To understand foreign aid’s real impact on human rights, we need a framework that goes beyond simple correlations. The theory of ‘interest convergence’ provides a powerful explanation. It argues that the effect of aid is primarily shaped by the degree to which the political interests and policy goals of the donor and recipient governments align. This convergence, combined with the recipient government’s own domestic legitimacy, determines whether foreign support leads to reform or repression.
Table of Contents
🤝 Defining Interest Convergence in Foreign Policy
Interest convergence refers to the shared agreement between a donor (like the U.S.) and a recipient country on the main goals of their bilateral policy agenda. This shared understanding consists of two parts: the donor’s strategic purpose (the ideational component) and the foreign aid itself (the material component). When the U.S. and a partner country both prioritize a militaristic agenda like counter-terrorism, their interests converge, and aid is likely to be used to bolster the state’s coercive apparatus. Conversely, when interests converge on non-militaristic goals like democracy promotion and economic development, aid is more likely to support positive reforms.
🛡️ How a Recipient’s Legitimacy Affects State Violence
A crucial domestic factor is the political legitimacy of the aid-recipient government. A government with weak domestic support is more likely to use foreign aid and its own resources to violently repress all forms of political opposition as a strategy for regime consolidation. An insecure leader may see intensified state violence as an appealing option for survival. In contrast, a government that enjoys strong domestic legitimacy has less incentive to repress its citizens and is more likely to limit state violence to armed opposition, resulting in fewer human rights abuses.
💡 The Five Key Processes Linking Aid to Abuse
The theory outlines five social processes that link foreign aid and policy convergence to human rights outcomes. These are: (1) strategic localization of discourses, where recipient leaders adapt global narratives for domestic goals; (2) resource mobilization, where aid and domestic funds are channeled according to shared interests; (3) selective political repression against specific targets; (4) erroneous coercive practices leading to collateral damage; and (5) the pre-existing culture of impunity, which allows abuses to go unpunished.
—
Regilme, Salvador Santino F., Jr. Aid Imperium: United States Foreign Policy and Human Rights in Post-Cold War Southeast Asia. University of Michigan Press, 2021.
More Topics
- How a Culture of Impunity Fuels Human Rights Abuses
- What is ‘Strategic Localization’ and How Does It Work in Foreign Aid?
- What is the ‘Aid Imperium’ in U.S. Foreign Policy?
- How the Philippines Reversed Its Human Rights Crisis Under Aquino and Obama
- How Thailand’s 1990s ‘Human Rights Renaissance’ Happened
- How Thaksin’s ‘War on Drugs’ Devastated Human Rights in Thailand
- How the Philippines Achieved a Human Rights Renaissance in the 1990s
