PurposeMuch of existing research has attempted to explain Asian Growth Paradox through formal institution – role of the government or rule of law. Therefore, this paper attempts to empirically explain the paradox with informal institution including interaction between informal and formal institutions. Two interrelated research questions summarize this research. First, how can we capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions? Then, how is that relationship different for Asian Paradox states vs non-paradox states?Design/methodology/approachTo capture the relationship between informal and formal institutions, we use Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework to categorize the interaction as complementing, competing, substituting and accommodating. We perform cross-sectional regression analysis for more than 130 countries.FindingsWe find that the developed, developing and the Asian Paradox states display different patterns of interaction between informal and formal institutions. However, we also find that the interaction effect has a limited value explaining growth for most of these countries, suggesting that Helmke and Levitsky (2004)'s framework has limitations. Finally, we challenge the notion of Asian Paradox states, as countries outside of Asia also qualify as the Paradox states.Originality/valueNot much empirical effort has examined how different relationships between informal and formal institutions can explain growth internationally across countries. We show that different institutional patterns explain growth across the Paradox states and non-Paradox states.
Purpose: This paper investigates the causal direction between budget support and good governance in foreign aid. In other words, does good governance attract budget support, or does budget support foster good governance? Originality: While the existing literature approaches the relationship between budget support and governance from the perspectives of aid selectivity and aid effectiveness, this study focuses on the causal direction between budget support and governance, bridging the two bodies of scholarship. Methodology: Using the Panel Granger causality test proposed by Dumitrescu and Hurlin, the study analyzes budget support and governance data from 2000 to 2019 from a panel of 57 recipient countries. Result: The study finds evidence of bidirectional causality between budget support and governance in general, with governance functioning as both a condition for receiving budget support and an outcome of budget support. The study also finds that the presence of Granger causality varies across different income groups and governance dimensions. Conclusions and Implication: The noteworthy analysis from these findings is that governance dimensions that are found to attract budget support are closely entangled with political dynamics. These findings highlight the intricate interplay between governance and political factors in shaping the outcomes of budget support programs. Our study also hints at the potential of budget support programs to contribute to improving governance in recipient countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.