Transformation of Development Assistance under Great Power Rivalry

The paper deals with official development assistance (ODA) policies of the USA, the EU and China in the comparative context of latest developments. The development approaches of the three actors under investigation demonstrate common features as well as idiosyncrasies in terms of management, resources, and ideological justification. All actors strive towards complex model of influence through ODA including tying together economic projects with sociocultural heft and security. The underlying trends characteristic of the USA, and in significant degree of the EU approaches combine traditional aim of reshaping sociopolitical institutions of target countries with growing securitization concerns. In the case of the U.S., one can speak of ‘militarization’ of ODA which means blurring the lines between military aid (and goalsetting) and traditional development assistance. China is on the way of reforming its international development cooperation industry, seeking to transform it into a more complex toolset of influence, better coordinated, and more closely knit to foreign policy and security objectives. In contrast to the Western paradigm, Beijing avoids imposing its model of development and threat perception upon the aid-recipient countries. The analysis concludes that “soft power” concept is being sidelined in the world of great power rivalry by more complex and hybrid formats of foreign influence which combine sociocultural, political, geoeconomic, and military instruments, with development assistance playing a role of one of the primary foreign policy resources. New dimensions of rivalry associated with industrial and technological race in energy, climate, and supply chains are coming to the fore in ODA policies. The role of sociocultural influence toolkit is growing given information and communication technologies progress, proliferation of non-state actors in international relations, and increasing activity of China in the area, which challenges the dominant positions the Western actors have enjoyed for over 30 years.

1. Baranovskiy V.G., Kashnin Yu.D., Toganova N.V. (eds.). (2018). Sodeystvie mezhdunarodnomu razvitiyu kak instrument vneshney politiki: zarubezhnyy opyt [Development assistance as a foreign policy tool: foreign practices]. Moscow: IMEMO RAN. 248 p.

2. Bartenev V.I. (2017). Bezopasnost' ili razvitie? [Security or Development?]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 6. P. 47–57.

3. Bartenev V.I. (2020). Blizhniy Vostok i Severnaya Afrika v aktual'noy statistike ofitsial'noy pomoshchi razvitiyu [Middle East and Modern Africa: the relevant data on official development assistance]. M.: MGU im. M.V.Lomonosova. 54 p.

4. Bartlett W. (2021). International assistance, donor interests, and state capture in the Western Balkans. Journal of Contemporary European Studies. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 4782804.2020.1794801

5. Bogaturov A.D. (1999). «Sindrom pogloshcheniya» v mirovoy politike [The “absorbing syndrome” in world politics]. Pro et Contra. No. 4. P. 28–48.

6. Bossuyt F. (2022). Communal self-governance as an alternative to neoliberal governance: proposing a post-development approach to EU resilience-building in Central Asia. Central Asian Survey. Vol. 41. No. 4. P. 788–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2022.2058913

7. Bowen Yu. (2021). Cognitive Evolution and China’s International Development Cooperation. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poab014

8. Burlyuk O., Shapovalova N. (2017). “Veni, vidi,… vici?” EU performance and two faces of conditionality towards Ukraine. East European Politics. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/215991 65.2017.1280470

9. Carothers T., de Gramont D. (2013). Development Aid Confronts Politics: The Almost Revolution. Whashington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 360 p.

10. Chang H. (2002). Kicking Away the Ladder. London: Anthem Press. 187 p.

11. Darden T. (2020). Aiding and Abetting: U.S. Foreign Assistance and State Violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 198 p.

12. Diamond L. (2022). Democracy’s Arc: From Resurgent to Imperiled. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 163–179.

13. Dreher A., Fuchs A., Parks B., Austin S., Tierney M. (2018). Apples and dragon fruits: the determinants of aid and other forms of state financing from China to Africa. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 62. No. 1. P. 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx052 Easterly W. (2014). The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. New York: Basic Books. 416 p.

14. Easterly W. (2003). The Journal of Economic Perspectives. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 23–48. DOI: 10.1257/089533003769204344

15. Esteva G. (2018). What is Development? Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.360

16. Frank A. G. (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press. 298 p.

17. Gaman-Golutvina O.V., Ponomareva E.G., Shishelina L.N. (2014). «Vostochnoe partnerstvo»: bor'ba stsenariev razvitiya [EU's Eastern Partnership: rival development scenarios]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 5. P. 20–40.

