A Quick Primer on International Aid

“The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized”

United Nations General Assembly. (1986).
Declaration on the Right to Development, Resolution 41/128, art. 1(1)

As established in Article 1(1) of the Declaration on the Right to Development, development is recognized as ‘an inalienable human right’ that entitles all individuals and peoples to participate in various dimensions of development. The declaration importantly positions development as both a right that people can claim and an agenda in which they must actively support.

Individual participation in development takes multiple forms depending on one’s position within the global system. As a taxpayer in a donor country, you contribute to international development through your nation’s foreign aid allocations, which are typically formally categorized as Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) and may take the form of funding, expertise, or in-kind support. Conversely, as a beneficiary in a recipient country, your role involves actively engaging with development programs, utilizing opportunities provided, and taking ownership of outcomes to ensure sustainable impact. Importantly, these roles are not fixed but evolve over time. For example, formerly aid-dependent nations like South Korea have transformed into emerging donors.

International aid operates through both bilateral channels between developed (donor) and developing (recipient) countries, and multilateral institutions. Key multilateral actors include the UN agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) focusing on poverty eradication and sustainable development, alongside other key agencies including United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Food Programme (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO), and International Labour Organization (ILO), alongside organizations like OECD and multilateral development banks (MDBs) including the World Bank, ADB, and IMF. To gain deeper insight into the predictors of aid allocation, which constitutes a central theme of our research initiative, we must examine the diverse motivations driving aid decisions. These motivations are shaped by both external geographical forces and economic disruptions, and internal factors specific to intrinsic characteristics of donors, all of which have contributed to the evolution of aid types and modalities over time.

Once aid reaches recipient countries through these bilateral and multilateral channels, it is allocated across specific development sectors, each targeting distinct aspects of human and economic progress. Health maintains the most persistent and largest share of ODA, focusing on disease prevention, healthcare systems, and public health infrastructure, particularly during global health crises (Nomura et al. 2021; Nomura et al. 2023). Education remains persistent in donor portfolios despite notable allocation gaps, targeting educational systems and literacy improvements. Economic infrastructure, including transportation, energy, and telecommunications, maintains persistent funding primarily among select donors following infrastructure-led development models (Thiele, Nunnenkamp, and Dreher 2006). Humanitarian aid has demonstrated rising allocation shares, addressing emergency assistance during conflicts and disasters (Nomura et al. 2021). Agriculture and food security shows declining persistence as a standalone sector, with donors increasingly reframing initiatives within broader food security frameworks (Islam 2011). Governance and public administration maintains selective persistence among donors with strategic political interests, focusing on institutional strengthening and democratic processes (Bermeo 2008; Yoon and Moon 2022). Cross-cutting themes such as gender equality and environmental sustainability are increasingly integrated across all sectors, reflecting the interconnected nature of development challenges and the need for coordinated multi-sectoral approaches.

External and internal drivers of development aid

External factors have fundamentally shifted aid allocation patterns over recent decades. The end of the Cold War shifted donor priorities from geopolitical alignment toward governance quality and developmental effectiveness (Lancaster 2007), with Claessens et al. (2009) demonstrating increased responsiveness to recipient income levels and institutional quality observed post-1989. Subsequently, economic disruptions, notably the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and COVID-19 pandemic revealed increasing global interconnectedness as donors targeted recipients whose instability posed greatest risk to donor economies (Bermeo 2017). Moreover, economic disruptions affected the diversification of development finance from grant-based assistance toward concessionary loans and private sector involvement (Morozkina 2019; Prizzon et al. 2016). The post-COVID era has also witnessed the emergence of aid austerity, most dramatically exemplified by the Trump administration’s elimination of U.S. aid programs and the UK’s 30% development budget cuts in 2021, creating what experts characterize as a “massive retrogression” in global development efforts.

While external events shaped broad paradigm shifts, internal factors like donor interests, recipient needs, and recipient merit have introduced heterogeneity into aid allocation across donors and recipients. Hoeffler and Outram (2011) found that among top OECD DAC donors, strategic interests consistently emerged as the strongest motivation, with recipient need playing a secondary role and recipient merit explaining less than one percent of variance in allocation decisions. This heterogeneity manifests in critical distinctions in aid delivery mechanisms, particularly between tied aid—where recipients must procure goods and services from donor countries—and untied aid, which provides greater flexibility for recipients to source resources from the most cost-effective suppliers (Arvin and Baum 1997). Similarly, the different approaches between traditional and emerging donors illustrate a nuanced influence of intrinsic characteristics. While both donor categories fundamentally pursue donor-interest, traditional donors, particularly those with colonial ties, additionally emphasize recipient merit as a criterion for aid allocation. Whereas emerging donors, exemplified by China, demonstrate a marked preference for economic considerations with minimal governance prerequisites, and South-South cooperation operates through distinctly different principles, emphasizing solidarity, mutual benefit, and horizontal partnerships rather than hierarchical donor-recipient relationships (Manning 2006; Sato et al. 2010).

