United States Bilateral Foreign Aid and Multilateral Aid: A Comparison

  • David Porter


The empirical literature has adopted two approaches, based on distinctly different motives, to explain the allocation of United States bilateral foreign aid. The first approach stresses the interests and foreign policy goals of the United States, and operationalizes a number of models to capture different conceptualizations of United States national interest. In contrast the second approach stresses altruistic motives by operationalizing a model designed to capture the basic human and economic needs of the recipient state.1


Capita Measure International Development Association Interest Model Multilateral Agency Recipient State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BOLLEN, K. ‘Issues in the comparative measurement of political democracy’, American Sociological Review (June 1980), pp. 370–90.Google Scholar
  2. COHN, S. and WOOD, R. ‘Basic human needs programming: an analysis of Peace Corp data’, Development and Change, Vol. 11 (1980), pp. 313–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. GELLER, D. ‘Economic modernization and political instability in Latin America: a causal analysis of bureaucratic authoritarianism’, Western Political Science Quarterly (March 1982), pp. 33–49.Google Scholar
  4. HICKS, N. and STREETEN, P. ‘Indicators of development: the search for a basic needs yardstick’, World Development, Vol. 7 (1979), pp. 567–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. HOLT, R. and RICHARDSON, J. ‘Competing paradigms in comparative politics’. In Holt, Robert and Turner, John, Methodology Of Comparative Research. New York, The Free Press, 1976. Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  6. HUNTINGTON, S. ‘Foreign aid for what and for whom’, Foreign Policy, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. KATO, M. ‘A model of US foreign aid allocations: an application of a rational decision-making scheme’. In Mueller, John (ed.), Approaches to Measurement in International Relations. New York, Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1969, pp. 198–215.Google Scholar
  8. LOWENTHAL, A. F. ‘Foreign aid as a political instrument: the case of the Dominican Republic’, Public Policy, No. 14 (1965), pp. 141–60.Google Scholar
  9. McKINLAY, R. D. and LITTLE, R. ‘A foreign policy model of US bilateral aid allocation’. World Politics (October 1977), pp. 58–86.Google Scholar
  10. McKINLAY, R. D. and LITTLE, R. ‘The US aid relationship: a test of the recipient need and the donor interest models’, Political Studies (June 1979), pp. 236–50.Google Scholar
  11. MORGENTHAL, H. V. ‘A political theory of foreign aid’, American Political Science Review, No. 56 (1962), pp. 301–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MOSLEY, P. ‘Models of the aid allocation process: a comment on McKinlay and Little’, Political Studies (June 1981), pp. 245–53.Google Scholar
  13. PINDYCK, R. and RUBINFELD, D. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, 2nd edn. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. SCHOULTZ, L. ‘US foreign policy and human rights violations in Latin America’, Comparative Politics (January 1981), pp. 149–70.Google Scholar
  15. USLANER, E. ‘The pitfalls of per capita’, American Journal of Political Science (February 1967), pp. 125–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mekki Mtewa 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Porter

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations