Donor motives, public preferences and the allocation of UK foreign aid: a discrete choice experiment approach

被引:0
|
作者
Simon Feeny
Paul Hansen
Stephen Knowles
Mark McGillivray
Franz Ombler
机构
[1] RMIT University,School of Economics, Finance and Marketing
[2] University of Otago,undefined
[3] Deakin University,undefined
[4] 1000minds,undefined
来源
Review of World Economics | 2019年 / 155卷
关键词
Foreign aid; Discrete choice experiment (DCE); Cluster analysis; UK; F35; H50; C90;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This paper develops a prescriptive model for the inter-country allocation of aid from the UK government. The model incorporates three broad motives for allocating aid: recipient need, donor interests and absorptive capacity (the ability of recipient countries to use aid effectively). To determine each motive’s relative importance, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving more than 1600 members of the UK general population was conducted. Absorptive capacity is the most important motive, and recipient need and donor interests are equally but much less important. Current UK aid allocations are compared with those prescribed by the model. Some countries, including China, India and Indonesia, would receive much more if aid were allocated according to the model; other countries, including Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Pakistan, would receive much less. Cluster analysis reveals that the political parties voted for by DCE participants at the 2015 general election are, inter alia, related to their aid preferences.
引用
收藏
页码:511 / 537
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Donor motives, public preferences and the allocation of UK foreign aid: a discrete choice experiment approach
    Feeny, Simon
    Hansen, Paul
    Knowles, Stephen
    McGillivray, Mark
    Ombler, Franz
    REVIEW OF WORLD ECONOMICS, 2019, 155 (03) : 511 - 537
  • [2] Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: A discrete choice experiment
    Oedingen, Carina
    Bartling, Tim
    Schrem, Harald
    Muehlbacher, Axel C.
    Krauth, Christian
    SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2021, 287
  • [3] Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea
    Bae, Eun-Young
    Lim, Min Kyoung
    Lee, Boram
    Bae, Green
    Hong, Jihyung
    HEALTH POLICY, 2023, 138
  • [4] Public Preferences in Organ Allocation: A Discrete Choice Experiment Regarding Distributive Justice
    Oedingen, Carina
    Bartling, Tim
    Schrem, Harald
    Muehlbacher, Axel C.
    Krauth, Christian
    PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2022, 15 (06): : 733 - 733
  • [5] Donor Motives for Foreign Aid
    Bandyopadhyay, Subbayu
    Vermann, E. Katarina
    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST LOUIS REVIEW, 2013, 95 (04): : 327 - 336
  • [6] PUBLIC PREFERENCES IN ORGAN ALLOCATION: A DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT REGARDING PRINCIPLES OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
    Oedingen, C.
    Bartling, T.
    Schrem, H.
    Muehlbacher, A. C.
    Krauth, C.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2022, 25 (12) : S12 - S12
  • [7] Community Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation A Discrete Choice Study
    Howard, Kirsten
    Jan, Stephen
    Rose, John M.
    Wong, Germaine
    Irving, Michelle
    Tong, Allison
    Craig, Jonathan C.
    Chadban, Steven
    Allen, Richard D.
    Cass, Alan
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2015, 99 (03) : 560 - 567
  • [8] Preferences of the Public for Sharing Health Data: Discrete Choice Experiment
    Johansson, Jennifer Viberg
    Bentzen, Heidi Beate
    Shah, Nisha
    Haraldsdottir, Eik
    Jonsdottir, Guobjorg Andrea
    Kaye, Jane
    Mascalzoni, Deborah
    Veldwijk, Jorien
    JMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2021, 9 (07)
  • [9] What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK
    Morrell, Liz
    Buchanan, James
    Rees, Sian
    Barker, Richard W.
    Wordsworth, Sarah
    PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2021, 39 (12) : 1443 - 1454
  • [10] What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK
    Liz Morrell
    James Buchanan
    Sian Rees
    Richard W. Barker
    Sarah Wordsworth
    PharmacoEconomics, 2021, 39 : 1443 - 1454