Table 1: External Forces Reshaping International Aid Landscape

Table 2: Internal Characteristics Shaping Aid Motivations and Donor Behaviors

External Force 1. Post-Cold War Paradigm Shift: From Geopolitics to Governance

The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s precipitated a fundamental restructuring of international aid architecture. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western donors’ geopolitical imperative to maintain development assistance as a tool of ideological competition significantly diminished (Lancaster 2007). This transformation in aid allocation priorities is further substantiated by empirical evidence. Claessens et al. (2009) demonstrate that bilateral aid became increasingly responsive to both the level of income in recipient countries—with poorer countries receiving more aid—and the quality of policy and institutional environments, which were considered enabling factors that increased aid effectiveness, particularly following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and during the latter half of the 1990s.

A substantial body of scholarship examining aid allocation patterns reveals significant transformations between Cold War and post-Cold War periods. While examining these shifts, researchers have predominantly focused on U.S. foreign aid strategies, given America’s emergence as the preeminent donor following the Soviet Union’s dissolution (Gomez 2007; McGillivray 2003; Meernik, Krueger, and Poe 1998; Lee 2022). Beyond U.S.-specific analyses, broader comparative studies demonstrate that Cold War aid allocation was predominantly characterized by strategic security imperatives, whereas post-Cold War assistance demonstrates stronger linkages to economic reform agendas (Bearce and Tirone, 2010). This transition was facilitated by both the diminished geopolitical competition and accelerated globalization processes (Bermeo 2017). This phenomenon manifests in what Dollar and Levin (2006) characterize as “selectivity of foreign aid,” which emerged most prominently within multilateral assistance frameworks. Such selectivity represents a fundamental reorientation from previous allocation patterns that had subordinated developmental effectiveness to geopolitical alignment considerations.

This transition was neither uniform nor complete across donors. Analyzing aid allocation through poverty, population, policy, and proximity factors, Clist (2009) found substantial heterogeneity: Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and the UK demonstrated higher poverty sensitivity, while the United States and France prioritized proximity factors, and Japan and Germany balanced both considerations. These allocation practices remained relatively entrenched over time despite rhetorical shifts toward greater policy selectivity. In contrast, Morrison (2011) found multilateral institutions followed different patterns: while the World Bank’s IDA maintained consistent responsiveness to recipient need and policy environment, a striking reversal occurred wherein IDA disbursements shifted from being positively correlated with US aid and negatively with IBRD debt during the Cold War to the opposite pattern afterward, signaling multilateral institutions’ growing independence from superpower influence.

This evolution in aid allocation signifies a profound transformation in the international development landscape, characterized by increasingly complex and heterogeneous determinants of aid flows. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that for aid recipients, this post-Cold War environment created unprecedented opportunity and unpredictability as they navigated a system where geopolitical alignment no longer guaranteed assistance, policy performance was inconsistently rewarded across donors, and institutional reforms within donor organizations introduced additional variables affecting aid flows.

External Force 2. Global Financial Disruptions: From Assistance to Partnership

While the first major paradigm shift in development assistance was precipitated by geopolitical realignment following the Cold War, subsequent transformations have been primarily catalyzed by global economic disruptions. The 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the COVID-19 pandemic represent critical junctures that fundamentally altered the landscape of international aid. Unlike the post-Cold War transition, which restructured aid allocation based on changing strategic imperatives, these economic disruptions imposed severe fiscal constraints on traditional donors and prompted a reevaluation of aid effectiveness amidst domestic economic pressures. As Prizzon et al. (2016) observe, the GFC introduced significant diversification in development finance options, including increased usage of “beyond ODA flows” for developing countries. This section examines how these economically-driven paradigm shifts have reshaped aid allocation patterns, introducing new modalities of assistance, alternative financing mechanisms, and an intensified focus on private sector engagement as catalysts for development.

