Health Aid, Governance and Infant Mortality

Abstract

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

Aid and growth: New evidence using an excludable instrument

“…All of these questions face the problem of endogeneity between aid and the variable of interest. Our instrument is well suited to address this problem, as has been demonstrated in Bluhm et al (2020) for conflict, Ziaja (2017) for democracy, Doucouliagos et al (2019) for infant mortality and Dreher et al (2019) for refugees. In providing an instrumental variable that is suitable to address the endogeneity of aid in a broad setting of questions, we hope to contribute in providing a more nuanced understanding of the various causal effects the aid might have.…”

“…() for conflict, Ziaja () for democracy, Doucouliagos et al. () for infant mortality and Dreher et al. () for refugees.…”

“…in Ziaja (2017) in the context of democracy, Bluhm et al (2020) on conflict, Doucouliagos et al (2019) on infant mortality or Dreher et al (2019) on refugee flows. 4 We suggest a number of additional research questions where we think our instrument helps overcoming the endogeneity of aid in the conclusion.…”

The impact of health sector‐wide approaches on aid effectiveness and infant mortality

“…4 4 GDP per capita is an indicator of economic development and a predictor of both IMR and domestic health expenditure (Lordan et al, 2011; Mishra & Newhouse, 2009; Wilson, 2011). Population size is an indicator of total need, total DAH disbursements, and its inclusion in aid effectiveness models is standard even when DAH and infant mortality are expressed in per population terms (Doucouliagos et al, 2021; Mishra & Newhouse, 2009). Past research has indicated fertility patterns influence IMR, thus fertility rate was included (Mishra & Newhouse, 2009).…”

“…5 5 An extended model includes a set of additional control variables that are potentially important time‐varying determinants of IMR but—because of their potential role in mediating the relationship between DAH (and/or SWAp) and IMR—may bias downwards our estimates of DAH (and SWAp) effects. For example, government effectiveness and corruption control may constitute necessary pre‐conditions for aid effectiveness (Burnside & Dollar, 2000; Doucouliagos et al, 2021) but DAH may also have unintended (negative) consequences for good governance (Dijkstra, 2018). HIV prevalence may impact directly on IMR (Kurewa et al, 2010) and may distort allocation of DAH (Lordan et al, 2011).…”