From Aristotle in the fourth century before Christ (BC) to Samuel Finer in the 20th century, political scientists and analysts have sought to classify regimes, regime transitions, modes of political behavior, classes of people and events to clarify and simplify the world of politics (Landman, 2002). It implies that the rationale for comparison has been in practice for centuries to elucidate certain events or processes on the basis of similarities. Kesselman et al. (2004) point out that humans are rational and inquisitive and therefore it is one of the most widespread and old practices to compare and contrast things to classify and know more about them rather than studying them in isolation. Comparative study improves our understanding of how nations change and move forward, and it enhances our knowledge about other nations, regions and the world (Wiarda, 2000). One of the principal aims of comparison is “learning from the experience of others and, conversely, that he who knows only one country knows none” (Sartori, 1991, p. 245). The comparative approach sharpens our descriptive and analytical ability by “bringing into focus suggestive similarities and contrasts among cases” (Collier, 1993, p. 105). Magstadt (2005, p. 5) maintains that “comparison is a useful way to evaluate what we see and hear about the world beyond our shores, as well as about our own society”. It means that by comparing things, trends, attitudes and processes we know more about them than taken singly. For example, taken separately, we cannot assert with full authority and confidence which particular bilateral donor or group of donors is better in allocating official aid by keeping in view the needs of aid recipients. It can be done only after comparing and analysing different aspects and motives for the aid programmes of different bilateral donors to different recipients over time.
Rose (1991) observes that comparative politics encourages objective and scientific studies of one's own nation by making use of broader concepts applicable across national borders free of ideological biases. Mackie and Marsh (1995) also substantiate Rose’s view that comparative analysis allays the danger of ethnocentrism and ideological bias of the researcher. The study of comparative politics helps in overcoming ethnocentrism by encouraging neutrality and objectivity (Wiarda, 2000). Magstadt (2005, p. 4) corroborates this claim that “comparison is an excellent antidote to ethnocentrism” as it gives a better perspective on one’s own society to view it from a distance through the lenses of the others. Thus, a comparative study of particular events, processes or tendencies in two or more countries gives us a balanced, objective and clear interpretation of the causes and effects of these tendencies.
Table 3.1 Advantages of comparison
x Learning about other governments broadens our understandings, casting fresh light on our home nation.
x Comparison improves our classifications of political processes x Comparison enables us to test hypothesis about politics x Comparison gives us some potential for prediction and control
Source: Hague and Harrop (2004).
Landman (2000; 2002) has enumerated four main objectives of comparison among countries: (i) contextual description, (ii) classification, (iii) hypothesis testing, and (iv) prediction. Contextual description enables comparatists to learn more about the past events as well as about cultural aspects in countries with which they have little or no prior exposure. Classification or categorization simplifies the world of politics by grouping together nations and regimes with similarities and differences. Hypothesis testing helps in eliminating contradictory explanations about particular events, actors, structures, thus leading to generalisations. The resulting generalisations obtained from cross-national comparisons can be employed to predict the likely future outcomes in the countries under comparative analysis and also in countries not included in the original comparison (Landman, 2002; Macridis, 2006).
The above four objectives are also achieved in the context of this research. The relationships between the comparators and the USA are described and discussed in specific contexts against the backdrop of regional and global events. The comparators are selected and classified on account of various similarities. The hypothesis that the USA has been providing substantial aid to these countries largely for its own foreign policy goals is tested. Lastly, in the comparative analysis of USA aid flows to its four allies, the conclusions drawn from this research would also be helpful in predicting the likely prospects of future aid relations between the USA and its aid recipients; not only those studied in this thesis but also those not examined here. For example, available research reveals that the USA has always prioritised its geo-strategic, political and security objectives in the allocation of aid. Based on the past and contemporary USA aid policies and practices, this study can prognosticate that the USA is likely to follow these trends in the allocation of foreign aid in the future as well, particularly when USA security and geo-strategic interests demand so.