18. Giddens A. (ed.). (2001). The Global Third Way Debate. Cambridge: Polity. 431 p.

19. Glazunova E. N. (2016). Svyazka «Bezopasnost' – razvitie»: rozhdenie kontsepta i ego evolyutsiya v gody «Kholodnoy voyny» ['Security-Development Nexus' Concept: Emergence and Evolution During the Cold War]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 25. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika. No. 1. P. 8–38. Glazunova E.N. (2012). U istokov sodeystviya mezhdunarodnomu razvitiyu: amerikanskaya programma tekhnicheskoy pomoshchi razvivayushchimsya stranam [At the Origins of International Development Cooperation: the U.S. Program of Technical Assistance to Underdeveloped Countries]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 25. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika. No. 2. P. 126–157.

20. Gromyko Al.A. (2022). Sovremennyy mir: razgon protivostoyaniya «velikikh derzhav» [A modern world: the acceleration of great power struggle]. Evropa v krizisnom mire. Moscow: «Ves' mir». P. 11–26.

21. Gushchin A.V., Levchenkov A. S. (2019). Zapadnyy flang postsovetskogo prostranstva i programma «Vostochnoe partnerstvo»: opyt i perspektivy vzaimodeystviya [The Western Flank of the Post-Soviet Space and the “Eastern Partnership”: Experience and Prospects of Cooperation]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 7. P. 105–114. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope72019105114

22. Hammond D., Brady T. (2020). Critical minerals for green energy transition: A United States perspective. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment. Vol. 36. No. 9. P. 624–641. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2022.2124788

23. Huo S., Parmar I. (2020). ‘A new type of great power relationship’? Gramsci, Kautsky and the role of the Ford Foundation’s transformational elite knowledge networks in China. Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 27. No. 2. P. 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1625427

24. Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A. (2020). Al'yansy na sluzhbe gegemonii: dekonstruktsiya instrumentariya voennopoliticheskogo dominirovaniya [Alliances at the service of hegemony: deconstruction of the military domination toolbox]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 6. P. 8–25. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.06.02

25. Kalashnikov D.B. (2021). Kitayskaya pomoshch' razvitiyu: ofitsial'nye i istinnye tseli [Chinese development assistance: official and true goals]. Mirovoe i natsional'noe khozyaystvo. No. 57. URL: https://mirec. mgimo.ru/2021/2021-04/chinese-development-assistance-official-true-goals (accessed: 26.05.2023).

26. Kearn D. (2022). The crisis of American soft power. Journal of Political Power. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 397– 414. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2022.2127277

27. Khakhalkina E.V., Pogorel'skaja A.M. (2022). Sodeystvie razvitiyu ili upravlenie migratsiey (analiz evropeyskogo podkhoda) [Development policy or migration management? (The EU approach analysis)]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 2. P. 80–89. https://doi.org/10.20542/ 0131-2227-2022-66-2-80-89

28. Komissina I.N. (2022). Standartizatsiya v Kitae: sovremennye trendy i perspektivy razvitiya [Standartisation in China: recent trends and development prospects]. Problemy natsional'noy strategii. No. 1. P. 191–218. DOI: 10.52311/2079-3359_2022_1_191

29. Krige J. (2006). American hegemony and the postwar reconstruction of science in Europe. Cambridge: MIT Press. 392 p.

30. Lei W. (2022). Global Development Initiative: An International Public Goods to Promote Common Development. China Economist. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 13–25.

31. Lomanov A.V. (2022). Prava cheloveka v sovremennoy ideologii Kommunisticheskoy partii Kitaya [Human rights in modern ideology of the Communist Party of China]. Orientalistika. Vol. 5. No. 4. P. 882–897. https://doi.org/10.31696/2618-7043-2022-5-4-882-897

32. Lomanov A.V. (2017). Strategiya kul'turnogo vliyaniya Kitaya v proekte «Odin poyas, odin put'» [The Strategy of China's Cultural Influence in the "One Belt One Road" Project]. Kitay v mirovoy i regional'noy politike. Istoriya i sovremennost'. Vol. XXII. Moscow: IDV RAN. P. 52–63.

