Aid volatility, policy and development

John Hudson, Paul Mosley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We build on Bulir and Hamann's analysis of aid volatility [Bulir, A., & Hamann, J. (2003). Aid volatility: An empirical assessment. IMF Staff Papers, 50(1) 64-89: Bulir, A.. & Hamann, J. (2008) Volatility of development aid: From the frying pan into the fire? Washington DC: IMF, paper submitted to this Special Section], showing that the conclusions reached depend on the dataset used. Their argument that the poorest Countries have the highest volatility appears not to be correct. The impact of volatility on growth is negative overall, but differs between positive and negative volatility. The mix between "responsive" components of aid, for example, programme aid, and "proactive" components. for example, technical assistance, is important. Finally, we conclude that measures which increase trust between donor and recipient, and reductions in the degree of donor "oligopoly." reduce aid volatility without obviously reducing its effectiveness.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2082-2102
Number of pages21
JournalWorld Development
Volume36
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2008

Fingerprint

IMF
aid
oligopoly
technical assistance
development aid
recipient
staff
policy
volatility

Keywords

  • upside and downside volatility
  • trust
  • aid volatility
  • disasters

Cite this

Aid volatility, policy and development. / Hudson, John; Mosley, Paul.

In: World Development, Vol. 36, No. 10, 10.2008, p. 2082-2102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hudson, John ; Mosley, Paul. / Aid volatility, policy and development. In: World Development. 2008 ; Vol. 36, No. 10. pp. 2082-2102.
@article{3e97663c576b41838f54b2b4b3bd69e3,
title = "Aid volatility, policy and development",
abstract = "We build on Bulir and Hamann's analysis of aid volatility [Bulir, A., & Hamann, J. (2003). Aid volatility: An empirical assessment. IMF Staff Papers, 50(1) 64-89: Bulir, A.. & Hamann, J. (2008) Volatility of development aid: From the frying pan into the fire? Washington DC: IMF, paper submitted to this Special Section], showing that the conclusions reached depend on the dataset used. Their argument that the poorest Countries have the highest volatility appears not to be correct. The impact of volatility on growth is negative overall, but differs between positive and negative volatility. The mix between {"}responsive{"} components of aid, for example, programme aid, and {"}proactive{"} components. for example, technical assistance, is important. Finally, we conclude that measures which increase trust between donor and recipient, and reductions in the degree of donor {"}oligopoly.{"} reduce aid volatility without obviously reducing its effectiveness.",
keywords = "upside and downside volatility, trust, aid volatility, disasters",
author = "John Hudson and Paul Mosley",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.018",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "2082--2102",
journal = "World Development",
issn = "0305-750X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Aid volatility, policy and development

AU - Hudson, John

AU - Mosley, Paul

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - We build on Bulir and Hamann's analysis of aid volatility [Bulir, A., & Hamann, J. (2003). Aid volatility: An empirical assessment. IMF Staff Papers, 50(1) 64-89: Bulir, A.. & Hamann, J. (2008) Volatility of development aid: From the frying pan into the fire? Washington DC: IMF, paper submitted to this Special Section], showing that the conclusions reached depend on the dataset used. Their argument that the poorest Countries have the highest volatility appears not to be correct. The impact of volatility on growth is negative overall, but differs between positive and negative volatility. The mix between "responsive" components of aid, for example, programme aid, and "proactive" components. for example, technical assistance, is important. Finally, we conclude that measures which increase trust between donor and recipient, and reductions in the degree of donor "oligopoly." reduce aid volatility without obviously reducing its effectiveness.

AB - We build on Bulir and Hamann's analysis of aid volatility [Bulir, A., & Hamann, J. (2003). Aid volatility: An empirical assessment. IMF Staff Papers, 50(1) 64-89: Bulir, A.. & Hamann, J. (2008) Volatility of development aid: From the frying pan into the fire? Washington DC: IMF, paper submitted to this Special Section], showing that the conclusions reached depend on the dataset used. Their argument that the poorest Countries have the highest volatility appears not to be correct. The impact of volatility on growth is negative overall, but differs between positive and negative volatility. The mix between "responsive" components of aid, for example, programme aid, and "proactive" components. for example, technical assistance, is important. Finally, we conclude that measures which increase trust between donor and recipient, and reductions in the degree of donor "oligopoly." reduce aid volatility without obviously reducing its effectiveness.

KW - upside and downside volatility

KW - trust

KW - aid volatility

KW - disasters

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53749089380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.018

U2 - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.018

DO - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.018

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 2082

EP - 2102

JO - World Development

JF - World Development

SN - 0305-750X

IS - 10

ER -