This paper analyzes the effectiveness of EU development aid to the economies of the former Soviet Union under conditions of imperfect monitoring. Transnational sovereignty partnerships (TSPs) suggest a novel type of aid recipient and an institutional component of the TACIS program. TSPs are composed of distributive planners and developmental entrepreneurs. Distributive planners set the development strategy and developmental entrepreneurs implement it based on EU development aid. I model the delivery of EU development aid to the former Soviet Union as an infinitely repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma with private signals. Aid effectiveness occurs when the European Commission signals that it will finance another TSP, without reducing its expected profit from aid implementation.
AkramT (2003) The international foreign aid regime: who gets foreign aid and how much?Applied Economics35(11): 1351–1356.
2.
BarréX (2006) Pension reform in the Russian Federation: Final report, TACIS contract no. 2003/071-225, Arcadis EMB Management Consultants, 2006.
3.
BooneP (1996) Politics and the effectiveness of foreign aid. European Economic Review40(2): 289–329.
4.
BoschiniAOlofsgardA (2007) Foreign aid: an instrument for fighting communism?Journal of Development Studies43(4): 622–648.
5.
BräutigamD (1992) Governance, economy and foreign aid. Studies in Comparative International Development27(3): 3–25.
6.
BräutigamD (2000) Aid dependence and governance. Expert Group on Development Issues, Working Paper 1, Division for International Development Cooperation, Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.
7.
CasellaAEichengreenB (1996) Can foreign aid accelerate stabilization?Economic Journal106(436): 605–619.
8.
CasselsA (1996) Aid instruments and health systems development: an analysis of current practice. Health Policy and Planning11(4): 354–368.
9.
CollierPDollarD (2004) Development effectiveness: what have we learnt?The Economic Journal114(496): 244–271.
10.
CollierSJWayL (2004) Beyond the deficit model: social welfare in post-Soviet Georgia. Post-Soviet Affairs20(3): 258–284.
11.
DesaiRMFreinkmanLGoldbergI (2005) Fiscal federalism in rentier regions: evidence from Russia. Journal of Comparative Economics33: 814–834.
12.
DollarDLevinV (2004) The increasing selectivity of foreign aid 1984–2002. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3299, May, Washington, D.C.
13.
DRN-Linden Staff (2000) An evaluation of the TACIS country program in Russia: Final synthesis report, development researchers. Network-Linden Consulting Partnership, Brussels, January2000.
14.
EasterlyW (2002) The cartel of good intentions: the problem of bureaucracy in foreign aid. Journal of Economic Policy Reform5(4): 223–250.
15.
GrigoriadisT (2011) Aid effectiveness and the soft budget constraint: EU development aid to the former Soviet Union. Economics Letters112: 287–289.
16.
GrigoriadisT (2013) Aid effectiveness and donor preferences: European Aid Systems in the former Soviet Union, 1992–2007. Journal of International Development25: 45–66.
17.
HahnGM (2001) Putin’s “Federal Revolution”: the administrative and judicial reform of Russian Federalism. East European Constitutional Review10(1): 60–67.
18.
HefekerCMichaelowaK (2005) Can process conditionality enhance aid effectiveness? The role of bureaucratic interest and public pressure. Public Choice122: 159–175.
19.
HolmesS (1999) Can foreign aid promote the rule of law?East European Constitutional Review8(4): 68–74.
20.
KlaassensELyudmilaIPaulH. (2006a) Evaluation IBPP Russia, Framework Contraction Commission EuropeAid/116548/C/SV, Lot no. 4: Sector and project evaluations, specific contract: 2006/116626, Draft final report, ECORYS Nederland BV, November2006, Moscow/Rotterdam.
21.
KlaassensELyudmilaIPaulH. (2006b) Evaluation IBPP Russia, Framework Contraction Commission EuropeAid/116548/C/SV, Lot no. 4: Sector and project evaluations, specific contract: 2006/116626, Draft Annexes, ECORYS Nederland BV, November2006, Moscow/Rotterdam.
22.
KnackSRahmanA (2007) Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients. Journal of Development Economics83: 176–197.
23.
KruegerAO (1980) Trade policy as an input to development. American Economic Review70(2): 288–292. Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Second Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association.
24.
KruegerAO (1986) Aid in the development process. World Bank Research Observer1(1): 57–78.
25.
MasudNYontchevaB (2005) Does foreign aid reduce poverty? Empirical evidence from nongovernmental and bilateral aid. IMF Working Paper 05/100, May2005, Washington D.C.
26.
MilnerHV (2006) Foreign aid and domestic principal-agent problems. In: HawkinsDGDavidALDanielLN. (eds) Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, Ch. 4, pp. 107–139.
27.
OiJC (1992) Fiscal reform and the economic foundations of local state corporatism in China. World Politics45(1): 99–126.
28.
OlsonMJr (1963) Rapid growth as a destabilizing force. Journal of Economic History23(4): 529–552.
29.
PiccioneM (2002) The repeated prisoner’s dilemma with imperfect private monitoring. Journal of Economic Theory102: 70–83.
30.
RamR (2003) Roles of bilateral and multilateral aid in economic growth of developing countries. Kyklos56(1): 95–110.
31.
RemmerKL (2004) Does foreign aid promote the expansion of government?American Journal of Political Science48(1): 77–92.
32.
SekiguchiT (1997) Efficiency in repeated prisoner’s dilemma with private monitoring. Journal of Economic Theory76: 345–361.
33.
WayL (2002) The dilemmas of reform in post-soviet states. Politics & Society30(4): 579–598.
34.
ZhuravskayaEV (2000) Incentives to provide local public goods: fiscal federalism, Russian style. Journal of Public Economics76: 337–368.