Post-2008: The Rise of Targeted Development and Blended Finance

The 2008 global financial crisis triggered an economically-driven aid paradigm shift with profound implications for development finance. Contrary to initial predictions of decreased foreign assistance, Mold et al. (2009) document that Official Development Assistance actually increased during this period, reflecting donors’ strategic response to prioritize economic stabilization in regions where instability might generate negative spillover effects. This approach represented what Bermeo has termed “targeted development,” focusing aid where underdevelopment’s consequences were likely to most impact donor countries themselves.

The GFC period witnessed a qualitative transformation in aid priorities toward economic growth and private sector involvement. Morozkina (2019) observed a significant shift toward loan-based ODA rather than traditional grants, fundamentally altering the structure of development finance relationships. Additionally, this period saw the emergence of blended finance mechanisms that combined public development funds with private investment, reflecting donors’ growing emphasis on demonstrable returns and the sustainability of development outcomes beyond the period of direct assistance. The rise of China as a significant lender, as highlighted by Schiere (2010), further expanded financing options for developing countries, creating a more complex and competitive aid landscape.

Post-COVID: Diversified Instruments and Institutional Adaptation

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated and deepened transformations in development finance. Settimo and De Marchi (2021) highlight how multilateral development banks expanded their financing capacity during this period, with support packages reportedly reaching approximately $200 billion. Woskie and Wenham (2024) document a significant decrease in grants as a share of ODA commitments from multilaterals and a corresponding increase in loans, continuing the trend that began after the 2008 crisis.

The pandemic also catalyzed institutional adaptations within the international financial architecture. Cohen et al. (2021) describe the increased emphasis on “flash blending” - rapid donor-private sector partnerships designed to meet crisis needs while mobilizing additional capital. Perhaps most notably, Hughes-McLure and Mawdsley (2022) highlight the emergence of innovative financing mechanisms such as vaccine bonds, which represent novel instruments specifically designed to address pandemic-related development challenges.

Sectoral priorities have undergone dramatic reorientation, with health now commanding significantly higher funding while education and traditional infrastructure investments have seen relative decreases (Nomura et al. 2023). Regional responses have varied considerably, with Sub-Saharan Africa witnessing the emergence of a hybrid Western-China ODA model, while Asia has experienced significant “mask and vaccine diplomacy” as new forms of development cooperation (Fuchs et al. 2022).

These economically-driven paradigm shifts have fundamentally altered the architecture of global development finance, emphasizing flexibility, private sector engagement, and domestic resource mobilization in ways that reflect the reality of constrained aid budgets following major global economic disruptions. Moreover, this diversification of development finance has catalyzed a significant power dynamic shift, as loan-based assistance obligates recipients to manage repayments and interest rates, effectively reconstituting them as partners rather than passive aid beneficiaries (Alonso and Ocampo 2012). Carson et al. (2021) demonstrate that the proliferation of financing options has substantially increased recipient countries’ bargaining power, allowing them to select from competing offers and negotiate more favorable terms than previously possible under traditional aid relationships. As Barrowclough et al. (2020) observe, these transformations have created space for Southern-led development finance institutions to play increasingly significant roles in the international development landscape, further reinforcing the transition from traditional donor-recipient hierarchies toward more reciprocal partnership models in international development cooperation.

The post-COVID era has also witnessed the emergence of politically-driven aid austerity, most dramatically exemplified by sweeping reductions in development assistance from major donors including the Trump administration’s elimination of U.S. AID and the UK’s 30% budget cuts in 2021. This political retrenchment represents another dimension of the post-pandemic transformation in development cooperation, signaling a potential shift toward aid austerity even as institutional innovations and financing diversification have simultaneously expanded. These cuts have eliminated over $35 billion in USAID operations across 130 countries while disrupting UK aid projects particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, creating what experts characterize as a “massive retrogression” in global health efforts and jeopardizing critical initiatives spanning climate action, health systems, and educational development (Salman 2025; Rilkoff 2025; Mbah et al. 2025; McDade et al. 2023). The reductions have disproportionately affected vulnerable populations, particularly children facing increased risks of severe malnutrition and preventable deaths, while damaging international research collaborations and forcing premature project closures (Anfaal et al. 2025; Nwako et al. 2023). The sudden withdrawal has created significant vacuums in development financing, with some experts viewing this as an opportunity for recipient self-reliance while others warn of potential exploitation by alternative powers like China (Mbah et al. 2025). This development suggests that the post-COVID period may be characterized not only by institutional adaptation and financing innovation, but also by the emergence of aid austerity policies in major donor countries, fundamentally altering the landscape of international development cooperation through domestic political choices.

