TY - JOUR
T1 - Project design decisions of egalitarian and non-egalitarian international organizations
T2 - Evidence from the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank
AU - Iannantuoni, Alice
AU - Waeiss, Charla
AU - Winters, Matthew S.
N1 - Funding Information:
To study the predictors of bargaining outcomes, we first follow Bayer et al. ( 2015 ) in operationalizing recipient countries’ bargaining power with log-transformed GDP in constant 2000 dollars. Subsequently, we use recipient countries’ level of development as our key explanatory variable, measuring this as log-transformed GDP per capita in constant 2000 dollars. As stated earlier, we expect poorer countries to receive better bargains. We use the same indicator variable as the original article to divide projects into those implemented by a World Bank agency and those implemented by another agency. Additionally, we create another indicator variable to divide projects into those implemented by any development bank (all of which have non-egalitarian voting structures) and those implemented by a UN agency (all of which have egalitarian voting structures). Table 2 presents a list of all implementing agencies in our sample and their classification under the “World Bank” and “development bank” indicators; we list the number of projects in the data implemented by each agency. Fig. 3 shows the financing breakdown of the average project implemented by the World Bank versus that of the average project implemented by another type of agency. It also shows the financing breakdown of the average project implemented by a development bank (World Bank or otherwise) versus that of the average project implemented by a UN agency. Note that on average, projects that are not implemented by the World Bank – and in particular, projects implemented by a UN agency – tend to receive a greater share of financing from the recipient country and a smaller share from the implementing agency. Classification of implementing agencies Implementing Agency World Bank Dev. Bank N / 1256 † N / 1411 Asian Development Bank 0 1 21 22 African Development Bank 0 1 4 4 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 0 1 7 8 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 0 0 14 15 Inter-American Development Bank 0 1 17 20 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1 1 443 497 International Development Association 1 1 7 7 International Fund for Agricultural Development 0 0 31 32 United Nations Development Programme 0 0 580 654 United Nations Environment Programme 0 0 91 105 United Nations Industrial Development Organization 0 0 41 47 †As discussed, we are unable to find accurate information to break down the cofinancing of 155 projects out of the 1411 full- andmedium-size projects in the original sample. We are left with 1256 projects to analyze Fig. 3 Average funding shares for 1256 Projects in Authors’ Sample by Type of Implementing Agency Following the model specification in Bayer et al. ( 2015 ), we also include an indicator to identify projects whose focal area is climate change; we control for total project cost, political corruption (operationalized by the ICRG measure), and political institutions in the recipient country (operationalized with the Democracy and Dictatorship coding from Cheibub et al. ( 2010 )); and we include year and region fixed effects in all regression models.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - Foreign aid flows result from agreements reached between states that need resources and other states or international organizations that can provide those resources. Recent literature has argued that different international development organizations bargain with aid-receiving states in particular ways. Specifically, some authors argue that non-egalitarian international development organizations seek to secure more gains when bargaining with economically weak states. Global Environment Facility projects are negotiated by the international agency that will implement the project, allowing us to examine this claim in the context of a set of similar development projects. Correcting and reanalyzing an existing dataset describing the composition of financing in GEF projects, we find no evidence that the financing terms provided by different GEF implementing agencies varies by the type of organization. Both egalitarian and non-egalitarian agencies provide more external funding to poorer countries. We replicate this result using data from development projects financed by the World Bank, the archetypal non-egalitarian international organization. We discuss how our results are consistent with organizational behavior that originates in the interests of an international bureaucracy oriented toward poverty alleviation.
AB - Foreign aid flows result from agreements reached between states that need resources and other states or international organizations that can provide those resources. Recent literature has argued that different international development organizations bargain with aid-receiving states in particular ways. Specifically, some authors argue that non-egalitarian international development organizations seek to secure more gains when bargaining with economically weak states. Global Environment Facility projects are negotiated by the international agency that will implement the project, allowing us to examine this claim in the context of a set of similar development projects. Correcting and reanalyzing an existing dataset describing the composition of financing in GEF projects, we find no evidence that the financing terms provided by different GEF implementing agencies varies by the type of organization. Both egalitarian and non-egalitarian agencies provide more external funding to poorer countries. We replicate this result using data from development projects financed by the World Bank, the archetypal non-egalitarian international organization. We discuss how our results are consistent with organizational behavior that originates in the interests of an international bureaucracy oriented toward poverty alleviation.
KW - Bargaining
KW - Counterpart funding
KW - Foreign aid
KW - Global environment facility
KW - International organizations
KW - World Bank
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077522462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85077522462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11558-019-09368-8
DO - 10.1007/s11558-019-09368-8
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85077522462
SN - 1559-7431
VL - 16
SP - 431
EP - 462
JO - Review of International Organizations
JF - Review of International Organizations
IS - 2
ER -