澳大利亚援助项目:什么项目有效,项目在哪里有效,澳大利亚如何比较

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES
Terence Wood, Sabit Otor, Matthew Dornan
{"title":"澳大利亚援助项目:什么项目有效,项目在哪里有效,澳大利亚如何比较","authors":"Terence Wood,&nbsp;Sabit Otor,&nbsp;Matthew Dornan","doi":"10.1002/app5.300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, we conduct the first-ever systematic study of Australian aid project appraisals. Using a previously unstudied data set of appraisals, we study project and recipient country factors influencing Australian aid effectiveness. We find effectiveness varies more within recipient countries than between countries. We find larger projects are more likely to be successful. Humanitarian projects are more successful on average than development projects. We also find that Australian aid is less likely to succeed in the Pacific than elsewhere, a significant finding given Australia's increased focus on the region. Finally, we show that Australia does not appear to be an unusual donor: when we compare Australia with other donors in a global data set, we find similar variables are correlated with effectiveness for most donors, including Australia.</p>","PeriodicalId":45839,"journal":{"name":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","volume":"7 2","pages":"171-186"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/app5.300","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australian aid projects: What works, where projects work and how Australia compares\",\"authors\":\"Terence Wood,&nbsp;Sabit Otor,&nbsp;Matthew Dornan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/app5.300\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this article, we conduct the first-ever systematic study of Australian aid project appraisals. Using a previously unstudied data set of appraisals, we study project and recipient country factors influencing Australian aid effectiveness. We find effectiveness varies more within recipient countries than between countries. We find larger projects are more likely to be successful. Humanitarian projects are more successful on average than development projects. We also find that Australian aid is less likely to succeed in the Pacific than elsewhere, a significant finding given Australia's increased focus on the region. Finally, we show that Australia does not appear to be an unusual donor: when we compare Australia with other donors in a global data set, we find similar variables are correlated with effectiveness for most donors, including Australia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"171-186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/app5.300\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app5.300\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app5.300","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在本文中,我们对澳大利亚援助项目评估进行了首次系统研究。使用以前未研究过的评估数据集,我们研究了影响澳大利亚援助有效性的项目和受援国因素。我们发现,受援国内部的有效性差异大于国与国之间。我们发现更大的项目更有可能成功。一般来说,人道主义项目比发展项目更成功。我们还发现,与其他地区相比,澳大利亚的援助在太平洋地区取得成功的可能性更小,这是一个重要的发现,因为澳大利亚越来越关注该地区。最后,我们表明澳大利亚似乎并不是一个不寻常的捐助者:当我们将澳大利亚与全球数据集中的其他捐助者进行比较时,我们发现类似的变量与大多数捐助者的有效性相关,包括澳大利亚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Australian aid projects: What works, where projects work and how Australia compares

Australian aid projects: What works, where projects work and how Australia compares

In this article, we conduct the first-ever systematic study of Australian aid project appraisals. Using a previously unstudied data set of appraisals, we study project and recipient country factors influencing Australian aid effectiveness. We find effectiveness varies more within recipient countries than between countries. We find larger projects are more likely to be successful. Humanitarian projects are more successful on average than development projects. We also find that Australian aid is less likely to succeed in the Pacific than elsewhere, a significant finding given Australia's increased focus on the region. Finally, we show that Australia does not appear to be an unusual donor: when we compare Australia with other donors in a global data set, we find similar variables are correlated with effectiveness for most donors, including Australia.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies is the flagship journal of the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. It is a peer-reviewed journal that targets research in policy studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific, across a discipline focus that includes economics, political science, governance, development and the environment. Specific themes of recent interest include health and education, aid, migration, inequality, poverty reduction, energy, climate and the environment, food policy, public administration, the role of the private sector in public policy, trade, foreign policy, natural resource management and development policy. Papers on a range of topics that speak to various disciplines, the region and policy makers are encouraged. The goal of the journal is to break down barriers across disciplines, and generate policy impact. Submissions will be reviewed on the basis of content, policy relevance and readability.
×
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