Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:21:49.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Aid, Intervention, and Influence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

David A. Baldwin
Get access

Extract

Foreign aid can be “related” to intervention in many ways. Some argue, with Senator J. W. Fulbright, that aid tends to precede intervention and to increase the probability of intervention.1 Others would say that aid follows intervention, contending, for example, that American aid to Vietnam was evidence of a prior diplomatic commitment. Still others see aid as an alternative to intervention—if we give aid now we are less likely to have to intervene in the future. Another group would contend that the aid-giving process may constitute intervention. It is with the views of this last group that most of this article deals. In examining them, we shall focus on three topics: (i) the links between foreign aid and influence; (2) the links between particular types of aid and what is often called intervention; and (3) the possibility of functional equivalents for aid that do not involve intervention. There are some conceptual problems, however, that we must address first.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , April 1969, pp. 425 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Fulbright, J. William, The Arrogance of Power (New York 1967), 232Google Scholar–37.

2 Rosenau, James N., “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” Farrell, R. Barry, ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston 1966), 27–92.Google Scholar See also Scott, Andrew M., The Functioning of the International Political System (New York 1967Google Scholar).

3 A thoughtful series of essays on the concept of intervention is found in the Journal of International Affairs, xxn, No. 2 (1968Google Scholar).

4 “Influence” is defined by Robert Dahl as “the ability of A to get B to do something he would not otherwise do.” For elaboration on the use of this definition, see Dahl, Robert A., Modern Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs 1963), 39–54Google Scholar.

5 Pye, Lucian W., “Soviet and American Styles in Foreign Aid,” Orbis, iv (Summer 1960), 168Google Scholar.

6 For similar examples, see Baldwin, David A., “Analytical Notes on Foreign Aid and Politics,” Background, x (May 1966), 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 On this point, see Scott, 23, and Kahn, Herman and Wiener, Anthony J., The Year 2000 (New York 1967), 365Google Scholar.

8 Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations (New York 1955), 130Google Scholar–32.

9 Rosenau, 66. Rosenau defines a “penetrated political system” as one “in which nonmembers of a national society participate directly and authoritatively, through actions taken jointly with the society's members, in either the allocation of its values or the mobilization of support on behalf of its goals.” 65.

10 The word “extent” is somewhat misleading. We might be interested in at least three important dimensions of control: (1) scope, (2) weight, and (3) domain. Cf. Lasswell, Harold and Kaplan, Abraham, Power and Society (New Haven 1950Google Scholar).

11 Cf. Dahl, 53.

12 These “resources” can be political as well as economic.

13 Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, Mass, 1960), 37Google Scholar.

14 New York Times, November 24, 1943, 9. Italics added.

15 Department of State Bulletin, September 23, 1945, 443.

16 Commission on Foreign Economic Policy, Report to the President and the Congress (Washington 1954), 23Google ScholarPubMed.

17 Ibid., 18.

18 Committee to Strengthen the Security of the Free World, The Scope and Distribution of United States Military and Economic Assistance Programs (Washington 1963), 13Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as the “Clay Report.”)

19 Report of the Thirty-Eighth National Foreign Trade Convention (New York 1952), xxxiiGoogle Scholar.

20 American Enterprise Association, “American Private Enterprise, Foreign Economic Development, and the Aid Program,” Foreign Aid Program: Compilation of Studies and Surveys, 85th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 52 (Washington 1957), 539–618Google Scholar, esp. 548, 558–59.

21 Kaplan, Jacob J., The Challenge of Foreign Aid (New York 1967), 179Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., 179–85.

23 Schelling, Thomas C., “American Foreign Assistance,” World Politics, vii (July 1955), 623Google Scholar. On this point, see also George Liska, The New Statecraft (Chicago 1960), 126Google ScholarPubMed–83.

24 Karl W. Deutsch, “External Influences on the Internal Behavior of States,” Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, 10–12.

25 Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, The Operational Aspects of United States Foreign Policy, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee Print, 86th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington 1959), 17Google Scholar.

26 Baldwin, David A., “The International Bank in Political Perspective,” World Politics, XVIII (October 1965), 69Google Scholar.

27 Mikesell, Raymond F., “Problems and Policies in Public Lending for Economic Development,” Mikesell, Raymond F., ed., U.S. Private and Government Investment Abroad (Eugene, Ore. 1962), 325Google Scholar.

28 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (3rd ed., New York 1950), 421Google Scholar.

29 Benham, Frederic, Economic Aid to Underdeveloped Countries (London 1961), 104Google Scholar.

30 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Policies and Operations of the World Bank., IFC, and IDA (Washington 1962), 42Google Scholar.

31 Adams Brown, William and Opie, Redvers, American Foreign Assistance (Washington 1953), 188Google Scholar.

32 The evolution of this process is traced in Baldwin, David A., Economic Development and American Foreign Policy: 1943–1962 (Chicago 1966Google Scholar).

