Abstract
We build on Bulir and Hamann's analysis of aid volatility (2003, 2005), showing that the conclusions reached depend on the dataset used. Their argument that the poorest countries have the highest volatility appears not to be correct. The impact of volatility on growth is negative overall, but differs between positive and negative volatility. The mix between `responsive´ components of aid, e.g. programme aid, and `proactive´ components, e.g. technical assistance, is important. Finally, we conclude that measures which increase trust between donor and recipient, and reductions in the degree of donor `oligopoly´, reduce aid volatility without obviously reducing its effectiveness.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