Internal. Intrinsic Characteristics of Donors: Donor Interest, Recipient Need, and Recipient Merit {#internal.-intrinsic-characteristics-of-donors:-donor-interest,-recipient-need,-and-recipient-merit}

Early scholarship on donor motivations offers valuable insights into the fundamental drivers of aid provision. Morgenthau (1962) provided one of the first comprehensive analyses of United States foreign aid, arguing that it functioned primarily as diplomatic leverage and a political tool to advance US interests abroad. Despite rhetoric emphasizing economic development, Morgenthau observed that Western donors made such development contingent upon recipient countries adopting specific governmental (democratic) and economic (market-based) practices. This conditional approach, ostensibly aimed at economic development, was perceived as less efficient than more direct forms of diplomatic influence. Morgenthau’s framework categorized aid into five distinct types based on varying motivations: humanitarian foreign aid, subsistence foreign aid, military foreign aid, bribery or prestige foreign aid, and foreign aid for economic development—a typology that revealed the multifaceted nature of donor intent.

As the international aid architecture evolved with an increasing number of donors and expanding aid volumes, scholarly understanding of donor motivations became more systematized. Hoeffler and Outram (2011) developed a tripartite framework categorizing aid motivations as recipient need, recipient merit, and donor interest. Their empirical analysis of the top five OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members—the United States, Japan, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—yielded revealing insights: donor interest emerged as the strongest determinant of aid allocation, followed by recipient need. Remarkably, recipient merit explained less than one percent of variance in aid allocation, with only Japan and the UK demonstrating significant responsiveness to recipient countries’ domestic reforms such as democratization and human rights improvements. This finding suggests that good governance practices in recipient countries exert minimal influence on aid allocation decisions by major DAC donors, thus providing weak incentives for recipients to undertake potentially challenging reforms (Hoeffler and Outram, 2011; Barthel et al., 2014).

Source: Adopted from Hoeffler and Outram (2011)

Aid Provision Frameworks: Understanding Structural Patterns in International Aid

The intrinsic characteristics of donors give rise to several important binaries in international development discourse that help explain patterns of aid allocation and delivery. These binaries—top-down versus bottom-up approaches, tied versus untied aid mechanisms, and traditional versus non-traditional donor categories—reflect deeper structural patterns in how aid is conceptualized, implemented, and conditioned. Understanding these distinctions provides insight into the diverse motivations, operational frameworks, and effectiveness outcomes that characterize contemporary development cooperation.

Top-down versus Bottom-up Approaches

One of the most prominent discourses in international development is the distinction between top-down and bottom-up approaches, which broadly maps onto the governmental versus non-governmental binary. Government aid typically reflects national interests—such as diplomatic or economic objectives—leading to a top-down approach (Ashitate, 2007; Nath, 2007). While aid can be distributed across various government ministries and agencies, most donor countries establish dedicated national development agencies to coordinate and implement their aid programs, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in Germany, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in the United Kingdom, and Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) in South Korea. In this modality, donor interests guide aid allocation and implementation, aligning with Hoeffler and Outram’s concept of “donor interest” as a primary motivation.

In contrast, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) typically adopt a bottom-up approach, engaging civil society and local expertise to address recipient needs directly. Major international NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, BRAC, Save the Children, World Vision International, and Habitat for Humanity exemplify this approach through their specialized focus areas and community-based interventions. This grassroots focus allows NGOs to be more flexible and responsible to specific local conditions and beneficiary requirements compared to government-driven projects. The growing emphasis on NGO involvement aligns with the pressing international development agenda established by the global community through frameworks like the Paris Declaration—particularly in achieving sustainability and fostering local ownership of projects (Karkee and Comfort, 2016; Mercer, 2002; Wright, 2012).

Notably, even when NGOs receive government funding, they tend to focus on Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that often fall outside the strategic economic interests of bilateral donors and the private sector and consequently receive little direct aid or investment (Davis, 2019). This bottom-up approach, centered on local needs and independent oversight, often proves more responsive to both recipient requirements and transparency demands than traditional government-led, top-down approaches. For example, following the 1986 “Marcos scandal” involving suspected kickbacks in yen loan projects and a concurrent JICA bribery scandal, Japan responded by establishing coherent national aid strategies and systematically increasing NGO involvement, recognizing that civil society participation could address the governance deficiencies and corrupt practices that had emerged in government-led programs (Ashitate, 2007).

