IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Inertia and Herding in Humanitarian Aid Decisions

  • David Fielding

    ()

    (Department of Economics, University of Otago)

Using panel data for the period 1995-2008, we model the aid allocation decisions of the three largest official donors of humanitarian aid: the United States government, the United Kingdom government and the European Commission. We find evidence that donor decisions depend on both the recipientÕs need and the donorÕs economic interest, but with marked asymmetries in the relative importance of different factors across the three donors. Moreover, some donors exhibit much more inertia than others in responding to new areas of need, and some are much more influenced by the decisions of other donors. Despite being a relatively small donor, the United Kingdom is particularly influential.

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: http://www.business.otago.ac.nz/econ/research/discussionpapers/DP_1009.pdf
File Function: First version, 2010
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Otago, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 1009.

as
in new window

Length: 32 pages
Date of creation: Aug 2010
Date of revision: Aug 2010
Handle: RePEc:otg:wpaper:1009
Contact details of provider: Postal: P.O. Box 56, Dunedin
Phone: +64 3 479 8725
Fax: 64 3 479 8171
Web page: http://www.business.otago.ac.nz/econ
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Canavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo & Nunnenkamp, Peter & Thiele, Rainer & Triveño, Luis, 2006. "Assessing the allocation of aid : developmental concerns and the self-interest of donors," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 3983, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
  2. Simon Feeny & Matthew Clarke, 2007. "What Determines Australia's Response to Emergencies and Natural Disasters?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 40(1), pages 24-36, 03.
  3. Fleck, Robert K. & Kilby, Christopher, 2010. "Changing aid regimes? U.S. foreign aid from the Cold War to the War on Terror," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 185-197, March.
  4. Fleck, Robert K. & Kilby, Christopher, 2005. "How Do Political Changes Influence U.S. Bilateral Aid Allocations? Evidence from Panel Data," Vassar College Department of Economics Working Paper Series 67, Vassar College Department of Economics.
  5. Berthelemy, Jean-Claude & Tichit, Ariane, 2004. "Bilateral donors' aid allocation decisions--a three-dimensional panel analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 253-274.
  6. Alberto Alesina & David Dollar, 1998. "Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?," NBER Working Papers 6612, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Guilkey, David K. & Murphy, James L., 1993. "Estimation and testing in the random effects probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 301-317, October.
  8. McGillivray, Mark & Oczkowski, Edward, 1991. "Modelling the Allocation of Australian Bilateral Aid: A Two-Part Sample Selection Approach," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 67(197), pages 147-52, June.
  9. Anastasia Semykina & Jeffrey M. Woodridge, 2010. "Estimating Panel Data Models in the Presence of Endogeneity and Selection," Working Papers wp2010_10_01, Department of Economics, Florida State University.
  10. Eric Neumayer, 2005. "Is the Allocation of Food Aid Free from Donor Interest Bias?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(3), pages 394-411.
  11. Anastasia Semykina & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2013. "Estimation of dynamic panel data models with sample selection," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 47-61, 01.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:otg:wpaper:1009. 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: (Janet Bryant)

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.