Introduction
Recent literature shows that there is a close relationship between money and politics. This has some implications to both developed and developing democracies, meaning that finances affect democracy. In the developing world, many scholars have observed that money dominates politics because multinational corporations and powerful states have always influenced politicians to dance to their tune by offering them huge amounts of money during campaigns. Such politicians would in turn create policies that favor such multinational companies or agencies (Greenhouse 54).
Furthermore, some politicians obtain money from illegal trades such as human and drug trafficking. Even though money is required to fund any democratic process, this paper discloses how the United States agencies and multinational companies have taken this advantage to manipulate political processes in developing countries.
American agencies are known to influence elections in various parts of the world, especially where the American government has some stakes. Sponsored politicians would afterwards pay the debts by extending some favors to Americans, which is usually deranged.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the key player during elections in many states. The agency has the responsibility of monitoring political events in countries it operates and reporting to the US state department for action.
The agency further collects data pertaining to geo-political state affairs and evaluates necessary actions to be taken. Some parties in developing countries are usually funded while others are branded as traitors, especially those associated with socialist or communist ideas.
The agency determines whom to fund, how much is to be issued and in which way should the same funds be utilized. Politicians and political parties in developing countries do not report to their supporters but to their financiers.
Usually, funding is kept as a secret implying that it is never disclosed to the public. After elections, taxpayers are forced to pay dearly through engaging in unwarranted trade, consuming sub-standard goods and paying for debts that they did not create.
This article discusses the role of the USAID and the US state department in relation to elections in developing countries. The paper analyzes how Americans commission polls in countries they have interests.
The article identifies that there are generally some things that Americans target, which compel them to participate in oversees elections actively.
Such actions have profound consequences to the developing countries. This paper explores the effects that crop up due to external interference in elections. Voters in developing countries would not have genuine leaders because they are imposed on them by the world’s superpowers.
Political interference is one of the reasons why the gap between the rich nations and poor will continue widening. The paper further clarifies that not all countries in the third world are under US surveillance. Americans are interested in the few states that matter.
It is observed that economic interests, national security, ideological factors and diplomatic relations are some of the reasons that make Americans develop interests to influence political processes in other sovereign states.
United States and the Third World
The US government imports various commodities from the third world such as wheat flour, coarse grains and oilseeds (Cassen 65). These products are important because the US re-distribute them to the needy and to other countries that experience shortages.
The products are frequently obtained at cheaper prices as opposed to sourcing them locally. Furthermore, American farmers benefit from good diplomatic ties between their government and foreign states. The farmers export their genetically modified products to the poor in the third world at exorbitant prices.
Such products are not allowed for consumption in the US economy. The third world acts as a dumping site for non-standard products. These farmers have their own mechanisms that ensure continuous exploitation of foreign markets. It is not surprising for the US state agencies to influence voting in developing countries.
Non-responsive governments would reject American farm products leading to heavy losses among American farmers. Such farmers would therefore lobby the government to ensure that only cooperative regimes are elected in developing countries (Cashel 42).
On the other hand, insensitive governments in developing countries would be adamant to dispose farm products at low prices. American manufactures would undergo hardships because of increased costs of production. The government interferes with elections in developing countries to safeguard the interests of manufactures, who play an important role in sustaining the economy.
The world is experiencing a shortage of natural energy. European states are competing with the American government for natural power, forcing the government to come up with strategies that would guarantee continuous supply.
The US government strives to obtain sufficient supplies of energy at low prices. The costs of production would skyrocket if energy prices go up. The government therefore comes up with approaches that would ensure steady supply of fuel.
Statistics show that the US has not been utilizing energy in the most cost effective way since 1970s. This has been due to low prices of energy and abundant supplies. In the modern world, supplies have been affected by competition from other states.
Many countries are developing meaning that energy is consumed in high rates. Recent developments and economic recession has forced the US to interfere with sovereignties of other states in order to secure oil and other sources of natural energies.