The availability of cross-national relevant political concepts and economic variables has made it possible to compare cases geographically as well as historically (Lijphart, 1971). This means that comparative analysis can be carried out both on geographical and historical scales. Geographically, countries across national borders can be compared while historical comparison implies that such comparison involves investigation and analysis of trends and processes over time. For example, in this thesis comparison is not confined to a specific period but covers the past six decades, focusing on historical as well as contemporary USA aid policies towards the comparators. Thus, it is another feature of this study as it compares and examines USA aid to
the comparators during three distinctive phases consisting of the Cold War period, the post-Cold War interlude of the 1990s and the USA-led ‘war on terror’ years since 2001.
There is another aspect that enhances the significance of comparative politics in the fast- changing era of globalisation. Magstadt (2005, p. 9) defines globalisation as “the process by which various values, institutions, technologies and products, as well as certain lifestyles associated with advanced post-industrial societies are spreading to all the parts of the world”. The contemporary world is referred to as a global village due to expansion of international and multinational organisations and unprecedented development of means of transportation, communication and telecommunication (Plattner, 2006; Ruggie, 2006; Savitch, 2006). These revolutionary advancements in technology have shrunk the world both in time and space and have increased interdependence (Savitch, 2006). The news of any significant event affecting human lives can spread across the world within minutes. In such a world, comparative analysis is more challenging and vital for researchers to broaden their horizons of knowledge to understand more about different global issues and problems (Mackie & Marsh, 1995). O'Neil (2007b, p. 252) points out that globalisation magnifies politics by “internationalizing domestic issues and events” that can have ripple effects across the globe.
The contemporary USA-Pakistan alliance in the ‘war on terror’ can be described in this context. Before the events of ‘9/11’, Pakistan was under two tiers of USA sanctions because of the May 1998 nuclear tests and the October 1999 military coup by General Musharraf. In the post-9/11 scenario, the USA needed all-out support of Pakistan for the invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and defeat al Qaeda. Hence, one event in one part of the globe reunited two alienated allies and gave birth to the current USA-Pakistan coalition, which is reminiscent of the Cold War years. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam’s regime, the March 11, 2004 Madrid bombings in Spain, and the July 7, 2005 London blasts are just a few examples of how a particular event in one part of the globe brings enormous reactions and changes in the world elsewhere. If considered separately, these events will not present a complete portrait of global political issues that different nations face. By employing cross- national comparisons and analysis; comparative politics helps us to comprehend implications of the events of global significance in the fast-changing world (Kesselman et al., 2004).
To compare and analyse the allocation of USA ODA to the four selected USA allies, a range of variables are employed. The following section describes the key variables that have been used in this thesis.
3.4.1 Variables employed: dependent and independent
variables
Walsh (1996, p. 69) states that “variables are the factors or elements to be considered in statistical relationship”. Variables are the key elements which establish a numerical relationship with other factors and help in explaining and testing research questions (Balnaves & Caputi,
2001; Byrne, 2002). Variables are generally of two types: dependent variables and independent variables. Dependent variables are the ones which are changed, affected or influenced while variables that cause changes are independent variables (Balnaves & Caputi, 2001; 1996). It implies that the value of dependent variables is subject to changes in the value of independent variables. If a change occurs in independent variables, this change also influences or affects dependent variables.
Table 3.2: Dependent and Independent variables analysed
Dependent variable Independent variables
USA economic aid
USA military aid
USA arms sales
GDP per capita
Population
Life expectancy at birth
Political Terror Scale (PTS)
Here, USA economic aid to recipients is the dependent variable. Independent variables include USA military assistance and arms sales to the comparators and their GDP per capita, total population, life expectancy at birth and human rights indicators. In this thesis, terms like ‘dependent’ and ‘independent’ variables are not used in their statistical sense4
. Rather, these terms are used to explain the respective dependence of one variable over the other in non- numerical and descriptive analysis. Values of these variables are given in Appendices II and III as well as in Chapters Four and Five. The first two independent variables measure geo-strategic significance of the comparators. As established from the literature review (Chapter Two), the US, like several other bilateral donors, gives military aid purely for geo-strategic, political and security reasons. So is the case with USA arms sales: countries having greater geo-strategic and security importance for the USA are likely to acquire more arms from the US. The analysis of USA economic aid from the perspectives of USA military assistance and arms sales shows the extent to which USA ODA has a correlation with USA geo-strategic goals. This illustrates the
4
As this study examines the allocation of USA aid over a long period of time, a number of variables are missing and the values of most of the available variables have extreme fluctuations. Hence, the study does not use an econometric model. Rather, the allocation of USA economic aid is analysed from the perspective of USA geo-strategic interests and comparators’ poverty needs in a comprehensive and in-depth manner by taking into account key regional and global events. Thus, it is illustrated how these events have affected not only the scale of USA economic aid but also military assistance and USA arms sales, indicating a kind of correlation among these data sets.
