A large and increasing share of international humanitarian and development aid is raised from nongovernmental sources, allocated by transnational NGOs. We know little about this private foreign aid, not even how it is distributed across recipient countries, much less what explains the allocation. This article presents an original data set, based on detailed financial records from most of the major U.S.-based humanitarian and development NGOs, which allows us for the first time to map and analyze the allocation of U.S. private aid. We find no support for the common claim that aid NGOs systematically prioritize their organizational self-interest when they allocate private aid, and we find only limited support for the hypothesis that expected aid effectiveness drives aid allocation. By contrast, we find strong support for the argument that the deeply rooted humanitarian discourse within and among aid NGOs drives their aid allocation, consistent with a view of aid NGOs as principled actors and constructivist theories of international relations. Recipients' humanitarian need is substantively and statistically the most significant determinant of U.S. private aid allocation (beyond a regional effect in favor of Latin American countries). Materialist concerns do not crowd out ethical norms among these NGOs.

Stephen Stedman introduced a typology of "civil war spoilers," deªned as "leaders and parties who believe that peace emerging from negotiations threatens their power, worldview, and interests, and use violence to undermine attempts to achieve it." 1 A key contribution of Stedman's article was to focus attention on the relatively underappreciated role of elites in the negotiation and implementation of peace processes. In so doing, Stedman sought to develop a more nuanced and descriptively comprehensive theory of intrastate conºict that moved beyond the primarily structural and abstract focus that had theretofore dominated the study of internal wars and ethnic conºict. 2 By reintroducing the role of individual decisionmakers into the analysis of the stability of peace accords, Stedman added signiªcantly to the understanding of the dynamics of intrastate wars, as well as enriched and expanded the debate on the causes of ethnic conºict. We recognize the signiªcant contribution made by Stedman and those who have adopted his "spoilers" framework. 3

No abstract

No abstract

Measuring the effectiveness of military Global Health Engagements (GHEs) has become an area of increasing interest to the military medical field. As a result, there have been efforts to more logically and rigorously evaluate GHE projects and programs; many of these have been based on the Logic and Results Frameworks. However, while these Frameworks are apt and appropriate planning tools, they are not ideally suited to measuring programs' effectiveness. This article introduces military medicine professionals to the Measures of Effectiveness for Defense Engagement and Learning (MODEL) program, which implements a new method of assessment, one that seeks to rigorously use Measures of Effectiveness (vs. Measures of Performance) to gauge programs' and projects' success and fidelity to Theater Campaign goals. While the MODEL method draws on the Logic and Results Frameworks where appropriate, it goes beyond their planning focus by using the latest social scientific and econometric evaluation methodologies to link on-the-ground GHE "lines of effort" to the realization of national and strategic goals and end-states. It is hoped these methods will find use beyond the MODEL project itself, and will catalyze a new body of rigorous, empirically based work, which measures the effectiveness of a broad spectrum of GHE and security cooperation activities. We based our strategies on the principle that it is much more cost-effective to prevent conflicts than it is to stop one once it's started. I cannot overstate the importance of our theater security cooperation programs as the centerpiece to securing our Homeland from the irregular and catastrophic threats of the 21st Century.-GEN James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.).