The US depends on OPEC countries for energy supplies implying that elections in OPEC countries matter so much to Americans. The US government has been forced to engage Mexico in talks because of its potential of supplying natural energy. It is true that elections in Mexico are influenced by American agencies and multinationals. Only leaders who can guarantee cooperation with Americans are allowed to contest.
Furthermore, the US government is presently engaged in the Middle East conflict system mainly because of oil. It is established by the American agencies that conflicts between Arab states and Israel would interfere with American interests.
The US government is keen about the type of leadership in the Middle East region. The GCC was formed to cater for the interests of Americans. Americans would condemn unresponsive leaders claiming that they are undemocratic.
Gaddafi was ousted because he was unwilling to cooperate with Americans. Oil is therefore one of the reasons why Americans would interfere with sovereignties of other states. Recently, the US government has been trying to strengthen ties with the Arab countries, by encouraging Palestine to demand for sovereignty.
Americans argue that the UN Security Council should allow Palestine to gain full independence because it deserves. This would pacify states in the MENA region, which would in turn enhance cooperation with Americans. Through this, the US would have a chance of influencing electioneering processes.
In the existing international system, the US is unable to influence leadership in the Arab world because of riches and economic stabilities. Things like democracy and human rights are not a priority in the Arab world because of their culture and region.
The US cannot tie anything to democracy and governance in the Arab states, unlike in the developing countries where democracy is tied to foreign Aid. Prevalent poverty predisposes African and South American states to US influence (Bollen and Paxton 190). The US has recently established an alternative strategy that would give it entry to the Arab world.
During the Cold War, many states in Africa and South America could not elect their leaders freely because the US ensured that candidates of their choice were declared winners (Gaddis 76). The CIA collaborated with American multinational corporations to install leaders who would allow American firms to conduct trade peacefully.
For instance, in 1960s, leaders who suggested or proposed nationalization of foreign firms were assassinated or were forced to operate outside the state boundaries. Such dissidents could not be allowed to form government because Americans could lose terribly.
In Kenya for example, the head of state was advised by American investors to adopt an economic plan that would guide the nation to victory. The economic strategies were contained in Session paper number ten, which Kenyatta (head of state) termed as Kenya’s economic bible.
Americans were against the opposition because it supported communism, which meant that the economy was to be handled centrally. The US government provided Kenyatta with all technical support he needed in order to trounce the opposition.
In effect, Kenyatta banned the opposition party, referred to as KPU (Kenya’s People Union), and its leader Jaramogi Oginga Odinga jailed (Bevan 276). The opposition leader was detained mainly because he opposed American interests by supporting the East (USSR).
Nevertheless, the US investments in developing countries are extensive, highly visible and significant to American taxpayers. The investments give the US raw materials, manufactured goods and revenue. For instance, 39% of the US cumulative FDI in 1976 was in the third world.
In other words, out of $137 billion US wealth, $29 billion was in the third world. Available data shows that the amount kept on increasing from 1976 to early 2000s, before China and other major powers became powerful economically. Surprisingly, 37% of all American investments originated from the third world in 1980.
The US lending institutions benefited a lot from the American hegemonic powers in the international system in 1980s. It is therefore observed that foreign investments benefits Americans in many ways, such as elevating the excellence and magnitude of employment, promoting efficiency and giving investors access to needed raw materials.
In real sense, the American public does not benefit instead it is some individuals in the American society, especially the rich. Leaders in the developing countries perceived to be pursuing contrary interests are frequently attacked by Americans during elections.
This contradicts the American policy of laissez faire, which claims that the economy should be allowed to operate according to its own internal logics. Policies made by American government aim at advancing trade, enforcing balance of payment and ensuring adequate taxation.
The US government came up with Hickenlooper amendment, which suggested that the US government would cut diplomatic relations with foreign states that expropriated US property without timely and sufficient reparation.
The government would further monitor the progress of leaders who advocated for nationalization or expropriation of American investments without compensation. Such leaders or political parties would be dealt with during elections.
