IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v43y2025i5ne70038.html

Foreign aid transparency amid politicization

Author

Listed:
  • Heiner Janus
  • Tim Röthel

Abstract

Motivation In recent years, foreign aid donors have tried to become more transparent, often by sharing information digitally. However, the politicization of individual aid projects has resulted in biased reporting, raising doubts about the legitimacy of aid in general. We therefore examine whether increased transparency leads to greater government effectiveness and public trust. Purpose Government agencies typically assume that greater transparency in public administration improves understanding of bureaucratic actions, thereby fostering trust in the government. In foreign aid, openness is believed to enhance public confidence and improve the effectiveness of governments. However, recent public and political reactions to the disclosure of aid information cast doubt on these optimistic assumptions. Approach and methods Using our sender‐mediator‐receiver model of a “fragile transparency loop,” we analyse how communication breaks down in German foreign aid. First, we focus on Germany as a donor that shares information through a digital transparency portal, examining the sender side. Second, we investigate the mediator side by conducting a qualitative content analysis of German online media articles. Third, we examine the receiver side by disaggregating the German public into several subgroups. Findings Our empirical findings suggest that, while donors assume a virtuous transparency loop, the reality can resemble a fragile transparency loop that is easily disrupted. The government may withhold information; mediators may spread misinformation; and the public may not receive information neutrally. These dynamics explain why, despite increasing transparency, donors may not achieve the intended increases in government effectiveness and public trust. Policy implications Donors should find a balanced approach to foreign aid transparency that upholds democratic accountability while avoiding information overload. Aid bureaucracies should tailor their disclosure to serve different audiences, including professionals with development expertise and the wider public, who may have preconceptions or be uninformed about foreign aid.

Suggested Citation

  • Heiner Janus & Tim Röthel, 2025. "Foreign aid transparency amid politicization," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 43(5), September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:43:y:2025:i:5:n:e70038
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.70038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.70038
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.70038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood, 2007. "What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 191-210, June.
    2. Honig, Dan & Weaver, Catherine, 2019. "A Race to the Top? The Aid Transparency Index and the Social Power of Global Performance Indicators – ERRATUM," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 709-711, July.
    3. Bernhard Reinsberg & Haley Swedlund, 2023. "How transparent are aid agencies to their citizens? Introducing the Citizen Aid Transparency Dataset," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(7), pages 2177-2212, October.
    4. Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Heinrich, Tobias & Bryant, Kristin A., 2021. "Public support for development aid during the COVID-19 pandemic," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. James Pamment, 2019. "Accountability as strategic transparency: Making sense of organizational responses to the International Aid Transparency Initiative," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 37(5), pages 657-671, September.
    6. Rachel M. Gisselquist & Patricia Justino & Andrea Vaccaro, 2024. "Do the principles of effective development co‐operation improve development outcomes? The case for clearer definitions and measurement," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 42(1), January.
    7. Ghosh, Anirban & Kharas, Homi, 2011. "The Money Trail: Ranking Donor Transparency in Foreign Aid," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 1918-1929.
    8. Jens Eger & Sebastian H. Schneider & Martin Bruder & Solveig H. Gleser, 2023. "Does Evidence Matter? The Impact of Evidence Regarding Aid Effectiveness on Attitudes Towards Aid," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(5), pages 1149-1172, October.
    9. Heiner Janus & Daniel E. Esser, 2025. "How Do Foreign Aid Agencies Learn? A Comparative Analysis of Organisational Learning Determinants in National Donor Bureaucracies," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 37(4), pages 792-811, August.
    10. Honig, Dan & Weaver, Catherine, 2019. "A Race to the Top? The Aid Transparency Index and the Social Power of Global Performance Indicators," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 579-610, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zdeněk Opršal, 2025. "Publish where you fund! On geospatial transparency of aid," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 43(6), November.
    2. Lucie Lu & Miles Williams, 2025. "Attention Versus Handshakes: Pathways of Influence in China's Foreign Aid and Loans," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 655-674, April.
    3. Kim, Sung Eun & Park, Jong Hee & Rhee, Inbok & Yang, Joonseok, 2025. "What do aid recipients want? Public attitudes toward foreign aid in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    4. Bernhard Reinsberg & Haley Swedlund, 2023. "How transparent are aid agencies to their citizens? Introducing the Citizen Aid Transparency Dataset," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(7), pages 2177-2212, October.
    5. Esser, Daniel E. & Janus, Heiner, 2025. "Everything, everywhere, all at once? Donor bureaucrats struggle with four dimensions of development effectiveness," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Sebastian Haug & Jack Taggart, 2024. "Global Development Governance 2.0: Fractured accountabilities in a divided governance complex," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 128-134, February.
    7. Bernhard Reinsberg & Martin C. Steinwand, 2025. "Lead or Follow? Participation Decisions in Collective Development Initiatives," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 811-825, July.
    8. Rie Kijima & Phillip Y. Lipscy, 2024. "The politics of international testing," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-31, January.
    9. Tobias Heinrich & Yoshiharu Kobayashi, 2022. "Evaluating explanations for poverty selectivity in foreign aid," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 30-47, February.
    10. Pierre Beaucoral, 2025. "Cracking the Code: Enhancing Development finance understanding with artificial intelligence," Papers 2502.09495, arXiv.org.
    11. José Kaire, 2024. "Get the word out: Monitoring human rights reduces abuse," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(5), pages 808-824, September.
    12. Steffen Eckhard & Vytautas Jankauskas & Elena Leuschner & Ian Burton & Tilman Kerl & Rita Sevastjanova, 2023. "The performance of international organizations: a new measure and dataset based on computational text analysis of evaluation reports," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 753-776, October.
    13. Asif Efrat & Omer Yair, 2023. "International rankings and public opinion: Compliance, dismissal, or backlash?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 607-629, October.
    14. Indra Overland & Anatoli Bourmistrov & Brigt Dale & Stephanie Irlbacher‐Fox & Javlon Juraev & Eduard Podgaiskii & Florian Stammler & Stella Tsani & Roman Vakulchuk & Emma C. Wilson, 2021. "The Arctic Environmental Responsibility Index: A method to rank heterogenous extractive industry companies for governance purposes," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1623-1643, May.
    15. Kyung Ryul Park, 2025. "Fragmented Governance, Shared Norms: Navigating Regime Complexity in Aid Data Governance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    16. Ben Cormier, 2023. "Chinese or western finance? Transparency, official credit flows, and the international political economy of development," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 297-328, April.
    17. M. A. Hannan & M. S. Abd Rahman & Ali Q. Al-Shetwi & R. A. Begum & Pin Jern Ker & M. Mansor & M. S. Mia & M. J. Hossain & Z. Y. Dong & T. M. I. Mahlia, 2022. "Impact Assessment of COVID-19 Severity on Environment, Economy and Society towards Affecting Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-23, November.
    18. Liya Palagashvili & Claudia R. Williamson, 2021. "Grading foreign aid agencies: Best practices across traditional and emerging donors," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 654-676, May.
    19. Bianchi, Lara & Passetti, Emilio & Contrafatto, Massimo, 2025. "The (non)enactment of intelligent accountability through stakeholder engagement: A micro-processual perspective," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(6).
    20. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:43:y:2025:i:5:n:e70038. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.