Down the Rathole? Public Support for US Foreign Aid
Down the Rathole? Public Support for US Foreign Aid
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/isq/sqx019
复制
发表时间：
2017-06-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Hawkins, Darren
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hurst, Reuben;Tidwell, Taylor;Hawkins, Darren
美国人认为美国的对外援助预算过于慷慨。信息能改变这些观点吗？我们在公开讨论中确定了十个关于援助的主要论点，五个是积极的，五个是消极的。在一项调查实验中，我们让受访者接触其中一个论点，并附上五个相关事实。大多数支持援助的论点使受访者更加支持，而大多数反对援助的论点使他们不那么支持。无论是积极还是消极地关注受援国的经济发展，还是促进美国的利益，都没有什么区别。相比之下，关于外国援助的国内成本的论点或那些援引受援国需要或腐败等道德考虑的论点对态度有相当大的影响。最成功的论点是援助成本低，将反对援助的比例从67%降低到28%。然而，当受访者同时看到正反两方面的论点时，论点通常会失去效力。唯一的例外是关于援助成本低的论点，这在某些方面改变了人们的看法即使是在与反援助论点相抗衡的时候。我们的研究结果有些令人惊讶，因为传统观点认为，人们是有动机的推理者，他们拒绝不符合他们世界观的新信息。
Americans think the US foreign aid budget is far too generous. Can information change those views? We identified ten prominent arguments about aid in public discussion, five positive and five negative. In a survey experiment, we exposed respondents to one of those arguments with five associated facts. Most of the arguments in favor of aid made respondents more supportive, while most of the arguments against aid made them less supportive. Arguments that focused either positively or negatively on economic development in recipient countries or advancing US interests made little difference. In contrast, arguments about the domestic costs of foreign aid or those that invoked moral considerations like recipient need or corruption had fairly large effects on attitudes. The most successful argument, on the low cost of aid, reduced aid opposition from 67 to 28 percent. When respondents saw both pro and con arguments together, however, arguments generally lost their efficacy. The only exception was the argument about the low cost of aid, which altered opinions in some ways-even when countered with anti-aid arguments. Our results are somewhat surprising given the conventional wisdom that people are motivated reasoners who reject new information that does not conform to their worldview.