To strengthen American influence, the US government established a national body referred to as Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), whose role was to guarantee safety to American investors. The agency liaises with other American state organs to deliberate on the way forward during elections in each state.
It can be observed in this section that Americans have various reasons that make them interfere with sovereignties of other states. Each state has its own interests and in case such wishes conflict with those of others, a state of war is inevitable.
The existing international system compels a state to use all possible means to fulfill its interests. There is no central authority in the international system implying that the most powerful states will always have their way.
The system is likened to the Hobbestian state of nature where life is anarchic and brutal. The most powerful acquires all the values and resources of society. In the same way, the most powerful states will always force the less developed ones to come into terms with their policies.
The situation can only be rectified if states agree to surrender their sovereignty to one common central authority, which Hobbes referred to as Leviathan. The United Nations was created to rectify the mess but its role is so ineffective mainly because it lacks powers to enforce.
Its existence depends on the good will of states, of which again the most powerful are given precedence. The UN is a toothless dog that depends on the US and other developed nations for funding and human resources (Brumberg 56). It cannot step up to rectify the mess caused by Americans in the international system.
Americans will continue interfering with elections in some states mainly because of poverty. Politicians and political parties have no sources of funding, which makes them to seek American funding. The modern party system is characterized by expert campaign, which is costly and highly complicated.
This gives Americans a chance to utilize their wealth in order to acquire more resources. Some scholars observe that candidate-centered parties in the developing countries are replacing the mass parties. This implies that leaders and their political parties are no longer interested in formulating policies but are more focused on power.
Their major aim is to access governmental power and authority. Once in power, they attempt to fulfill their selfish interests by establishing links with foreigners, who are mainly Americans. Americans on their part will always ensure that such leaders remain in power by funding their campaigns during elections.
Parties in developing countries are poorly structured, which gives Americans easy access to exploit the economy. Parties depend on the opinion of leaders meaning that there are no clearly laid down regulations and rules that guide them.
Commissioning of Polls
The executive branch of the US central government does not have a federal system that is charged with policy formulation for developing countries. The US government does not make laws for the developing countries relating to elections or any political processes.
However, there are departments set up by the state to oversee political processes in developing countries. Such departments are usually in conflict because of contradictory interests. It naturally follows that policies aimed at regulating political processes in developing countries are fragmented.
The department of state acts as a general supervisor by coordinating the activities of various agencies, including USAID. The state department is not concerned about the interests of developing countries, although it claims to be apprehensive of leadership in the third world.
The department maintains influence through mutual development, which is mainly in form of AID. Furthermore, the department has other interests that are mainly related to foreign policies.
The US through its department of state influences the third world to implement policies that are favorable to American investors. Therefore, the state department has additional roles apart from economic development. The department is used as a political tool to fulfill short term, economic goals.
American AID is tied to humanitarian issues such as freedom of press, respect of human rights, fair elections, appreciating interest groups, accountability, democracy, and good governance. Aid is given to states that respect the tenets of democracy meaning that elections must be free and fair. This gives Americans a good opportunity to manipulate the process of electing leaders. Particular leaders are funded heavily by promoting their campaigns in famous Medias and bribing voters.
The American department of treasury is also in charge of commissioning polls. The department approves assistance in form of AID to various cooperative states. Such assistance is usually tied to conditionality such as fairness in elections.
Countries known to rig elections are erased from the list of those to be assisted. The department formulates policies that guide American global financial policies. The department is in charge of USAID, which is supposed to collect intelligence and advice the American investors on the geo-political climate of countries they operate.
One of the AID program is the PL -480, which is only given to states that conduct peaceful elections. The department of defense is also involved in commissioning of polls in the third world. It supplies military weapons to states that are willing to cooperate with it. Furthermore, the department can intervene militarily to salvage the regime of desired leaders in the third world.
A good example is the Vietnam case where the military department intervened militarily to reclaim the Southern part of Vietnam that was almost seized by Minh, who was a communist. The US government had rejected elections held democratically because a communist had emerged winner.