Tied versus Untied Aid

While the top-down versus bottom-up discourse addresses the overall planning and execution of foreign aid, the debate on tied versus untied aid specifically concerns the mechanisms of aid delivery. Tied aid refers to development assistance provided on the condition that recipients use it to purchase goods and services from suppliers based in the donor country, while untied aid constitutes Official Development Assistance (ODA) for which associated goods and services may be fully and freely procured in substantially all countries (World Bank DataBank 2025). This discourse, extensively examined by development economists, reveals contrasting impacts on both donors and recipients (Arvin and Baum 1997; Ganga, 2024; La Chimia 2013; Miquel-Florensa 2007).

For recipient countries, the negative impacts of tied aid are well-documented. Studies consistently demonstrate that tied aid often reduces effectiveness, particularly in sectors like food aid, where it causes delays and undermines local production (La Chimia 2013). In contrast, untied aid offers greater flexibility, allowing recipients to procure resources from the most cost-effective or locally beneficial sources. As Miquel-Florensa (2007) notes, recipient countries with stronger policy environments can maximize the benefits of untied aid, suggesting that local policy context significantly influences aid effectiveness.

From the donor perspective, tied aid typically offers immediate economic benefits, serving as a vehicle for trade expansion and market entry. Conversely, untied aid may not yield the same immediate economic returns but instead fosters goodwill and long-term relationships with recipient countries (Arvin and Baum 1997). This form of aid often contributes to broader developmental goals, creating foundations for sustained collaboration and mutual benefit.

This discourse reveals how different donor motivations influence aid delivery mechanisms. Donors prioritizing immediate economic returns and strategic interests tend to favor tied aid as it directly advances national economic objectives, aligning with Hoeffler and Outram’s “donor interest” motivation. Conversely, donors focused on addressing recipient needs and developmental effectiveness are more inclined toward untied aid, which allows for greater recipient autonomy and potentially more effective resource allocation. These preferences reflect fundamental differences in how donors conceptualize the purpose of development assistance, whether as an instrument for advancing domestic economic interests or as a tool for promoting sustainable development outcomes in recipient countries.

Traditional versus Non-traditional: The Rise of Emerging Donors and South-South Cooperation

The third significant binary in international development discourse concerns traditional versus non-traditional donors, reflecting fundamentally different approaches to development assistance. Traditional donors, particularly those with colonial histories, often justify their aid within frameworks of historical responsibility and established international development norms, typically imposing stringent governance conditions and human rights standards. In contrast, non-traditional donors encompass both individual emerging donor countries and the broader phenomenon of South-South cooperation, representing fundamentally different motivational frameworks and operational approaches.

Emerging donors—many of whom have transitioned from being aid recipients to providers—are frequently positioned as having more relevant developmental experiences to share (Walz and Ramachandran 2011). These countries typically impose fewer governance conditions, with countries like China often prioritizing economic factors over democratic principles (Manning 2006; Sato et al. 2010; Udvari 2014). More significantly, South-South cooperation operates through distinctly different principles, emphasizing solidarity, mutual benefit, and anti-hegemonic values rather than the donor-driven, conditional approaches characteristic of North-South aid (Quadir 2013; Mawdsley 2019). These initiatives draw on historical benchmarks such as the 1955 Bandung Conference and prioritize horizontal partnerships over hierarchical donor-recipient relationships (Chaturvedi et al. 2012).

The operational differences are substantial. While traditional aid generally relies on standardized grant/loan-based technical assistance, South-South cooperation employs diverse modalities including bilateral, regional, multilateral, and triangular arrangements that often integrate aid with trade and investment (Abdenur and da Fonseca 2013; Lin and Wang 2016). Examples include Cuba’s provision of medical professionals and China’s Belt and Road Initiative combining infrastructure development with trade facilitation (Birn et al. 2019). New multilateral institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank operate alongside informal knowledge-sharing networks, emphasizing participatory decision-making processes (de Renzio and Seifert 2014).

This diversification offers benefits including bridging financing gaps, particularly in infrastructure, and providing recipient countries with enhanced bargaining power and alternative development models (Manning 2006; Sato et al. 2010; Besharati 2013). However, challenges include the lack of standardized accountability mechanisms, potential aid fragmentation, and the risk that fewer governance conditions may support unproductive sectors while increasing debt burdens (Manning 2006; Sato et al. 2010; Udvari 2014; Mawdsley 2019).