extent to which the USA manoeuvres foreign aid to pursue its political and security objectives, allocating more development aid to strategically important countries, like it does in the case of military aid and arms sales.
The second group of independent variables is used to measure the developmental status and needs of these recipients as well as their human rights performance. As discussed in detail in the second chapter, most literature on aid allocation has employed a number of variables to determine needs of aid recipients and the volume of aid allocated to them. Here, GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth and total population are employed and are treated as independent variables. These variables have been chosen for two reasons. Firstly, this set of data was available for a long period (1960-2008) appropriate to this study that roughly covers three distinct periods: the Cold War, the post-Cold War and the so-called ‘war on terror’. Secondly and more importantly, as the first research question explores the role of geo-strategic factors versus poverty needs of the comparators in USA aid allocations, in almost all the previous studies on aid allocations (Chapter Two), these variables have been used to investigate whether donors give aid to pursue their own interests or to address recipients’ needs. GDP per capita is not only most commonly used in the aid literature to measure the need variable, it is also “highly correlated with other need variables such as life expectancy, infant mortality, or literacy” (Neumayer, 2003a, p. 653). In the same context, Berthe´lemy (2006, p. 184) states that the “most straightforward indicator of beneficiary needs is income per capita…if aid is to be allocated based on recipient needs, the poorer countries should receive more, and the richer countries less”. Similarly, as emerged from the literature review, population size is also an important factor to be examined in the aid allocation, that is, ceteris paribus (keeping other factors unchanged), a country having more population is supposed to get more aid.
In addition to the above, a number of donors (such as the US) have officially stated that they will not provide aid to countries involved in serious human rights violations. Hence, correlation between the Political Terror Scale (PTS) data from the Freedom House (2010) and USA ODA is also tested. The PTS is average score of countries and the index is prepared by Freedom House based on USA State Department and Amnesty International (AI) annual reports and all countries are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, indicating best and worst human rights situation (Freedom House, 2010). A score of one means there is little or no violation of personal integrity rights while a score of five indicates gross human rights abuses including torture, political imprisonment, detention with or without trial, disappearances, brutality and political murder (McCan & Gibney, 1996). Thus USA aid is assessed vis-à-vis all the above factors to find which particular variables influence it more: the ones denoting USA geo-strategic interests or the ones determining needs of aid recipients and their human rights performance. In doing so, the analysis will illustrate the overarching determinants behind USA aid allocations to these countries.
3.4.2 Handling sources of quantitative data
The distinction between quantitative and qualitative data is that the former is numerical in nature while the latter is non-numerical or narrative and descriptive (Sobo & De Munck, 1998). Quantitative data is dealt with in detail in Chapters Four and Five. As mentioned earlier, the USAID data including USA economic and military aid and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) data consisting of USA arms sales (Appendix II) is quantitative in nature. Similarly, the World Bank data showing the developmental status of the comparators comprising indicators such as GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth and total population (Appendix III) is also quantitative. In addition to these, the Freedom House data ranking countries based on their human rights performance is also quantitative.
Quantitative data is generally hailed as concise, objective, representative and free of personal bias. The use of quantitative data has gained greater significance in development studies as it provides precise and accurate results with a broader picture of patterns and phenomena, and acts as evidence to inform policy formulation (Overton & van Dierman, 2003). In the case of USA aid to Pakistan and the comparators chosen in this study, analysis of quantitative data produces interesting generalisations about USA aid allocations. The analysis of this set of data illustrates the extent to which the USA has used foreign aid as a politico-strategic tool to achieve its foreign policy interests over time. Hence, using empirical data gives methodical as well as methodological robustness to the analysis and findings concerning the critical determinants behind USA aid allocations.