid is found to have a positive effect on growth of labour productivity. A sectoral decomposition shows that the effect is significant and positive both in the tradables and the nontradables sectors. The paper thus finds no empirical support for the hypothesis that aid reduces external competitiveness in developing countries. Possible reasons are the existence of large idle labour capacity and high levels of dollarization in financial liabilities at the firm level.

The notion that foreign aid and foreign direct investment (FDI) are complementary sources of capital is conventional among governments and international cooperation agencies. This paper argues that the notion is incomplete. Within the framework of an open economy Solow model we show that the theoretical relationship between foreign aid and FDI is indeterminate. Aid may raise the marginal productivity of capital by financing complementary inputs, such as public infrastructure projects and human capital investment. However, aid may also crowd out productive private investments if it comes in the shape of physical capital transfers. We therefore turn to an empirical analysis of the relationship between FDI and disaggregated aid flows. Our results strongly support the hypotheses that aid invested in complementary inputs draws in foreign capital while aid invested in physical capital crowds out FDI. The combined effect of these two types of aid is small but on average positive