33 On this point, see Consultants on International Finance and Economic Problems, The Problem of Excess Accumulation of US.-Owned Local Currencies: Findings and Recommendations Submitted to the Under Secretary of State, April 4, 1960.

34 Schelling, Thomas C., “American Aid and Economic Development: Some Critical Issues,” International Stability and Progress (New York 1957), 157Google Scholar.

35 Raymond F. Mikesell, “Capacity to Service Foreign Investment,” U.S. Private and Government Investment Abroad, 406.

36 It should be noted that the repayment requirement provides an incentive to allocate aid resources to financially remunerative projects, not necessarily to socially remunerative ones, such as feeding babies.

37 Friedrich, Carl J., Constitutional Government and Democracy (Boston 1941), 589Google Scholar–51.

38 For some evidence that this was indeed the case, see Baldwin, Economic Development and American Foreign Policy.

39 On this point, see Wolf, Charles Jr., Foreign Aid: Theory and Practice in Southern Asia (Princeton 1960), 159–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 187–89, 258, 417–19.

40 Cf. Scott, 210, and Sewell, James Patrick, Functionalism and World Politics (Princeton 1966), 43–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 For a useful review of the arguments for multilateral aid, not all of which concern intervention, see Asher, Robert E., “Multilateral Versus Bilateral Aid: An Old Controversy Revisited,” International Organization, xvi (Autumn 1962), 697–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On international organizations and non-intervention see Scott, 208–11.

42 See Baldwin, “The International Bank,” 68–81.

43 Higgins, Benjamin, United Nations and U.S. Foreign Economic Policy (Home-wood, Ill. 1962), 11Google Scholar. For similar statements advocating multilateral aid as a means of facilitating intervention, see the following: Kaplan, 350; Advisory Committee on Private Enterprise in Foreign Aid, Foreign Aid Through Private Initiative (Washington 1965), 12Google ScholarPubMed; Clay Report, 15–16; Lodge, Henry Cabot, “Mutual Aid Through the United Nations,” Department of State Bulletin, April 4, 1960, 525Google Scholar.

44 For a description of the strings used by the World Bank, see Baldwin, “The International Bank,” 75–79.

45 For examples, see Benham, 105; and Lodge, “Mutual Aid,” 525.

46 Lewis, John P., Quiet Crisis in India (Washington 1962), 263Google Scholar.

47 Ibid., 264. Jacob Kaplan contends that the “only instance of the expulsion of a Western aid mission for pressing unwelcome advice is that of the World Bank advisor who was resident in Turkey in the early 1950's.” 361.

48 “Mutual Aid Through the United Nations,” 525.

49 Wolf, 80 n.

50 Liska, 217.

51 Ibid.,

52 On the importance of this, see Schelling, Thomas C., International Economics (Boston 1958), 443Google Scholar–44.

53 Coffin, Frank M., Witness for AID (Boston 1964), 14–15Google Scholar. See also Agency for International Development, Loan Terms, Debt Burden, and Development (April)” 23.

54 For examples, see Lewis, Cleona, The United States and Foreign Investment Problems (Washington 1948), 277Google Scholar; American Enterprise Association, “American Private Enterprise, Foreign Economic Development, and the Aid Programs,” Foreign Aid Program: Compilation of Studies and Surveys, 592; Wilcox, Clair, A Charter for World Trade (New York 1949), 145Google Scholar; and Pincus, John, Trade, Aid and Development (New York 1967), 344Google Scholar.

55 On this point see Galbraith, John K., The New Industrial State (Boston 1967Google Scholar); Berle, Adolph A. Jr., Power Without Property (New York 1959Google Scholar); and Reagan, Michael D., The Managed Economy (New York 1963Google Scholar).

56 Engler, Robert, The Politics of Oil (New York 1961Google Scholar).

57 Staley, Eugene, War and the Private Investor (Garden City 1935), 142Google Scholar.

58 Ibid., 367. See, also, Model, Leo, “The Politics of Private Foreign Investment,” Foreign Affairs, XLV (July 1967), 639CrossRefGoogle Scholar–51.

59 For details on the United States use of these techniques for promoting private foreign investment, see Baldwin, Economic Development and American Foreign Policy.

60 Foreign Aid Through Private Initiative, 5.

61 Ibid., 6–8.

62 For a description and analysis of the UNCTAD proposals, see Johnson, Harry G., Economic Policies Toward Less Developed Countries (Washington 1967Google Scholar).

63 On this point, see Hirschman, Albert O., National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1945)Google Scholar.

64 Ibid., 34–35. See also Pincus, 44.

65 Scott, 23.

66 Maxwell Graduate School, The Operational Aspects of United States Foreign Policy, 17.