1

Adam Throne

Case Response 2

Foreign Aid

The European Union foreign aid case supports Kant’s liberal internationalism theory as

described in Michael W. Doyle’s “Liberalism and World Politics.” The ultimate goal of foreign

aid is to achieve global stability. However, there are multiple paths to this outcome. Realist

thinkers believe foreign aid is a strategic move targeted at increasing national security and

status. A recipient of aid could be the keystone in a system of balanced alliances. Liberal

theorists agree that foreign aid increases trust and economic ties among nations. With open

minds and open pockets, democracies can initiate peace on the individual level. Through his

statistical analysis, Stiles concludes that European aid is contingent on meeting human needs

rather than benefiting one’s own nation. The following response refines the liberal motive for

providing foreign aid by comparing Stiles’ conclusion to each prominent theory mentioned by

Doyle.

Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of liberal pacifism claims that capitalism and democracy are

forces for peace. Capitalist workers are too occupied by work and progress to engage in war. In

contrast to autocratic leaders, citizens under a democracy do not tolerate war, because they

are individually impacted by its high costs. Doyle criticizes this theory by pointing out a flawed

assumption in each level of analysis. First, the focus on materialism by individual workers does

not take into account noneconomic objectives such as prestige and family. Second, Schumpeter

assumes that once in power, leaders will continue to hold the same materialistic mindset as
 2

ordinary citizens. Third, on the global scale, the theory assumes that each nation evolves

towards the same democratic utopia. This last assumption ignores the realist alternative

altogether. In order for Doyle’s statistical analysis to match this theory, there needs to be a

strong correlation between foreign aid spending and nations with non-capitalist economies or

non-democratic governments. The motivation behind this correlation is that governments

spend money on nations to promote the hegemony of capitalism and democracy in search of

peace. Unfortunately, there is no significant statistical correlation between European Union

spending and either democracy rating or economic freedom. It seems that Schumpeter’s theory

fits an idealistic model better than a realistic one. Doyle’s criticisms are valid.

Machiavelli’s liberal imperialism theory argues that liberal governments are the best for

raising armies. Liberty developed by the division of domestic power promotes an instinct for

glory through expansion. War is avoided by taking out this natural aggression on lesser

opponents via imperialism. This theory fills the gaps missed by Schumpeter and in particular

explains realist actions through a liberal lens. Stiles’ foreign aid case offers an explanation why

Doyle looks for evidence beyond Machiavelli. Assume that foreign aid is a modern alternative to

imperialism. The sense of glory achieved through providing aid to others is a peaceful

alternative to expansion in a world where nation versus nation conflict is scarce. Machiavelli

lived during the discovery of the Americas, and this monument likely influenced his theory

greatly. Around this point, imperialism emerged with a focus on building power overseas. With

data collected from the AidData website, Stiles shows that over half of European Union aid is

distributed to nearby European nations. In a traditional sense, this regional diplomatic pressure

is not considered imperialism. Another characteristic of imperialism is preservation of absolute

 3

power over colonies. The American Revolution and Indian Revolution demonstrate how a

powerful nation will hold onto its beneficiaries until the very end. In Stiles’ report, spending

contraction over time in multiple regions of foreign aid contrasts with this enduring image of

domination. Glory appears to be less of a motive than Machiavelli would predict. Although

some connections are evident, another liberal theory is more appropriate for explaining foreign

aid.

Ultimately, the European Union foreign aid case best supports Kant’s liberal

internationalism theory. According to this theory, democratic states will establish peace among

each other through a union of trust and economic ties. Universal hospitality and generosity is

essential for achieving systemic peace. Respect for individual rights regardless of nationality

makes war seem like a disaster to human welfare. Individualized and rational citizens

appreciate moral equality for individuals even if they are “rational evils.” This impartial attitude

is at the heart of foreign aid. Prosperous nations tend to provide aid to any individuals who

require it. Realist critics note that the United States provides aid to violent nations with

moderate economic success and resource benefits including oil. Supposedly, the United States

seeks to improve its own economy and wellbeing through these actions. Kant would rebut this

argument by explaining that, as a liberal democracy, the United States has a duty to benefit all

individuals in need regardless of political positioning. Stiles’ finding further supports this theory.

When regressed with EU/EBRD aid, GNP per capita is the only statistically significant variable.

Stiles is 99 percent sure that more EU/EBRD aid goes disproportionately to countries with

relatively poor records on fighting corruption. He is also 99 percent sure that aid goes to

countries that are relatively poor. Taken together, these statistical inferences show that
 4

European countries are willing to aid countries they know are corrupt. This is evidence in favor

of Kant’s liberal theory that humans have a moral obligation to ensure welfare for all. Kant’s

theory is unique in its ability to account for war between liberal and non-liberal nations. In

time, foreign aid should push individuals to support democracy in their nations. The end-goal of

this undertaking is perpetual peace.

In conclusion, the European Union’s commitment to meeting human needs through

foreign aid supports Kant’s liberal internationalism theory. There is still debate over whether or

not the liberal or realist theory fits the global system more effectively. However, it is fair to say

that there is a mixture of both liberal and realist decisions in foreign aid distribution. Analyzing

a specific case will deliver motives from each outlook. A focus for the next decade should be

improving foreign aid efficiency to accommodate for changing conditions and promote stability

growth.