Bureaucratic Politics and Aid Allocation: Evidence From the US Agency for International Development

ABSTRACT We examine the impact of bureaucratic politics within the US Agency for International Development on the allocation of its development assistance. Existing studies of aid allocation have focused on donor interests, recipient needs, and recipient merit without accounting for the bureaucratic decision‐making process that helps determine these budgets. We theorize that most field‐based development officials seek to maximize their country's budgets and that better‐staffed country offices have greater capacities to do so. We test this theory using novel data on USAID staffing patterns between 1980 and 2020 and leverage staff rotation patterns using an instrumental variable strategy. Consistent with our theory, results show that increasing the number of USAID staff in a country mission led to substantial increases in aid allocation. We draw on key informant interviews to explore mechanisms underlying this effect. Interviews highlight the close relationships between country‐level aid allocation and two country office capacities which better staffing tended to increase: (1) understanding of the USAID budget process and (2) ability to move through time‐consuming procedures related to funding commitment and disbursement. The findings have important implications for debates regarding the allocation of development assistance as well as broader discussions on bureaucratic politics in US foreign policy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Regulation & Governance
Published
2025-12-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70106
Primary Topic
International Development and Aid
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bureaucratic Politics and Aid Allocation: Evidence From the US Agency for International Development

Mirko Heinzel, Gus Greenstein
Regulation & Governance
International Development and Aid
article

Bureaucratic Politics and Aid Allocation: Evidence From the US Agency for International Development

Mirko Heinzel, Gus Greenstein
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT We examine the impact of bureaucratic politics within the US Agency for International Development on the allocation of its development assistance. Existing studies of aid allocation have focused on donor interests, recipient needs, and recipient merit without accounting for the bureaucratic decision‐making process that helps determine these budgets. We theorize that most field‐based development officials seek to maximize their country's budgets and that better‐staffed country offices have greater capacities to do so. We test this theory using novel data on USAID staffing patterns between 1980 and 2020 and leverage staff rotation patterns using an instrumental variable strategy. Consistent with our theory, results show that increasing the number of USAID staff in a country mission led to substantial increases in aid allocation. We draw on key informant interviews to explore mechanisms underlying this effect. Interviews highlight the close relationships between country‐level aid allocation and two country office capacities which better staffing tended to increase: (1) understanding of the USAID budget process and (2) ability to move through time‐consuming procedures related to funding commitment and disbursement. The findings have important implications for debates regarding the allocation of development assistance as well as broader discussions on bureaucratic politics in US foreign policy.

Regulation & Governance
Leiden University (NL), Maastricht University (NL), University of Glasgow (GB), The Hague University of Applied Sciences (NL), Stanford University (US)
United States Agency for International Development, University of Glasgow
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
International Development and Aid
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.