Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Arguments on aid effectiveness, which are predominately cross-country analyses, remain contestable, with little attention paid to the end-users of aid. Hence, this paper makes use of survey responses from four States in Nigeria to examine the ‘perceived’ impacts of foreign aid on socioeconomic development. The findings show that arguments on aid effectiveness will remain contestable. This is evident even among end-users of aid. While people with lower socioeconomic status are more optimistic about the impacts of aid, this is not applicable across all States. Therefore, aid allocation should not be ‘a one-size-fits-all approach’. Hybrid systems that involve end-users are imperative.

Keywords

Aid effectiveness perception socioeconomic development survey Nigeria

Introduction

Foreign aid has been used to address various development challenges (Omotola, 2009) such as social (Ofoma, 2023) and economic conditions (Riddell, 1999), political stability (Asongu and Nnanna, 2019) and conflict (de Ree and Nillesen, 2009). Most studies on foreign aid are geared towards socioeconomic issues, and different methods and techniques, such as large-scale quantitative analysis and rational models, have been used to examine the effectiveness of foreign aid (Annen and Moers, 2017; Asongu and Nwachukwu, 2016; Burnside and Dollar, 2000; Deaton, 2013; Easterly, 2005; Moyo, 2009; Steinwand, 2015). Other rare studies examine the effectiveness of foreign aid by analysing the perception of different participants, especially from the recipient states (Alrababa’h et al., 2020; Baldwin and Winters, 2018; Findley et al., 2017; Smith and Nemetz, 2009; Winters et al., 2017). These studies shed more light on different aspects of foreign aid and development initiatives from the populace’s point of view, and they are imperative because the participants are usually directly impacted by the outcome of aid and different development initiatives.

Nevertheless, the contrasting effectiveness of foreign aid remains unresolved and has not been examined among the end-users of aid (i.e. the direct recipients of aid (Aja-Eke, 2023). In addition, there has been no examination of the impacts of foreign aid on people from different socioeconomic backgrounds among end-users of aid. In regard to this, this paper intends to verify if there are contrasting or a more consistent perception of foreign aid among end-users of aid and if the socioeconomic status of the end-users of aid influences their perceptions of foreign aid. This will provide more insights on the impacts of foreign aid on socioeconomic factors and add to the existing literature on aid effectiveness, with the utilisation of novel perception data from Nigeria. Therefore, the following research questions guide this paper: What are the perceived impacts of foreign aid? How can the perceived impacts of foreign aid enhance aid allocation processes and aid effectiveness in recipient states? The first research question aims to examine the impacts of foreign aid in recipient countries, especially among end-users of aid. In contrast, the second research question goes beyond explaining the impacts of foreign aid on different groups to providing recommendations from lessons learned (from the results and other studies) and provide recommendations on how aid allocation (processes) can be enhanced.

Therefore, to bridge the gap in the existing literature, and answer the research questions, this paper studies the perceived impacts of foreign aid in four states in Nigeria – Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Enugu and Rivers. The study finds that the arguments on aid effectiveness will remain contestable. While people with lower socioeconomic status are more optimistic about the impacts of aid than people with higher socioeconomic status, this is not applicable across all the states. Some states have either insignificant or at worst contrasting opinions about aid. Therefore, aid allocation should not be ‘a one-size-fits-all’ approach. What works in one locality may not necessarily apply in another locality. Rather, a hybrid system that involves the end-users of aid within a locality is encouraged and is imperative for aid effectiveness.

Hence, the rest of the paper is organised as follows: the next section examines the existing literature on foreign aid and the theoretical stance of this paper, which focuses on the heterogeneous effects and conditional impacts of foreign aid. This is followed by the description of the research design, data and method of analysis. The subsequent section after the research design presents the results and discussion. Finally, the last section concludes and provides recommendations on aid effectiveness and how foreign aid allocation can be enhanced.

Aid effectiveness

The literature on foreign aid effectiveness primarily makes use of cross-country analysis or rational models (Annen and Moers, 2017; Armah, 2010; Asongu and Nwachukwu, 2016; Burnside and Dollar, 2000; Deaton, 2013; Easterly, 2005; Moyo, 2009; Steinwand, 2015). This has led to varying results. The effectiveness of aid has also been examined by analysing the perceptions of foreign aid among individuals in recipient countries. Although there are very limited studies on aid perception, some of the exceptions are the study by Findley et al. (2017), which finds that foreign aid enhances corruption and the embezzlement of public revenue in Uganda. Winters et al. (2017) also observed that participants had a higher perception of the quality of a project when it is sponsored by a foreign body than locally sponsored project in Bangladesh. The findings of these studies indicate that useful insights on the effectiveness of aid could be derived by examining the perception of individuals in recipient states.

