Can we define global collective action problems away?

IF 1.7 4区 经济学 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Rune Jansen Hagen
{"title":"Can we define global collective action problems away?","authors":"Rune Jansen Hagen","doi":"10.1002/jid.3955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals has rejuvenated an old debate: Can foreign aid be used to finance global public goods (GPGs)? There are those who see aid exclusively as a source of development funding for poor countries. And there are others who are open to answering the question in the affirmative. I put forward five arguments why the latter position is reasonable. Firstly, the formal definition of official development assistance (ODA) cannot be said to exclude its use in financing GPGs as these goods by definition benefit developing countries. Secondly, the amount of ODA provided has never been the gold standard of rich country effort envisaged by some. In particular, the level is boosted by the self-interests of donors. Thirdly, there is ample precedent for following the benefit principle when it comes to multilateral organisations, which are often seen as GPGs. Fourthly, distinguishing between national public goods and GPGs is not always straightforward as the former are in many cases inputs into the production of the latter, and in such cases, the dividing line between ‘traditional aid’ and ‘funding for GPGs’ is blurred. Finally, it is not obvious in practice that aid as country finance always generates greater welfare gains for developing countries than the provision of GPGs. In sum, being overly normative with respect to what ODA is distracts us from the real problem, namely, that collective action problems result in too little spending on all international public goods, including poverty alleviation in poor countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":47986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Development","volume":"37 1","pages":"107-128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jid.3955","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Development","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.3955","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals has rejuvenated an old debate: Can foreign aid be used to finance global public goods (GPGs)? There are those who see aid exclusively as a source of development funding for poor countries. And there are others who are open to answering the question in the affirmative. I put forward five arguments why the latter position is reasonable. Firstly, the formal definition of official development assistance (ODA) cannot be said to exclude its use in financing GPGs as these goods by definition benefit developing countries. Secondly, the amount of ODA provided has never been the gold standard of rich country effort envisaged by some. In particular, the level is boosted by the self-interests of donors. Thirdly, there is ample precedent for following the benefit principle when it comes to multilateral organisations, which are often seen as GPGs. Fourthly, distinguishing between national public goods and GPGs is not always straightforward as the former are in many cases inputs into the production of the latter, and in such cases, the dividing line between ‘traditional aid’ and ‘funding for GPGs’ is blurred. Finally, it is not obvious in practice that aid as country finance always generates greater welfare gains for developing countries than the provision of GPGs. In sum, being overly normative with respect to what ODA is distracts us from the real problem, namely, that collective action problems result in too little spending on all international public goods, including poverty alleviation in poor countries.

Abstract Image

我们能把全球集体行动的问题排除在外吗?
可持续发展目标的通过重新引发了一场古老的辩论:外援能否用于资助全球公共产品(GPGs)?有些人只把援助看作是贫穷国家发展资金的来源。还有一些人愿意以肯定的态度回答这个问题。为什么后一种观点是合理的,我提出了五个论点。首先,不能说官方发展援助(ODA)的正式定义排除了它在为政府间发展目标融资方面的用途,因为根据定义,这些商品有利于发展中国家。第二,提供的官方发展援助数额从来就不是某些人所设想的富国努力的黄金标准。特别是,捐助者的自身利益推动了这一水平。第三,在多边组织(通常被视为gpg)中,遵循利益原则有充足的先例。第四,区分国家公共产品和政府产品并不总是那么简单,因为前者在许多情况下是后者生产的投入,在这种情况下,“传统援助”和“为政府产品提供资金”之间的分界线是模糊的。最后,在实践中并不明显,作为国家融资的援助总是比提供政府资助项目给发展中国家带来更大的福利收益。总而言之,过分规范官方发展援助使我们忽视了真正的问题,即集体行动问题导致在所有国际公共利益,包括在贫穷国家减轻贫穷方面的开支太少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: The Journal aims to publish the best research on international development issues in a form that is accessible to practitioners and policy-makers as well as to an academic audience. The main focus is on the social sciences - economics, politics, international relations, sociology and anthropology, as well as development studies - but we also welcome articles that blend the natural and social sciences in addressing the challenges for development. The Journal does not represent any particular school, analytical technique or methodological approach, but aims to publish high quality contributions to ideas, frameworks, policy and practice, including in transitional countries and underdeveloped areas of the Global North as well as the Global South.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信