33. Maslov A.A. (2020). Problema «dolgovykh lovushek» v ramkakh kitayskoy initsiativy «Poyas i Put'» [The problem of "debt traps" as a part of the Chinese “Belt and Road” Initiative]. Aktual'nye voprosy izucheniya istorii, mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy i kul'tur stran Vostoka. Novosibirsk: NGU. P. 6–15.

34. Maslov A.A. (2021). Transformatsiya analiticheskikh tsentrov kak elementa «myagkoy sily» Kitaya v 2010–2020 gg. [Transformation of analytical centers as an element of Chinese "soft power" in the 2010–2020]. Kontury global'nykh transformatsiy: politika, ekonomika, pravo. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 6–22. https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2021-14-4-1

35. McNally C. (2020). Chaotic mélange: neo-liberalism and neo-statism in the age of Sino-capitalism. Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 27. No. 2. P. 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/096 92290.2019.1683595

36. Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens III William W. (1972). The Limits to Growth; A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books. 205 p.

37. Morgenthau H. (1962). A Political Theory of Foreign Aid. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 56. No. 2. P. 301–309.

38. Morozkina A. (2019). Ofitsial'naya pomoshch' razvitiyu: tendentsii poslednego desyatiletiya [Official development assistance: trends of the recent decade]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63. No. 9. P. 86–92. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-9-86-92

39. Nowak-Lehmann F., Martínez-Zarzoso I., Herzer D., Klasen S., Cardozo A. (2013). Does foreign aid promote recipient exports to donor countries? Review of World Economics. Vol. 149. No. 3. P. 505–535.

40. Nye J. (2023). Soft Power and Great-Power Competition: Shifting Sands in the Balance of Power Between the United States and China. Cambridge: Springer. 217 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 981-99-0714-4

41. Pellicciari I. (2022). Aid in War or Aid to War? Foreign Aid in the 2022 War in Ukraine. The Review of International Affairs. No. 1186. P. 61–78. DOI: 10.18485/iipe_ria.2022.73.1186.3

42. Phillips N. (2020). The Political Economy of Development. In J. Ravenhill (ed.) Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 354–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198820642. 003.0013

43. Piketi T. (2016). Kapital v XXI veke [Capital in the XXI century]. Moscow: Ad Marginem. 592 p.

44. Power M. (2019). Geopolitics and Development. London: Routledge. 410 p.

45. Power S. (2023). How Democracy Can Win: The Right Way to Counter Autocracy. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 102. No. 2. P. 22–37.

46. Ravenhill J. (ed.). (2020). Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 536 p.

47. Ray K. (1999). The Last Refuge of the Noble Savage? A Critical Assessment of Post-Development Theory. European Journal of Development Research. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 30–55. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09578819908426726

48. Regilme S., Hodzi O. (2021). Comparing US and Chinese Foreign Aid in the Era of Rising Powers. The International Spectator. Vol. 56. No. 2. P. 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2020.185 5904

49. Romanova T.A. (2017). Kategoriya «stressoustoychivost'» v Evropeyskom soyuze [Resilience category in the European Union]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 4. P. 17–28.

50. Rühlig T. (2023). Chinese Influence through Technical Standardization Power. Journal of Contemporary China. Vol. 32. No. 139. P. 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2022.2052439

51. Sachs J. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Books. 396 p. Sachs W. (2005). On the Archaeology of the Development Idea. In M. Redclift (ed.) Sustainability. Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. London: Taylor & Francis. P. 149–164.

52.

53. Sachs W. (ed.). (2010). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books. 352 p.

54. Saks Dzh. (2022). Epokhi globalizatsii: geografiya, tekhnologii, instituty [The Ages of Globalization: Geography, Technology, and Institutions]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Instituta Gaydara. 368 p.

