IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Assessing Aid: A Manifesto for Aid in the 21st Century?

Listed author(s):
  • Robert Lensink
  • Howard White

The World Bank report Assessing Aid argues that aid can have positive effects on growth and infant mortality, but only when good policies are being followed by the recipient. It follows, especially since aid is fungible, and so cannot be targeted to particular uses, that donors should focus their aid on low-income countries with good policies (i.e. apply greater selectivity). This paper explores a number of weaknesses in these arguments. The growth regressions are not robust, so that different results can be obtained with relatively minor variations in model specification. In particular, the argument that aid only works when policies are right is not supported in other studies - and even the World Bank's evidence can be interpreted as saying policies work better when supported by aid inflows. The choice of which policies are good policies is also problematic, and the analysis in the report ignores the likely presence of threshold effects and other non-linearities; others would, anyhow, propose a different set of right policies, especially if the focus is poverty reduction rather than growth. The importance of fungibility may be over-stated so that donors can in fact target poverty-reduction activities, suggesting that the selectivity rules proposed in Assessing Aid are misleading. Even if the report's proposals are to be accepted it is silent on a number of important issues-such as whether to use the level or change in the index-that face the aid manager in practice.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Oxford Development Studies.

Volume (Year): 28 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 5-18

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:oxdevs:v:28:y:2000:i:1:p:5-18
DOI: 10.1080/713688303
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:oxdevs:v:28:y:2000:i:1:p:5-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.