Media, Bureaucracies and Foreign Aid

Belle, Douglas A. Van; Rioux, Jean-Sébastien; Potter, David M.

doi:10.1057/9781403973481

Cited by 45 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 1 See, e.g., Eisensee and Strömberg 2007; Heinrich 2013; Heinrich, Kobayashi, and Long (forthcoming); Hyde and Boulding 2005; Milner 2006; Milner and Tingley 2015; Nielsen 2013; Van Belle, Rioux, and Potter 2004.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do People Evaluate Foreign Aid To ‘Nasty’ Regimes?

Heinrich¹,

Kobayashi²

2018

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent theories of foreign aid assume that moral motives drive voters’ preferences about foreign aid. However, little is known about how moral concerns interact with the widely accepted instrumental goals that aid serves. Moreover, what effects does this interplay have on preferences over policy actions? This article assesses these questions using a survey experiment in which respondents evaluate foreign aid policies toward nasty recipient regimes (those that violate human rights, rig elections, crack down on media, etc.). The results indicate that the public does have a strong aversion to providing aid to nasty recipient regimes, but that it also appreciates the instrumental benefits that aid helps acquire. Contrary to a mainstay assertion in the literature, the study finds that moral aversion can largely be reversed if the donor government engages more with the nasty country. These findings call into question the micro-foundations of recent theories of foreign aid, and produce several implications for the aid literature.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do People Evaluate Foreign Aid To ‘Nasty’ Regimes?

Heinrich¹,

Kobayashi²

2018

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is rarely the case that the media directly determines certain foreign policies by providing a common frame of reference. The media rather gets indirectly involved in the process of ‘structuring what people think’ on an issue in the stage of agenda setting (Van Belle et al ., 2004: 92) 7 . The perception was distinctively constructed depending on how the unfamiliar medical agenda was framed in the coverage, in which specific images or meanings were perpetuated by the media who screened, sorted, and delivered the knowledge.…”

Section: Construction Of Distinctive Perception For Foreign Aid Policmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variance in Global Response to HIV/AIDS between the United States and Japan: Perception, Media, and Civil Society

Kim

Shin

2017

Japanese Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US and Japan, despite their shared reputation as leading donors for international development, remarkably varied in their foreign aid policy for HIV/AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s. Unlike the US, who initiated and increased global AIDS funding dramatically, Japan was lukewarm in its contributions. I claim that the distinctive pattern depends on how the pandemic was domestically framed and understood. The policy commitment was more likely when the internationally shared idea (international norms) of threats requiring immediate international cooperation was congruent with the domestic perception of the epidemic. The research undertakes a comparative examination of the determinants of the distinctive domestic perceptions of the two cases, including the number of individuals infected with HIV, the attitude and role of the media, and the civil society organizations dealing with HIV/AIDS. They played significant roles as intervening variables that conditioned domestic diffusion or internalization of the international norms for foreign aid policy development. The US had a favorable domestic condition based upon the relatively large number of those infected with HIV, a media that adopted a constructive approach, and active civil society organizations associated with the disease. In contrast, in Japan the number of HIV cases was lower, the media had a distorted view of the epidemic, and civil society organizations were not strong enough to offer much support until the early 1990s.

show abstract

“…Endogenous factors that could influence attention to potential focusing events reflect a certain relationship between the venue addressing the occurrence or its political system broadly and the country/region in which the event takes place. In particular, the decision to pay attention to an event could depend on strategic interests of a geopolitical, security or economic nature (Kato 1969; Kaplan 1975; Dudley and Montmarquette 1976; McKinlay and Little 1977, 1978, 1979; Meernik et al 1998; Van Belle et al 2004; Nelson 2012). Although this category includes a large range of theoretically relevant determinants, the logic behind their effect is generally the same.…”

Section: The Logic Of Reaction To External Focusing Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upsetting the agenda: the clout of external focusing events in the European Council

Alexandrova

2015

J. Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Focusing events are sudden, striking large-scale occurrences that attract political attention. However, not all potential focusing events appear on the agenda. Combining data from multiple sources, this study conducts an analysis of the determinants of prioritisation of external focusing events in the European Council over a period longer than two decades. The results demonstrate that decisions regarding the placement of crises on the agenda are underscored by exogenous (humanitarian) and endogenous (geopolitical interest) considerations. Those events with a higher likelihood of agenda access include manmade incidents (versus natural disasters), events with larger death tolls and crises in the neighbourhood. Stronger competition between potential focusing events across time and space reduces the chances of access. The level of attention each event receives depends on purely strategic interests. Focusing events in neighbouring countries gain a higher portion of attention, as do occurrences in states having a larger trade exchange with the European Union.

show abstract

Media, Bureaucracies and Foreign Aid

Abstract: All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

Cited by 45 publications

References 115 publications

How Do People Evaluate Foreign Aid To ‘Nasty’ Regimes?

How Do People Evaluate Foreign Aid To ‘Nasty’ Regimes?

Variance in Global Response to HIV/AIDS between the United States and Japan: Perception, Media, and Civil Society

Upsetting the agenda: the clout of external focusing events in the European Council

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About