对加纳和乌干达的双边农业援助:不同机构质量下的捐助方做法

Q3 Social Sciences
Hyejin Lee
{"title":"对加纳和乌干达的双边农业援助:不同机构质量下的捐助方做法","authors":"Hyejin Lee","doi":"10.18697/ajfand.132.24830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Agriculture has been the backbone of African economies, and agricultural development has the potential to drive overall economic growth. Considering the importance of agriculture in Africa, foreign aid donors have supported the sector to help push economic growth and reduce poverty. Studies indicate governance quality of a recipient country is an important factor for agricultural aid. Building upon this, the paper explores how bilateral donors provided agricultural aid to two African countries that have different institutional quality, Ghana and Uganda. The analysis of agricultural aid in those two countries was carried out with bilateral aid-profile data from 2011 to 2022. Despite the similar economic importance of agriculture in Ghana and Uganda, donors to Ghana invested the largest amount in agriculture among aid sectors, followed by health. On the other hand, donors to Uganda supported mainly health-relevant sectors with agriculture being ranked only fifth. Donors in both countries implemented agricultural aid mostly as project types. Yet, donors disbursed their aid funds through different aid channels. Donors to Ghana disbursed 48% of agricultural aid funds through the public sector institutions channel (or the state channel). By contrast, donors to Uganda disbursed only 24% of agricultural aid funds through the state channel, essentially bypassing Ugandan public agencies. They instead provided 76% of agricultural aid through the non-state channels such as non-governmental organizations, multilateral organizations, and private entities. Similar donor preferences of the aid disbursement channels were observed with total aid across all aid sectors. Overall, the donor aid profiles suggested donors provided Ghana with more flexible agricultural aid, while in Uganda they controlled agricultural aid more tightly. There could exist multiple underlying reasons for this, but the different level of institutional quality is highly likely one of the possible reasons. For foreign aid, governance quality is an important issue equally to both donors and recipients. Key words: Africa, agriculture, aid channel, bilateral aid, foreign aid, Ghana, governance, Uganda","PeriodicalId":7710,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development","volume":"10 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bilateral agricultural aid to Ghana and Uganda: donor practices under different institutional quality\",\"authors\":\"Hyejin Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.18697/ajfand.132.24830\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Agriculture has been the backbone of African economies, and agricultural development has the potential to drive overall economic growth. Considering the importance of agriculture in Africa, foreign aid donors have supported the sector to help push economic growth and reduce poverty. Studies indicate governance quality of a recipient country is an important factor for agricultural aid. Building upon this, the paper explores how bilateral donors provided agricultural aid to two African countries that have different institutional quality, Ghana and Uganda. The analysis of agricultural aid in those two countries was carried out with bilateral aid-profile data from 2011 to 2022. Despite the similar economic importance of agriculture in Ghana and Uganda, donors to Ghana invested the largest amount in agriculture among aid sectors, followed by health. On the other hand, donors to Uganda supported mainly health-relevant sectors with agriculture being ranked only fifth. Donors in both countries implemented agricultural aid mostly as project types. Yet, donors disbursed their aid funds through different aid channels. Donors to Ghana disbursed 48% of agricultural aid funds through the public sector institutions channel (or the state channel). By contrast, donors to Uganda disbursed only 24% of agricultural aid funds through the state channel, essentially bypassing Ugandan public agencies. They instead provided 76% of agricultural aid through the non-state channels such as non-governmental organizations, multilateral organizations, and private entities. Similar donor preferences of the aid disbursement