On April 12, the Young Initiative hosted Professor Lindsay Dolan and Professor Matthew Winters for a timely lecture and discussion on foreign aid and U.S. national interest. The discussion highlighted studies on public opinion in donor and recipient countries.
On April 12, the Young Initiative hosted Professor Lindsay Dolan and Professor Matthew Winters for a timely lecture and discussion on foreign aid and U.S. national interest. The discussion highlighted studies on public opinion in donor and recipient countries.
Dolan made the case for foreign aid as a long-standing mechanism for soft power and U.S. national interest, stating that it was only recently that foreign assistance has been controversial. Echoing presidents like Reagan and Bush, she frames aid as a tool for diplomacy through attraction, not coercion, what Nye (1990) calls soft power. The US’ Presidential Emergency Programme for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is credited with saving over 32 million lives and correlates with increased public favor toward the U.S. in recipient countries. Addressing criticisms, Dolan argued this is not selective giving, illustrating PEPFAR funds track with actual AIDS burden, not prior favorability. Through Afrobarometer data, Dolan suggested that citizens living near U.S.-funded aid sites report warmer attitudes toward the U.S. In contrast, proximity to Chinese projects often decreases public perception of China. Dolan suggested this might be that while governments may not like conditionalities, such as election reform, minority protections, and trade liberalization, citizens benefit and support these conditions, especially where there is high institutional distrust. Further, Dolan's (2020) study suggested that individuals expected their government to attract aid, and parliament members who failed to do so felt punished by the public.
Professor Winters shifted focus to donor countries, examining U.S. public opinion. Winters began by presenting research that found most Americans thought the U.S. spent far more on foreign aid than it does—while Americans often believe foreign aid is in the range of 25% of the federal budget, the real figure is less than 1% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. This misperception has driven skepticism. Once informed of the real figure, though, people tend to support increasing aid. Winters highlighted how support for foreign aid is shaped less by partisan affiliation and more by worldview. Internationalists, and often women, non-white, religious, educated, and left-leaning individuals, are more likely to support aid than isolationists. Moreover, minimal information about the aid’s cost or impact can raise approval levels. High-visibility projects, such as clinics, schools, and infrastructure, also resonate better with the public in both the U.S. and China. Despite this, Winters warns, U.S. foreign aid is politically vulnerable. USAID was among the first targets of budget cuts due to its low visibility and lack of a strong domestic constituency. As isolationist sentiment rises and migration anxieties grow, foreign aid’s future may depend on how well its value can be communicated to skeptical voters.
During the Q/A session moderated by Professor Ijaz, both lecturers contended with the perpetual balance of isolationist and internationalist behaviors during fluctuating global political events, and emphasized the sectoral impact on global health, both in terms of lives that have been made increasingly vulnerable and jobs lost. For recipient countries, Dolan warned of spillover effects of aid, whereby countries are turning to other sources of aid as citizens in recipient countries, to fill in aid gaps. Winters’ added job cuts may have marginal benefits by redirecting talent into local services in the long term.
With analysis from Professors Dolan and Winters, the event underscored the importance of informed public discourse in shaping foreign aid policies that reflect both national and global interests.