The US government went ahead to support Southern rebels by supplying several weapons and offering technical assistance to militants. Minh’s regime wanted to flush out Americans and welcome Russians to Vietnam.
Americans interpreted this as a betrayal and saw the need to intervene because American interests were at risk. While seeking to further their interests, Americans do not care whether lives are lost. The ‘My Lai massacre’ is one example that proves that American interests are more than anything else. The military killed innocent people only to achieve national interests.
In the US, individuals can commission polls in the developing countries.
Dominant personalities can order state department to monitor elections and other important political processes in the third world. Depending on regimes, individuals have powers to use state machinery to achieve their interests abroad. During Nixon’s regime for example, the secretary of treasury (William Simon) opposed the idea that Americans would benefit from funding elections in the developing countries.
The secretary arrived at this conclusion after conducting an extensive research, with the help of his subordinates. The secretary observed further that funding elections in the third world was contrary to the economic laws of America. The secretary of state (Henry Kissinger) and his undersecretary (Charles Robinson) supported the idea of funding elections in developing countries.
They had strong reasons because they were scholars of international relations. They understood the importance of hegemonic powers in the international system. They observed that Americans would achieve desired results both economically and politically. Kissinger had a strong opinion that affected American foreign policy during his leadership at the state department.
During Kissinger’s time, the US had a hawkish foreign policy, which led to many conflicts in the world. The US ensured that elections all over the world produced leaders of their choice. In some regions, elections resulted to wars because Americans funded losers to revolt against the democratically elected governments.
This was a time when coups were everywhere, especially in Africa and Asia. American influence in elections led to emergence of military Juntas in South America (Sean 163). Either USSR or the US funded the Juntas. During these years, the international system was highly militarized leading to insecurity in the world. Many people lost their lives and property because of American interests.
Kissinger’s foreign policies never allowed leaders in developing world to come up with strategies that would help their people. Capitalism was embraced the way it was, which could not help the poor. American government could have allowed leaders in the third world to adopt policies that would solve problems associated with poverty.
Policy analysts observe that environmental consideration is important if a policy is to flourish. Nixon’s regime, with Kissinger as the state secretary forced many states to split while others chose to secede. North Korea parted ways with the South while Congo split into various provinces (Stueck 102).
The problem of secession was caused by elections. Americans wanted some elements to dominate government because they could easily be influenced. This disillusioned many communities who decided to form their own governments, with the help of the UN.
Power resources were not equitably distributed because of external influence. African scholars argue that the West, led by Americans, brought many problems to the continent (World Bank 88). Parties have never matured because they have never been given chances to restructure. In fact, single individuals control so many political parties in Africa. It is surprising because this is what Americans call democracy.
The congress is also alleged to commission polls in the third world. In 1973, the congress instigated a reform program that would strengthen American foreign relations on human needs in developing countries (Sartorius and Vernon 320).
It is observed that the congress has some powers bestowed to it by the constitution to make sure that American interests are achieved abroad. The Vietnam War changed the perception of congress meaning that the executive could not commit Americans to war without consulting the congress.
The congress determines which countries, political parties and leaders to assist during elections in the third world. However, the congress relies on information from USAID and embassies. This is seen as an attempt to deter the executive from pursuing contrary interests.
The president cannot order American troops to intervene military to salvage his/her friends in foreign countries. The congress evaluates carefully what Americans could gain before endorsing any military action (Heng-fu Zou 313). The type of action is also assessed by the congress before it is implemented.
The congress has proved to be a force to reckon with in determining foreign relations. At some point, the congress barred the executive from intervening military in El Salvador because Americans could get nothing. The sale of radar warning aircraft to the government of Saudi Arabia was also opposed by the congress. This was opposed because Saudi Arabia could use the technology to oppress its neighbors and dominate the region militarily.
Commissioning of polls in the third world seems to be a matter of concern to various stakeholders in the American financial system. Interest groups are some of the many players that take part in electioneering processes in the third world. Trade unions are singled out as being in front line during elections in the third world.