From a motivational perspective, traditional donors typically balance donor interest with recipient merit within internationally recognized frameworks, while non-traditional approaches demonstrate stronger alignment with mutual benefit principles (Quadir 2013). This represents a fundamental shift from charity-based assistance to partnership-based cooperation, suggesting an evolving development landscape where recipient countries have increasing agency in selecting partners and approaches aligned with their priorities (Shearer and Tres 2013).

References

Abdenur, Adrián, and João da Fonseca. 2013. “The North’s Growing Role in South–South Cooperation: Keeping the Foothold.” Unpublished manuscript.

Alonso, José Antonio, and José Antonio Ocampo. 2012. Development Cooperation in Times of Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press.

Anfaal, Zainab, Muneeb Khawar, Javed Iqbal, and Shree Rath. 2025. “Children at Risk: The Growing Impact of USAID Cuts on Pediatric Malnutrition and Death Rates.” Maternal & Child Nutrition 21, no. 2: e13155. doi:10.1111/mcn.13155.

Arvin, Michael B., and Christopher F. Baum. 1997. “Tied and Untied Foreign Aid: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.” Keio Economic Studies 34, no. 2: 71–79.

Ashitate, Hideaki. 2007. “Foreign Aid (ODA) as a Public Policy.” Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 13, no. 1: 129–38.

Barrowclough, Diana, Kevin P. Gallagher, and Richard Kozul-Wright. 2020. Southern-Led Development Finance. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Barthel, Fabian, Eric Neumayer, Peter Nunnenkamp, and Pablo Selaya. 2014. “Competition for Export Markets and the Allocation of Foreign Aid: The Role of Spatial Dependence Among Donor Countries.” World Development 64: 350–65.

Bearce, David H., and Daniel C. Tirone. 2010. “Foreign Aid Effectiveness and the Strategic Goals of Donor Governments.” The Journal of Politics 72, no. 3: 837–51.

Bermeo, Sarah Blodgett. 2008. “Donors and Development Sector Allocation in Foreign Aid.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 28–31. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3180759.

Bermeo, Sarah Blodgett. 2017. “Aid Allocation and Targeted Development in an Increasingly Connected World.” International Organization 71, no. 4: 735–66.

Besharati, Neissan Alessandro. 2013. “Common Goals and Differential Commitments: The Role of Emerging Economies in Global Development.” Unpublished manuscript.

Birn, Anne-Emanuelle, Carles Muntaner, Zainab Afzal, and Mariajosé Aguilera. 2019. “Is There a Social Justice Variant of South–South Health Cooperation?: A Scoping and Critical Literature Review.” Global Health Action 12, no. 1: 1618247. doi:10.1080/16549716.2019.1618247.

Carson, Lydia, Marianne Hebogård Schäfer, and Annalisa Prizzon. 2021. Aid in Times of Crises: Prospects for Aid Post-Covid-19. ODI Research Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Chaturvedi, Sachin, Thomas Fues, and Elizabeth Sidiropoulos. 2012. “Development Cooperation and Emerging Powers: New Partners or Old Patterns.” Unpublished manuscript.

Claessens, Stijn, Danny Cassimon, and Bjorn Van Campenhout. 2009. “Evidence on Changes in Aid Allocation Criteria.” The World Bank Economic Review 23, no. 2: 185–208.

Clist, Paul. 2011. “25 Years of Aid Allocation Practice: Comparing Donors and Eras.” World Development 39, no. 10: 1724–34.

Cohen, Maria, Claire Godfrey, Henry Jeune, and Shannon Kindornay. 2021. “‘Flash Blending’ Development Finance: How to Make Aid Donor–Private Sector Partnerships Help Meet the SDGs.” Development in Practice 31, no. 7: 965–77.

Davis, Sarah. 2019. “NGOs and Development Assistance: A Global Perspective.” Development Policy Review 37, no. 5: 612–29.

De Renzio, Paolo, and Jens Seifert. 2014. “South–South Cooperation and the Future of Development Assistance: Mapping Actors and Options.” In Emerging Powers and the UN: New Insights into South-South Cooperation, edited by Adam Sneyd and Susan Park, 47–66. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dreher, Axel, Valentin Lang, and Bernhard Reinsberg. 2024. “Aid Effectiveness and Donor Motives.” World Development 176: 106501.

