Aid Volatility, Policy and Development

John Hudson and Paul Mosley

World Development, 2008, vol. 36, issue 10, 2082-2102

Abstract: Summary We build on Bulir and Hamann's analysis of aid volatility [Bulir, A., & Hamann, J. (2003). Aid volatility: An empirical assessment. IMF Staff Papers, 50(1), 64-89; Bulir, A., & Hamann, J. (2008) Volatility of development aid: From the frying pan into the fire? Washington DC: IMF, paper submitted to this Special Section], showing that the conclusions reached depend on the dataset used. Their argument that the poorest countries have the highest volatility appears not to be correct. The impact of volatility on growth is negative overall, but differs between positive and negative volatility. The mix between "responsive" components of aid, for example, programme aid, and "proactive" components, for example, technical assistance, is important. Finally, we conclude that measures which increase trust between donor and recipient, and reductions in the degree of donor "oligopoly," reduce aid volatility without obviously reducing its effectiveness.

Keywords: aid; volatility; disasters; trust; upside; and; downside; volatility (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (48)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-750X(08)00198-8
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: Aid Volatility, Policy and Development (2007)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:36:y:2008:i:10:p:2082-2102

Access Statistics for this article

World Development is currently edited by O. T. Coomes

More articles in World Development from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().