Unions have actually contributed too much to the stability and strength of the American society. It lobbies the government to assist developing countries during elections because of some reasons. Some of these reasons are self-interests while others are related to domestic economic conditions.
In 1960s, the US was in full control of the world meaning that it had monopoly over world capital. Furthermore, the US was well to do economically because of high quality products and constant surpluses. The US enjoyed high technology that was not available to any other state.
During these years, unions preferred to adopt the policy of free trade because no competitor could match their products. The problem started when other nations obtained high technology. American manufacturers could no longer enjoy monopolies forcing them to seek government help.
The manufacturers can request the state to intervene militarily in order to force other states to consume their goods. Due to this reason, the state cannot allow developing nations to shift loyalties. The state ensures that citizens in developing countries use goods from the US.
Without foreign markets, manufacturers could be forced to close down their businesses, which would cause various problems to the government, including evasion of tax. Furthermore, the state loses its economic power in the international system.
Other interest groups such as religious organizations are also players in the US foreign relations. Such groups became active after the 1970s food crisis that rocked the world. They suggested that the US government and other developed countries must supply food to the needy in the developing countries.
All the same, they also insist on accountability and clean elections. Some leaders have Islamic orientations while others are Christians. This is a major concern to religious groups. The powerful groups tend to sponsor candidates with socialist policies in the third world.
Religious groups are much concerned about human rights meaning that political parties that respect human life are funded heavily in order to take over governmental powers and authority. Religious groups support socialist policies because they are aimed at supporting citizens economically.
Finally, the issue of minority and ethnic groups emerges during elections in developing countries. One Senator concluded that ethnic groups play important roles in political processes both in the US and abroad. The senator termed this as secret weapon implying that such groups have political objectives abroad.
The Jewish presence in America vs. American foreign policy in the Middle East serves as an example (Sayigh 20). Furthermore, the Greeks in America have been lobbying the government not to supply weapons to Turkey because of the Cyprus conflict.
Ethnic communities have their own interests in their places of origin implying that they would prefer certain leaders to others. Senior government officials would not allow the US to slap sanctions to their native states. Black Americans have prevented the US government from ousting certain leaders believed to be interfering with US interests in Africa.
This implies that ethnicity and the issue of minority is a factor to reckon with during elections in the developing countries. The minorities have been reported to collect funds aimed at sponsoring some candidates in the developing countries (Turner 739).
In conclusion, many stakeholders in the US can commission polls in developing countries. Overall, USAID is charged with the responsibility of feeding various stakeholders with relevant information. As earlier stated, the agency acts as a resource center in partnership with US embassies.
Benefits of Commissioning Polls
The Americans attempt to interfere with polls in the developing countries because of a number of reasons. Some benefits accrue because of funding political parties and politicians in the developing countries. All stakeholders in the American public domain have one or two things that come their way because of funding parties in the third world.
Manufacturers benefit from increased markets. Puppet leaders in the developing countries try to influence consumers to use American made products. Such leaders control imports by imposing heavy tariffs to goods originating from other states. This gives Americans a leeway to the economy.
Furthermore, substandard goods are allowed to enter the market without scrutiny. Americans benefit because wider markets boost production in their country. Producers are guaranteed of ready markets, which in turn enhance employment. American foreign firms employ many American who could otherwise be jobless in their land.
In this regard, commissioning of polls in the third world augments the standards of living of many Americans. Some products are not cheap to produce locally because of costs such as labor. America producers and manufacturers can easily import such goods from American controlled satellites. Raw materials are obtained at a relatively cheap price as compared to producing them locally.
American elites benefit from commissioning polls because they invest in third world countries, which have cheap labor and unexploited markets. Such elites could face stiff competition at home. In most cases, goods produced are exported to the US where they are sold at high prices.
This amounts to double profits, which encourage more investment. Employees are paid so cheaply in the third world. Governments in the developing countries cannot rise up to assist the poor because they are given some money or favors. Their relatives are given comfortable jobs, which silence them completely.