55. Shambaugh D. (2013). China Goes Global: The Partial Power. New York: OUP USA. 432 p.

56. Shakleina T.A. (2015). Liderstvo i sovremennyy mirovoy poryadok [Leadership and contemporary world order]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 6–19. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2015.13.4.43.1

57. Shakleina T.A. (2021). Novyy etap v formirovanii mirovogo poryadka. Plany SShA po upravleniyu mezhderzhavnoy konkurentsiey [New stage in the global order formation us plans on management of great power rivalries]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 6–21. https://doi.org/10.17994/ IT.2021.19.3.66.6

58. Shakleina T.A. (2022). Perelomnyy moment v mirovom razvitii. Sokhranit li zapad preobladayushchee vliyanie na formirovanie mirovogo poryadka XXI veka? [Turning point in global development. Will the West keep its predominant influence on world order in the 21st century?] Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 20. No. 4. P. 6–22. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2022.20.4.71.2

59. Shсherbunov V. (2022). Kontseptsii «upravlyaemoy konkurentsii» v voenno-politicheskikh otnosheniyakh SShA i Kitaya. Teoreticheskoe osmyslenie i prakticheskoe voploshchenie [The “managed competition” concept in the US–China security nexus. Theoretical analysis and practical implementation]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 20. No. 4. P. 93–118. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2022.20.4.71.6 Singer H. (1989). The 1980s: A Lost Decade – Development in Reverse? In H.

60. Singer, S. Sharma, (eds.) Growth and External Debt Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan. P.46–56.

61. Soboleva E.A., Krivokhizh S.V. (2020). Liderstvo v mnogopolyarnom mire: politika Kitaya v Tsentral'noy Azii [Leadership in the Multipolar World: China’s Strategy in Central Asia]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 119–134. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.7

62. Sodré M., Hespanhol R. (2022). Limits of Post-Development in the Critique of Development. Mercator, Fortaleza. Vol. 21. P. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4215/rm2022.e21001

63. Stewart F. (1985). A Basic Needs Approach to Development. In F. Stewart Planning to Meet Basic Needs. London: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17731-8_1

64. Sun S., Xu X., Zhao X. (2021). China’s Foreign Aid Training: Targeting Becoming an Influential Culture Sharer. Journal of Asian and African Studies. Vol. 56. No. 4. P. 851–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0021909620946351

65. Sutyrin V.V. (2021). Transformatsiya publichnoy diplomatii ES: ot soderzhatel'nogo krizisa k povestke vneshney ugrozy [EU Public Diplomacy Transformation: From the Crisis of Substance to External Threat]. Sovremennaya Evropa. No. 6. P. 17–29. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/ soveurope620211729

66. Sutyrin V.V. (2022). Finansy dlya liberal'nogo poryadka: sravnitel'nyy analiz mezhdunarodnoy deyatel'nosti politicheskikh fondov FRG i filantropicheskikh fondov SShA [International activities of German political foundations and American philanthropic funds. A comparative analysis.]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 55–79. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2022.20.3.70.5

67. Tagliapietra S., Veugelers R. (eds.). (2023). Sparking Europe's New Industrial Revolution. A policy for net zero, growth and resilience. Brussels: Bruegel. 271 p.

68. Telias D., Urdinez F. (2022). China’s Foreign Aid Political Drivers: Lessons from a Novel Dataset of Mask Diplomacy in Latin America during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs. Vol. 51. No. 1 P. 108–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681026211020763

69. Vinogradov A. (2021). Kitayskiy proekt dlya bol'shoy Evrazii [China’s project for Greater Eurasia]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 6–20. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2021.19.2.65.2

70. Wu Y., Zhang M. (2021). China International Development Cooperation Agency: Establishment, Improvement, and Limitations. Journal of Global and Area Studies. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 63–83. DOI: 10.31720/ JGA.5.1.4

71. Ye M. (2022). The Dragon's gift: an empirical analysis of China's foreign aid in the new century. International Trade, Politics and Development. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITPD-06- 2022-0010

72. Youngs R., Zihnioğlu O. (2021). EU Aid Policy in the Middle East and North Africa: Politicization and its Limits. Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 59. P.126–142.

73. Zhang D., Smith G. (2017). China’s foreign aid system: structure, agencies, and identities. Third World Quarterly. Vol. 38. No. 9. P. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1333419

74.