Many scholars view international organizations primarily as vehicles through which powerful states distribute resources. However, this view overlooks the ability of bureaucracies in international organizations to affect perceptions of countries. This paper argues that international organizations use classifications to shape how states are treated by international economic elites. Arbitrary changes in a country’s classification have major effects on high-stakes decisions such as aid, investment, and credit and democracy ratings. After proposing two mechanisms—cognitive and strategic—by which classifications influence elite behavior, I show with cross-national data from 1987 to 2015 that a country’s World Bank income classification correlates with the rewards it receives from actors who are susceptible to cognitive biases or accountable to less informed actors. Drawing on 50 interviews with various stakeholders, I illustrate these patterns in the “graduations” of Nepal, Botswana, and others from different classifications produced by the World Bank and the United Nations. Finally, qualitative and quantitative evidence shows that countries try to exploit these dynamics by attempting to change their classifications. The paper identifies a relatively unexamined power of international organizations in a context where its deployment significantly affects outcomes for developing countries.
Contrary to scholarly predictions, foreign aid does not appear to undermine individuals’ beliefs in the legitimacy of their governments. Rather than testing a theory of foreign aid and legitimacy, this paper aims to understand why this prediction has failed to materialize in mounting evidence. I develop explanations inductively based on original descriptive evidence from a survey and in-depth interviews in western Kenya. I propose, first, that the prediction itself is based on incorrect assumptions about individuals’ expectations of government, and second, that scholars may not be measuring legitimacy accurately. I offer specific suggestions for how future studies can overcome these limitations in their theories and research designs. The contribution of this project is to improve the rigor of future studies by furnishing detailed and descriptive evidence on how individuals from a remote and relevant sample think about politics and aid.
The Effects of Rejecting Aid on Recipients’ Reputations: Evidence from Natural Disasters. With Allison Carnegie. Under Review. [paper]
How do states improve their international status and prestige short of war? We argue that rejecting international assistance can boost a government’s image by making it appear self-sufficient and able to provide for its citizens, leading many states to decline foreign aid. However, potential recipients only do so when they have the ability to send a credible signal and when they value status highly. We derive these hypotheses from a formal model and then use a survey experiment to demonstrate that international observers alter their opinions about potential recipients when they learn that they rejected international aid. Finally, we gather new data to empirically verify that the more resources and greater military capabilities states possess, the more likely they are to reject aid, even when they require the aid. Our results help to explain why states sometimes refuse needed assistance and suggest that many states cultivate images of self-sufficiency.
Divine Punishment or Bad Politics? The Effects of Religion on Investment in Public Goods. With Allison Carnegie and Alicia Cooperman.
An extensive literature in political science investigates the conditions under which politicians invest in public goods benefiting their citizens, finding rampant instances of under-investment. In this paper, we focus on the domain of natural disaster preparedness to argue that this literature has overlooked an important moderator of accountability processes: citizens’ religious beliefs. Motivated by evidence that non-trivial portions of the population imbue natural disasters with religious significance, we propose a formal model of political accountability and demonstrate how the predictions regarding politicians’ investments in public goods change when these religious beliefs are introduced. In particular, we argue that when citizens attribute disasters to random acts of God – absolving leaders of blame – leaders underinvest in disaster prevention. However, when citizens believe that disasters signal God’s disfavor – placing full blame on the leader – over- investment can occur. We support our claims about how religious and non-religious populations process information regarding government performance differently through the use of a unique survey experiment. We then test the model using both case study evidence along with data on religious beliefs from the United States and find strong evidence for our key predictions.
Feeling Under the Weather: The Effect of Rainfall Shocks on Political Attitudes.
Scholars increasingly believe that weather shocks have measurable effects on violent conflict and political behavior. As climate change causes these shocks to become more frequent, it is crucial that we understand through what mechanisms these effects are transmitted. Few, however, have furnished evidence to support any of the many mechanisms that could link weather events to political outcomes. In this paper, I note that several suggested mechanisms should leave clues that they are at work, and that these clues will be seen in the political opinions and experiences reported by individuals. The objective of this paper is to pit mechanisms that have been proposed in the literature against each other and to see which ones I find evidence for. I focus on five mechanisms–income, ethnic grievance, state capacity, distributive politics, and psychology. For each mechanism I derive what effects we should see on individuals’ opinions and subsequently examine the effect of rainfall shocks on the opinions expressed by individuals in the Afrobarometer Round 4 surveys of 2008. The results suggest that droughts improve individuals’ opinions of their governments, each other, and democracy, and they have a negligible impact on individuals’ perceived ethnic grievance and on their assessment of their economic security. These findings provide support for only the psychological mechanism.
Global Patterns of Renewable Energy Innovation, 1990 to 2009. With Patrick Bayer and Johannes Urpelainen. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(3), 2013. [paper]
What’s in a World Bank Income Classification? Center for Global Development Blog, July 11, 2016. [post]
Natural Resources in the Indian Ocean. With David Michel and Halae Fuller. In Indian Ocean Rising: Maritime Security and Policy Challenges, Chapter 7, The Stimson Center, July 2012. [chapter]
Development and Aid in Sub-Saharan Africa. With Stephen A. O’Connell. Journal of Catholic Social Thought 9(2), 2012. [paper]
A ‘New Colonialism’? Spotlight Series, The Stimson Center, July 8, 2011. [post]