Fuchs, Andreas, Lennart Kaplan, Krisztina Kis-Katos, Sebastian S. Schmidt, Felix Turbanisch, and Feicheng Wang. 2022. “Tracking Chinese Aid through China Customs: Darlings and Orphans after the COVID-19 Outbreak.” Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4024849.

Ganga, Girish. 2024. “The Economic and Political Implications of Tied Aid: A Comprehensive Review.” International Economic Review 65, no. 1: 123–45.

Gomez, Shirley. 2007. “Human Rights and the Allocation of Foreign Aid: A Cross-National Analysis of the Last Years of the Cold War, 1980-1989.” The Social Science Journal 44, no. 2: 275–85.

Hoeffler, Anke, and Verity Outram. 2011. “Need, Merit, or Self‐Interest—What Determines the Allocation of Aid?” Review of Development Economics 15, no. 2: 237–50.

Hughes-McLure, Simon, and Emma Mawdsley. 2022. “Innovative Finance for Development? Vaccine Bonds and the Hidden Costs of Financialization.” Economic Geography 98, no. 5: 436–58.

Islam, Nurul. 2011. Foreign Aid to Agriculture: Review of Facts and Analysis. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1053. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/154425.

Karkee, Rajendra, and Jude Comfort. 2016. “NGOs, Foreign Aid, and Development in Nepal.” Frontiers in Public Health 4: 177.

La Chimia, Annamaria. 2013. Tied Aid and Development Aid Procurement in the Framework of EU and WTO Law: The Imperative for Change. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Lancaster, Carol. 2007. Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, Domestic Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lee, Chungshik. 2022. “The Political Economy of US Foreign Aid: American Donors’ Aid Allocation in the Cold War and Post-Cold War Periods.” Foreign Policy Analysis 18, no. 1: 1–20.

Lin, Justin Yifu, and Yan Wang. 2016. “Going Beyond Aid: Development Cooperation for Structural Transformation.” Unpublished manuscript.

Manning, Richard. 2006. “Will ‘Emerging Donors’ Change the Face of International Co-operation?” Development Policy Review 24, no. 4: 371–85.

Mawdsley, Emma. 2019. “South–South Cooperation 3.0? Managing the Consequences of Success in the Decade Ahead.” Oxford Development Studies 48, no. 1: 1–13. doi:10.1080/13600818.2019.1673852.

Mbah, Ruth Endam, Caden Maddox Hardgrave, Drusilla Engonwei Mbah, Alyssa Nutt, and Jordan G. Russell. 2025. “The Impact of USAID Budget Cuts on Global Development Initiatives: A Review of Challenges, Responses, and Implications.” Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 10, no. 4: 139–47. doi:10.36348/ajrser.2025.v10i04.001.

McDade, Kate K., Wenjuan Mao, Annalisa Prizzon, Rebecca W. Huang, and Obinna Ogbuoji. 2023. “United Kingdom Aid Cuts: Implications for Financing Health Systems.” Frontiers in Public Health 11: 1096224. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1096224.

McGillivray, Mark. 2003. “Aid Effectiveness and Selectivity: Integrating Multiple Objectives into Aid Allocations.” World Development 31, no. 1: 107–24.

Md. Salman, Sohel. 2025. “How USAID Budget Cuts Threaten Global Health System.” DIU Journal of Health and Life Sciences 2, no. 1: 10–15. doi:10.59798/djhls.2025.02.01.002.
Meernik, James, Eric L. Krueger, and Steven C. Poe. 1998. “Testing Models of U.S. Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid During and After the Cold War.” The Journal of Politics 60, no. 1: 63–85.

Mercer, Claire. 2002. “NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Progress in Development Studies 2, no. 1: 5–22.

Miquel-Florensa, Josepa. 2007. “Aid Effectiveness: A Comparison of Tied and Untied Aid.” York University Working Paper. Toronto: York University.

Mold, Andrew, Sebastian Paulo, and Annalisa Prizzon. 2009. Taking Stock of the Credit Crunch: Implications for Development Finance and Global Governance. OECD Development Centre Working Paper. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Morgenthau, Hans. 1962. “A Political Theory of Foreign Aid.” American Political Science Review 56, no. 2: 301–9.

Morrison, Kevin M. 2011. “As the World Bank Turns: Determinants of IDA Lending in the Cold War and After.” Business and Politics 13, no. 2: 1–27.

