2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Money Trail: Ranking Donor Transparency in Foreign Aid

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ghosh and Kharas () use z ‐scores to rank donors according to the transparency of their foreign aid operations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ghosh and Kharas () use z ‐scores to rank donors according to the transparency of their foreign aid operations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The total effect – total – is also ranked in the same way, but leaving out four observations (Sweden, Belgium, Australia, and Portugal) with indeterminate effect. Then, following the order of donor rankings according to various criteria from four sources (Birdsall et al., ; Ghosh and Kharas, ; Knack et al., ; Easterly and Williamson, ), the donors are ranked from 1 to 21. Subsequently, Spearman's correlation coefficients are calculated between the donor quality rankings and their aid‐effectiveness rankings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Publish What You Fund ranked Japan's MOFA 43rd out of 46 donors (“very poor”) on its transparency index, JICA close to the bottom of the ‘fair’ category at 33, and KOICA “poor” at 41 (Publish What You Fund, ). Ghosh and Kharas () placed Korea last (along with the Inter‐American Development Bank) in an index rating 31 bilateral and multilateral donor agencies on six measures of transparency. Japan ranked 23.…”
Section: Unit Level Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%