Domestic public support for foreign aid: Does it matter?

There is a paradox as First World governments provide decreasing levels of foreign aid despite apparently high levels of domestic public support for foreign aid. This article examines this issue as a case study in government response to public opinion: do governments in democracies pay any real atte...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Third world quarterly 2003-02, Vol.24 (1), p.115-125
Main Author: Otter, Mark
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aid Issues
Data collection
Developed countries
Development policy
Development studies
Foreign aid
Government
Government programs
International cooperation
International development
Nongovernmental organizations
Opinion polls
Policy making
Political participation
Political support
Polls
Public opinion
Surveys
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:There is a paradox as First World governments provide decreasing levels of foreign aid despite apparently high levels of domestic public support for foreign aid. This article examines this issue as a case study in government response to public opinion: do governments in democracies pay any real attention to what the public think? The study's methodology is to compare trends in domestic public support for official foreign aid programmes over time in five selected aid donor countries with trends in foreign aid expenditure as a proportion of Gross National Income. There are mixed results: in some cases aid performance increased or decreased in accordance with public opinion; in other cases performance went against public opinion. The reasons can partly be explained by faulty public opinion polling techniques but there also appears to be a substantial problem for public policy making in democracies. Governments are paying little attention to public opinion, at least in so-called elite policy areas such as foreign aid.
ISSN:0143-6597
1360-2241
DOI:10.1080/713701372