Morozkina, Alexandra. 2019. “Official Development Aid: Trends of the Last Decade.” World Economy and International Relations 63, no. 9: 38–48.

Nath, Sushmit. 2007. “Religion and Economic Development: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 19, no. 1: 91–105.

Nomura, Shuhei, Haruka Sakamoto, Aya Ishizuka, Kazuki Shimizu, and Kenji Shibuya. 2021. “Tracking Sectoral Allocation of Official Development Assistance: A Comparative Study of the 29 Development Assistance Committee Countries, 2011–2018.” Global Health Action 14, no. 1: 1903222. doi:10.1080/16549716.2021.1903222.

Nomura, Shuhei, Cyrus Ghaznavi, Kazuki Shimizu, Alton Cao, Miho Sassa, Manae Uchibori, Rauniyar Santosh Kumar, Lisa Yamasaki, Hana Tomoi, and Haruka Sakamoto. 2023. “Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trends in Development Assistance Committee Countries’ Aid Allocation, 2011–2021.” Global Health Action 16, no. 1: 2258707. doi:10.1080/16549716.2023.2258707.

Nwako, Zibah, Tigist Grieve, Rafael Mitchell, Julia Paulson, Tania Saeed, Kelsey Shanks, and Rachel Wilder. 2023. “Doing Harm: The Impact of UK’s GCRF Cuts on Research Ethics, Partnerships and Governance.” Global Social Challenges Journal 2, no. 2: 64–85. doi:10.1332/GJSZ3052.

Prizzon, Annalisa, Romilly Greenhill, and Shakira Mustapha. 2016. An Age of Choice for Development Finance: Evidence from Country Case Studies. ODI Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Quadir, Fahimul. 2013. “Rising Donors and the New Narrative of ‘South–South’ Cooperation: What Prospects for Changing the Landscape of Development Assistance Programmes?” Unpublished manuscript.

Rilkoff, Heather. 2025. ““Massive Retrogression”: USAID Cuts Affect Global Morbidity and Mortality.” BMJ 388: rce129. doi:10.1136/bmj.rce129.

Sato, Jin, Hiroaki Shiga, Takaaki Kobayashi, and Hisahiro Kondoh. 2010. “How Do ‘Emerging’ Donors Differ from ‘Traditional’ Donors? An Institutional Analysis of Foreign Aid in Cambodia.” World Development 39, no. 12: 2091–2104.

Schiere, Richard. 2010. Building Complementarities in Africa between Different Development Cooperation Modalities of Traditional Development Partners and China. African Development Bank Group Working Paper. Abidjan: African Development Bank Group.

Settimo, Riccardo, and Roberto De Marchi. 2021. “Will Multilateral Development Banks Weather the COVID-19 Crisis?” Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887083.

Shearer, M., and Joaquim Tres. 2013. “South-South and Triangular Cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Much Ado about Nothing?” Unpublished manuscript.

Thiele, Rainer, Peter Nunnenkamp, and Axel Dreher. 2006. “Sectoral Aid Priorities: Are Donors Really Doing Their Best to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals?” Paper presented at the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin, 2006. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, No. 21. Hannover: Verein für Socialpolitik, Ausschuss für Entwicklungsländer.

Udvari, Beáta. 2014. “Impacts of Aid for Trade on Trade with the EU: The Role of Old and New Member States.” Journal of Global Policy and Governance 3, no. 1: 77–93.

Walz, Julie, and Vijaya Ramachandran. 2011. Brave New World: A Literature Review of Emerging Donors and the Changing Nature of Foreign Assistance. Center for Global Development Working Paper 273. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

World Bank DataBank. “PDI-8 Bilateral aid that is untied (percent).” Last modified June 16, 2025. https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/africa-development-indicators/series/PRT.PDCL.IND8.ALLD.ZS.

Woskie, Liana, and Clare Wenham. 2024. “Shifting Official Development Assistance During COVID-19: Earmarking, Donor Concentration and Loans.” BMJ Global Health 9, no. 1: e013326.

Wright, Glenn W. 2012. “NGOs and Western Hegemony: Causes for Concern and Ideas for Change.” Development in Practice 22, no. 1: 123–34.

Yoon, Mi Yung, and Chung‐in Moon. 2022. “Lessons from the Past and Sectoral Priorities in Bilateral Official Development Assistance.” Asian Survey 62, no. 1: 137–59. doi:10.1525/as.2022.62.1.137.