In Kenya for example, the head of state (Daniel Moi) was supposed to nominate the deputy director of Delmonte Company, an American firm specializing in juice production. Workers could easily be separated whenever they attempted to fight for their rights.
This means that American bourgeoisies use the state to advance their interests. This could not happen in their land because of the level of enlightenment and the nature of the constitution. The comprador-bourgeoisies are co-opted to come up with unfavorable labor laws.
Commissioners of polls in the third world use state machinery such as the judiciary, police and labor ministries to mistreat workers. They cannot be questioned because they actually own the government. Furthermore, American firms operating in the third world can easily go against international labor laws without being questioned.
Workers are never consulted whenever new techniques or technology is introduced in the company.
Trade unions are the properties of the American elites. The poor are completely deprived of their independence because they are not given time to fulfill their societal roles. Workers in the third world are only left with time for carrying out animal related activities such as eating, sleeping and procreating. In the real sense, this could not happen in the American society.
In the developing countries, exploitation has reached unsurpassed levels whereby workers are alienated from their families. Workers produce goods they do not consume. Delmonte juice is extremely expensive meaning that no Kenyan laborer can afford.
The American bourgeoisies use the white-collar employees to influence workers to be cooperative. Workers are threatened with retrenchments, sackings, punishment and demotions. These produce an effective laborer, which benefits American elites.
Equally, the American government benefits from commissioning of polls. First, investments in the third world are repatriated to the American financial system. Rarely do investors utilize their money in the host state. A state under American domination is highly monitored in terms of production of weapons of mass destruction.
Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Iraq and other Middle East states are under control of Americans. The states cannot engage in military strategies without informing the US. In fact, this is viewed as colonialism because everything is controlled by an external power. In the international system, a state stamps authority because of controlling political processes in various states.
The US has a huge following in the world because leaders subscribe to their policies. This is helpful in the UN Security Council, especially during voting. American policies are approved immediately meaning that the state enjoys hegemonic powers. Trade cooperation between America and developing countries is unbalanced meaning that the US gains more than its satellites.
Effects of Commissioning Polls
The consequences of commissioning polls in the third world are both positive and negative. The negative ones outweigh the positive effects. To begin with, democracy is restored in the developing nations. During the Cold War, no leader was held accountable because the US wanted their support.
This led to emergency of personal rulers in Africa such as Id Amin of Uganda, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Gaddafi of Libya. Such leaders were brutal to citizens and could do anything to remain in power. They were leaders with low esteem. They were indifferent to the sufferings of people.
Their governments were full of corrupt individuals (Alesina and Weder 97). In South America, military Juntas exercised terror on human beings. They could engage in drug trafficking without caring about the lives of the youth. A good example is FARC administration in Columbia, which was ruthless to citizens.
The militia group took over government and instituted laws that would help it in distributing drugs liberally. Many farmers lost their wealth, including land. The state was ungovernable because militia groups were everywhere. With the help of the US and other developed nations, such military Juntas are no more and personal rulers in Africa cannot be found anywhere.
American intervention can be said to be helpful because it has raised the level of awareness. Undemocratic leaders are being wiped out together with their political parties.
During and after elections, no cases of tribal clashes are experienced because leaders are monitored by the US state agencies. During the Cold War era, elections were marred by post election violence, which caused the lives of many. Several people were rendered homeless due to tribal clashes.
In Africa, elections were sources of conflicts because some states failed to recover from hangovers of elections. In the modern world, the US ensures that elections are conducted peacefully. Perpetrators of violence are carefully monitored. Some have been tried at the international criminal court at The Hague. Life is highly valued in the modern society and nothing should interfere with it, a part from natural disasters.
Conversely, negative effects are more amazing because the US denies people a chance to elect leaders freely. The electorate is influenced to vote for leaders favored by Americans. It could be more constructive if leaders are elected on merit. Influencing voters to vote for leaders is undemocratic.