Current findings on aid effectiveness are inconclusive and remain contestable. Different studies show that foreign aid has an effective, ineffective or conditional impact on development (Annen and Moers, 2017; Burnside and Dollar, 2000, 2004; Deaton, 2013; Easterly, 2005; Moyo, 2009; Steinwand, 2015). For instance, Moyo (2009) believes that foreign aid has done more harm than good in recipient countries, especially African states. Moyo (2009) noted that aid was beneficial in European countries, contrary to their negative effects in African countries. European countries already had the ‘existing physical, legal and social infrastructures’ that simply needed ‘fixing’, while the primary development needs of African countries are the establishment and strengthening of these structures and not the allocation of aid, which provides temporary relief, encourages dependency and creates long term debt from unpaid loans, debts and interest (Moyo, 2009: 11). While the foreign aid literature has been heavily quantitative-based, with a dominance of cross-country analysis, there have also been qualitative evidence of aid dependency in Kenya, Togo and Zimbabwe, as found in the study by Mangwanya (2022). Deaton (2013) also noted that aid is detrimental to development because of the crucial criteria for development in developing countries, which is the establishment of strong institutions and systems.

On the contrary, scholars like Sachs (2006) believe that foreign aid positively enhances development in recipient countries. Sachs (2006) noted that some inherent factors, such as unfavourable socioeconomic conditions, and environmental, historical and geographical factors, are beyond the financial and technical capacity of developing countries to tackle. Hence, developing countries would require additional assistance, which foreign aid provides, to meet some of their development needs. In other words, from Sachs’ perspective, some developing countries may not have the necessary financial and technical capacity to address some of the institutional constraints pointed out by Deaton (2013) and Moyo (2009), even when they genuinely intend to address these constraints. While there have been recent changes in the dynamic of foreign aid in Africa with a gradual, and arguably rapid shift, of aid from Western countries to more aid from China and Asian countries (Gilpin, 2023; Niu, 2016), some studies have shown traces of aid dependency in these growing dynamics as well (Al-Fadhat and Prasetio, 2024).

Nevertheless, other scholars do not have a firm stance on the effectiveness of foreign aid. They emphasise that the effectiveness of foreign aid is conditional and determined by other factors that could either make foreign aid effective or ineffective (Annen and Moers, 2017; Burnside and Dollar, 2000, 2004; Easterly and Williamson, 2011; Tang and Bundhoo, 2017). The theoretical stance, on the conditional effects of foreign aid, can be traced to Burnside and Dollar (2000), who stated that foreign aids promote growth in recipient states with good (economic) policies and strong institutions (Burnside and Dollar, 2004) than in countries with weaker institutions and policies. This is in line with the findings in Tang and Bundhoo (2017), which show how foreign aid is conditional on the ‘economic, political and institutional environment of the recipient stat’ (p. 1473). Annen and Moers (2017) and Easterly and Williamson (2011) also pointed out the characteristics and practices of the donors that influence the effectiveness of aid, such as transparency, fragmentation and selectivity.

The study by Adedokun (2017) and Asongu and Nwachukwu (2016) are also geared towards the conditional effects of aid, with Adedokun (2017) arguing that a general policy for sub-Saharan Africa will be futile, as different heterogeneous factors within and across recipient states and regions will have varying influence on aid effectiveness. On the contrary, Asongu and Nwachukwu’s (2016: 69) findings show how foreign aid deteriorates ‘economic and institutional governance’ such as ‘regulation quality, government effectiveness, corruption control and the rule of law’ but has no impacts on political governance and accountability.

This paper is based on the conditional effects of foreign aid, and the theoretical presumption that the effectiveness of foreign aid is conditional on different endogenous and exogenous factors (Adedokun, 2017; Annen and Moers, 2017; Burnside and Dollar, 2000, 2004; Easterly and Williamson, 2011). In other words, foreign aid can have varying impacts on different aspects of development based on different factors. One major area of study is the impact of foreign aid on economic development. Therefore, this paper extends the existing literature by examining if foreign aid positively or negatively influences economic and social development with the perception of individual in Nigeria. It is generally expected that people with lower socioeconomic status will be more optimistic about the impacts of foreign aid than people with higher socioeconomic status: either because they have directly or indirectly benefitted from aid, they know someone or people that have benefitted from aid, or they have varying ideas of how foreign aid can be used to enhance their status and living conditions. On the contrary, it is expected that people with higher socioeconomic status will be more pessimistic about the impacts of aid as they generally do not need aid or assistance like people with lower socioeconomic status, especially for basic amenities. Hence, the following hypothesis guides this research:

H1: People with lower socioeconomic status are more optimistic about the likelihood of aid than people with higher socioeconomic status.

This hypothesis presumes that most of the people against aid allocation may be from a more privileged background who do not need some form of aid for survival and or struggle to meet their basic needs. While this paper does not study the direct impacts of foreign aid on people from different socioeconomic status, their perception of aid – either positive or negative perceptions – provides an inkling on how foreign aid has either influenced their lives or may influence their lives if received. This will provide a basis for deducing the impacts of foreign aid on people from different socioeconomic status and how aid effectiveness, aid process and aid allocation can be improved.

