The environment of aid policies:
Expectations, changing circumstances and motives
Foreign aid is part of the foreign policy of the donor country and is therefore
cast in a setting where the primary purpose is to pursue national interests.
However, national interests differ from one nation to another-or are dif-
{erently conceived-and may be promoted in many different ways. The available options vary from one state to another, depending, inter alia, on the
country’s position in regional and global systems. Security interests and economic self-interest are given high priority by most governments. The promotion of a country’s own predominant values-or its ideological system-is
also considered an important national interest, whether conceived instrumentally or in ideological terms. Finally, it is quite possible that some states will
associate their interests with the achievement of greater international equity
and more rapid Third World development and give emphasis to these objectives.
International aid is almost everywhere administered by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. This setting makes it reasonable to expect that foreign aid
would be considered an instrument for promoting national interests of high
Olav Stokke
priority. It is primarily from such a perspective that foreign aid has been
analysed.’ The aid policies of the superpowers (the United States and the
USSR) give ample evidence of this kind of motivation, which guides the formation of political links, particularly through the choice of major recipients
of bilateral aid. If the patterns established by the main powers are considered
the normal behaviour of states, why should we expect a different approach
and behaviour from some Western middle powers?
Part of the answer to this question is given in the General Introduction,
where it is assumed that the aid policies of these countries might best be
analysed within the paradigm of humane internationalism. The predominant
values of the countries concerned constitute the main pillars on which humane
internationalism and its different offshoots are based. However, this paradigm allows for self-interest too. What are the values and interests on which
these countries’ extensive and generous development assistance is based?
In the General Introduction, the dominant socio-political values underpinning the welfare state were identified as likely to be the main factors affecting
aid policy. It was suggested that foreign aid could be conceived of as an extension of these values into international relations. Although it is assumed that
domestic self-interest would also influence the substance and forms of aid,
this factor was not expected to be as influential as socio-political values.
What kinds of self-interest could be involved? They cannot be the multidimensional interests stemming from previous colonial relations. Only the
Netherlands among the five has been a colonial power of any significance.
Nor can the strong aid commitment be explained in terms of worldwide
“trategic interests. The traditional economic relations with the Third Worldtrade and investment-have been and are modest, both in absolute and
relative terms,2 and could therefore not be expected to give rise to an active
aid policy. However, foreign aid could be considered an instrument to improve trade and investment. Similarly, their cultural relations with the Third
World are rather weak, mainly restricted to Christian missionary activities,
and cannot explain why these countries provide more aid than most other
OECD countries