IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v84y2003i3p650-666.html

Do Human Rights Matter in Bilateral Aid Allocation? A Quantitative Analysis of 21 Donor Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Neumayer

Abstract

Objective. To analyze the role of human rights in aid allocation of 21 donor countries. Methods. Econometric analysis is applied to a panel covering the period 1985 to 1997. Results. Respect for civil/political rights plays a statistically significant role for most donors at the aid eligibility stage. Personal integrity rights, on the other hand, have a positive impact on aid eligibility for few donors only. At the level stage, most donors fail to promote respect for human rights in a consistent manner and often give more aid to countries with a poor record on either civil/political or personal integrity rights. No systematic difference is apparent between the like‐minded countries commonly regarded as committed to human rights (Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden) and the other donors. Conclusions. Contrary to their verbal commitment, donor countries do not consistently reward respect for human rights in their foreign aid allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Neumayer, 2003. "Do Human Rights Matter in Bilateral Aid Allocation? A Quantitative Analysis of 21 Donor Countries," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(3), pages 650-666, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:3:p:650-666
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.8403010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8403010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.8403010?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. repec:wbk:wbpubs:13828 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:3:p:650-666. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.