Search results

During the June 2002 G8 summit in Kananaskis, Canada displayed its international leadership with the announcement of the Africa Action Plan. In this paper, we analyze Canada's Official Development Assistance (ODA) program during the 1990s to evaluate several hypotheses about how ODA is disbursed. Some facts that are uncovered are that Commonwealth members receive more aid; media coverage & the content of media coverage of aid recipients affect aid levels; & surprisingly, contrary to its announced policy, Canada does not seem to favor democratic states that would be more likely to practice "good governance." These results lead us to speculate about the future of Canada's ODA program in light of the post 9-11 (2001) international transformations. We conclude with some general policy suggestions to improve Canada's ODA program. 3 Tables, 2 Figures. Adapted from the source document.

The analogy that states in the international system act as firms in a market has been used by scholars to explain the initiation of war and the formation of balances of power, among other things. Here, this analogy is explored further in an attempt to formalize and quantify the age‐old concept of diplomatic reputation. In this paper, I argue that states, like firms, invest in their reputation in order to secure future benefits, which might take the form of bargaining advantages. Investment in reputation is accomplished by escalating crises, in order to deter other states from initiating future crises. The resulting model of reputation‐building is tested empirically using International Crisis Behavior data on United States involvement in international crises for the years 1918–1988. The results support the model developed here; it appears that we can measure the concept of diplomatic reputation, and once a strong reputation is established, the United States does become involved in fewer crises. Furthermore, a hypothesis predicting more crisis activity during new presidential administrations is supported. Domestically, empirical evidence also is found linking diplomatic reputation with presidential approval levels.

Despite the criticism levelled at it, New Public Management (NPM) seems to be enduring. Post-NPM initiatives remain relatively theoretical and are slow to take root at the heart of the governmental apparatus. Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), a tool for decision-making at national level, seems to be providing new answers. IIA has developed from NPM regulatory relief initiatives, but its objectives and effects are more in line with post-NPM principles. This article aims to explore the concept of IIA, its development and the implications of its institutionalization. A comparative analysis of IIA practice is carried out for four approaches: three at the national level (France, United Kingdom and Switzerland) and one at the supranational level (European Commission). IIA appears as a hybrid NPM and post-NPM tool, the use of which allows the implementation of certain post-NPM principles. The article concludes on future avenues for research. Points for practitioners Administrations often have to deal with issues related to evidence-based decision-making, transparency and the proliferation of statutory sectoral impact assessments. In a context of limited resources, Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) can be an attractive solution. However, a careful analysis of its development makes it possible to better understand what its institutionalization actually implies. The practice of IIA makes it possible to systematize consultation with stakeholders, but varies according to the methods used and the administrative structures in place. IIA could serve as a decision-making tool that adds a public interest component and better reflect public values in a decision-making situation.