4.2 Article

Does foreign aid reduce poverty? A dynamic panel data analysis for sub-Saharan African countries

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 875-893

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s10888-021-09496-5

关键词

Official Development Assistance (ODA); Foreign aid; Poverty reduction; Democracy; Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA); System Generalized Method of Moments Estimators (SGMM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Foreign aid has a significant poverty reduction effect in sub-Saharan Africa, especially total ODA, grants, and multilateral aid. Democracy enhances the effectiveness of foreign aid, while inequality hinders poverty reduction efforts.
This study examines the effect of foreign aid on extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) over the period 1981-2013. The study uses recent dynamic panel estimation techniques, including those methods which deal with endogeneity by controlling for simultaneity and unobserved heterogeneity. The main findings of the study are summarized as follows: firstly, foreign aid does have a statistically significant poverty reduction effect in SSA. Secondly, the disaggregation of aid by source and type shows that total ODA, grants and multilateral aid have poverty reduction effects. Thirdly, democracy enhances the effectiveness of foreign aid in reducing poverty. Lastly, GDP per capita and globalization reduce extreme poverty, while inequality has a detrimental effect on the fight against poverty. This study confirms that the volume of aid matters as well as how it is allocated. The policy implications of these findings are that development partners should continue to focus on poverty reduction as the main objective for ODA. Further, aid allocation should be focused on channels which have more poverty-reduction effects, such as GDP per capita and democracy. Finally, aid recipient countries should come-up with income distributional policies that allow the benefits of growth to accrue to many people, thereby lifting the majority out of extreme poverty.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据