channels were observed with total aid across all aid sectors. Overall, the donor aid profiles suggested donors provided Ghana with more flexible agricultural aid, while in Uganda they controlled agricultural aid more tightly. There could exist multiple underlying reasons for this, but the different level of institutional quality is highly likely one of the possible reasons. For foreign aid, governance quality is an important issue equally to both donors and recipients. Key words: Africa, agriculture, aid channel, bilateral aid, foreign aid, Ghana, governance, Uganda\",\"PeriodicalId\":7710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development\",\"volume\":\"10 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.132.24830\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.132.24830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

农业一直是非洲经济的支柱,农业发展具有推动整体经济增长的潜力。考虑到农业在非洲的重要性,外国援助国对农业部门给予了支持,以帮助推动经济增长和减少贫困。研究表明,受援国的治理质量是农业援助的一个重要因素。在此基础上,本文探讨了双边援助国如何向加纳和乌干达这两个体制质量不同的非洲国家提供农业援助。本文利用 2011 年至 2022 年的双边援助概况数据,对这两个国家的农业援助情况进行了分析。尽管农业在加纳和乌干达具有相似的经济重要性,但在援助部门中,对加纳的援助国对农业的投资金额最大,其次是卫生部门。另一方面,乌干达的捐助者主要支持与卫生相关的部门,农业仅排在第五位。这两个国家的捐助者大多以项目形式实施农业援助。然而,捐助国通过不同的援助渠道支付援助资金。加纳捐助者通过公共部门机构渠道(或国家渠道)支付了 48% 的农业援助资金。相比之下,乌干达的捐助方仅通过国家渠道支付了 24% 的农业援助资金,基本上绕过了乌干达的公共机构。相反,他们通过非政府组织、多边组织和私营实体等非国家渠道提供了 76% 的农业援助。在所有援助部门的援助总额方面,也观察到了类似的捐助方对援助支付渠道的偏好。总体而言,捐助方援助概况表明,捐助方向加纳提供的农业援助更为灵活,而对乌干达的农业援助控制更为严格。造成这种情况的根本原因可能有多种,但不同水平的机构质量极有可能是原因之一。对于外国援助而言,治理质量对援助国和受援国都是一个重要问题。关键字非洲、农业、援助渠道、双边援助、外国援助、加纳、治理、乌干达
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bilateral agricultural aid to Ghana and Uganda: donor practices under different institutional quality
Agriculture has been the backbone of African economies, and agricultural development has the potential to drive overall economic growth. Considering the importance of agriculture in Africa, foreign aid donors have supported the sector to help push economic growth and reduce poverty. Studies indicate governance quality of a recipient country is an important factor for agricultural aid. Building upon this, the paper explores how bilateral donors provided agricultural aid to two African countries that have different institutional quality, Ghana and Uganda. The analysis of agricultural aid in those two countries was carried out with bilateral aid-profile data from 2011 to 2022. Despite the similar economic importance of agriculture in Ghana and Uganda, donors to Ghana invested the largest amount in agriculture among aid sectors, followed by health. On the other hand, donors to Uganda supported mainly health-relevant sectors with agriculture being ranked only fifth. Donors in both countries implemented agricultural aid mostly as project types. Yet, donors disbursed their aid funds through different aid channels. Donors to Ghana disbursed 48% of agricultural aid funds through the public sector institutions channel (or the state channel). By contrast, donors to Uganda disbursed only 24% of agricultural aid funds through the state channel, essentially bypassing Ugandan public agencies. They instead provided 76% of agricultural aid through the non-state channels such as non-governmental organizations, multilateral organizations, and private entities. Similar donor preferences of the aid disbursement channels were observed with total aid across all aid sectors. Overall, the donor aid profiles suggested donors provided Ghana with more flexible agricultural aid, while in Uganda they controlled agricultural aid more tightly. There could exist multiple underlying reasons for this, but the different level of institutional quality is highly likely one of the possible reasons. For foreign aid, governance quality is an important issue equally to both donors and recipients. Key words: Africa, agriculture, aid channel, bilateral aid, foreign aid, Ghana, governance, Uganda
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
124
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND) is a highly cited and prestigious quarterly peer reviewed journal with a global reputation, published in Kenya by the Africa Scholarly Science Communications Trust (ASSCAT). Our internationally recognized publishing programme covers a wide range of scientific and development disciplines, including agriculture, food, nutrition, environmental management and sustainable development related information.
×
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