In fact, it is a violation of human rights. Proposed leaders are unresponsive to the sufferings of citizens. Furthermore, they can easily be compromised to betray the subjects. Once a leader acquires power illegally that is, through bribery, it is usually difficult to get him/her out.
As some scholars have argued, power corrupts meaning that absolute power would corrupt absolutely. Furthermore, American interference in elections denies the electorate an opportunity to test leadership skills of politicians (Jha 310). Funding some parties over others facilitates hostilities that could easily lead to tribal clashes.
This is because power is not adequately distributed. Money constrains chances of political contest. In extreme cases, it eliminates opposition. The ruling parties have an upper hand because they can access state machinery that may appease Americans to fund them. Funding one side leads to unequal access to power.
This does not reflect the wishes of the majority because only sponsored candidates win elections. Bribing voters pervades politics and demoralizes the rule of law. Americans cannot argue to be promoting the rule of law yet they contribute in diving people. The rich become richer while the poor continue languishing in poverty.
Citizens suffer more because financed leaders are only responsible to their financiers not the ruled. It should be noted that leaders in developing countries formulate a strong relationship with their American bosses to an extent of neglecting their own people. Whenever a controversy stems up, the views of the financiers are given priority. This leads to poor governance.
Conclusion
It is true that Americans interfere in political processes in the third world mainly because of their selfish interests. This is contrary to the popular belief that Americans intervene militarily in troubled regions to save human life. They frequently target some regions that are perceived to have natural resources such as oil.
The US state department is in charge of America’s foreign policy. Its major aim is to further the interests of Americans. USAID is a state agency charged with the responsibility of reporting progress in developing countries. Economic reasons are the main cause of military intervention.
Therefore, the US commissions polls mainly to assist its manufacturers to access markets. Furthermore, manufacturers are the first beneficiaries of American action in the third world. They have an opportunity of accessing wider markets without competition.
Production costs are lower in developing countries hence manufacturers can maximize profits. There are both negative and positive effects of commissioning polls in developing countries. Generally, the USAID has done much to reduce human sufferings resulting from political causes.
Works Cited
Alesina, Alberto and Weder, Beatrice. “Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign Aid?” American Economic Review, 92.4, 2002.
Bevan, Collier. “Anatomy of temporary trade shocks: The Kenya coffee boom of 1976–9”. Journal of African Economies, 1.2, 1993, 271– 305.
Bollen, Kenneth and Paxton, Pamela. “Assessing international evaluations: An example from USAID’s Democracy and Governance Programs”. American Journal of Evaluation, 26.2, 2005, 189–203.
Brumberg, Daniel. “Democratization in the Arab World? The Trap of Liberalized Autocracy”. Journal of Democracy, 13.1, 2002, 56.
Cashel, Cardo. “The public sector impact of internal resource transfers”. Journal of Development Economics, 32.17, 2005, 42.
Cassen, Robert. Rich country interests and Third World development. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1982.
Gaddis, John. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Greenhouse, Steven. “Helms Seeks to Merge Foreign Policy Agencies”. The New York Times, March 16, 1995.
Heng-fu Zou. “The composition of Public expenditure and economic growth”. Journal of Monetary Economics, 37.2, 1996, 313-344.
Jha, Shikha. “Fiscal effects of foreign aid in federal system of governance: The case of India”. Journal of Public Economics, 77.1, 2000, 307–330.
Sartorius, Rolf and Vernon, Ruttan. “The Source of the Basic Human Needs Mandate”. The Journal of Developing Areas, 23.1, 1989, 331-362.
Sayigh, Yezid. “Inducing a Failed State in Palestine”. Survival, 49.3, 2007, 7–39.
Sean, Yom. “Jordan: Ten More Years of Autocracy”. Journal of Democracy, 20.1, 2009, 163.
Stueck, William. The Korean War in World History. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2004.
Turner, Mandy. “Building Democracy in Palestine: Liberal Peace Theory and the Election of Hamas”. Democratization, 13.5, 2006, 739–755.
World Bank. Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why? New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
.