Research design

This study makes use of 4709 anonymous paper-based survey responses from four states in Nigeria – Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Enugu and River – to examine the perception of aid on conflict. The survey was carried out between May and September 2019.¹ Nigeria was selected as a case study because it receives a significant amount of aid (AidData, 2016). Second, the allocation of aid is usually a non-random process. Most donors allocate aid to fragile or conflict-affected regions (Strandow et al., 2016). Hence, this study makes use of typical case selection technique. From a statistically point of view, this technique selects regions with an average or representative level of conflict – that is, regions that do not have an extremely high level of conflict, yet not on the lower scale. This will present a more representative view, without making use of extreme cases. Therefore, the South-East and South-South regions of Nigeria were selected for the analysis. These regions have experienced significant instability, such as the Biafran conflict and the secession movement in the South-East region of Nigeria (Falode, 2011; Nnodim et al., 2024) and the Niger Delta crisis in the South-South region of Nigeria (Kadafa, 2012; Mevayerore, 2020). These conflicts are not as extreme as the Boko Haram conflict in the North-East and other Northern regions in Nigeria, which are extremely volatile due to the Boko Haram Crises (Nnorom, 2021), but not as stable as the South-West Regions of Nigeria, which is relatively stable, due to the Biafran Session movements and the Niger Delta conflicts.

The Biafran Conflict can be traced down to the Nigerian Civil War, which occurred between 1967 and 1970 or what is popularly known as the Biafran War in the South-East region of Nigeria (Falode, 2011). Indigenes of this region agitate for more political representation in the Federal Government and allocation of more public services in the region. While the war ended over 50 years ago, there have been series of agitations, conflict and secession movements in this region, and it has become more rampant of late (Nnodim et al., 2024).

On the contrary, the South-South region of Nigeria is the major oil producing region in Nigeria (Kadafa, 2012). The Niger Delta Conflict predominately occurs in the South-South region of Nigeria where people in the state agitate for more allocation of resources, especially due to a significant dependency of Nigeria’s economy on oil, which are largely derived from this region. While different programmes have been introduced to reduce the conflicts in this region, this region remains volatile (Mevayerore, 2020).

However, within these two regions, the most-similar case selection technique – where the states are similar on most variables excluding (some of) the main variable of interest.² In regard to this, Anambra and Enugu States were selected from the South-East region. These states have similar characteristics, as evidenced in the survey, such as similar ethnic group (a vast majority of the inhabitants and indigenes are Igbos), similar religion (a vast majority of the people in these states are Christians), and these two states are not oil producing states. However, one major difference between the two states is the level and likelihood of conflicts in the states. Anambra State is more prone to conflict and the Biafran Movement than Enugu State.³

On the contrary, Akwa Ibom and Cross River States were selected from the South-South Region. These states have similar characteristics such as ethnic heterogeneity (the indigenous as well as inhabitants of this states are associated and from multiple ethnic groups), a vast majority of the population are Christians, and these two states are oil producing states. However, Rivers State is more prone to conflict than Akwa Ibom State.⁴ Therefore, in addition to verifying the perceptions of aid among the participants from different socioeconomic backgrounds, the most similar case selection techniques will enable to observe if there are similar or contrasting views among more and less conflict prone states. Therefore, typical case selection techniques were used to select the regions in Nigeria, while most-similar case selection techniques were used to select the states within each region in Nigeria. Once the states were selected, random sampling techniques were used to collect the data across different sectors and locations in each state (Table 1).

Table 1.

Survey description.

State	Survey	Percentage
Akwa Ibom	1474	31
Anambra	746	16
Enugu	1156	25
Rivers	1333	28
Total	4709	100

This study makes use of logistic regression analysis for the survey. The participants were asked to select how they agree or disagree that ‘foreign aid is useful’ on a 5-point Likert-type scale. This was transformed into a dichotomous variable. Participants that ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ are coded as ‘1’, participants that ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ are coded as ‘0’, participants that ‘neither agree nor disagree’ are dropped. Their gender, average monthly income, educational level and age are used to examine their socioeconomic status.

Gender is a very important attribute to study. Most of the studies on foreign aid did not consider the unique experiences of women while formulating their theoretical stance. For instance, women generally experience a lower socioeconomic condition than men (Girón and Kazemikhasragh, 2022). The study by Handrahan (2004), Manjoo and McRaith (2011) and Greenberg and Zuckerman (2009) also show that women are usually discriminated against in aid allocation processes, and policies made to address conflict disfavour women. In other words, the opinions of women are crucial for development initiatives, especially those that influence their wellbeing. The current realities and studies on the socioeconomic conditions of women indicate that the perception of women on foreign aid may be geared towards Sachs’ perspective: foreign aid positively enhances development in recipient countries, especially by addressing unfavourable socioeconomic and internal factors. In other words, while the effectiveness of foreign aid is conditional, it is expected that women may have a more favourable perception of foreign aid than men, as women generally have lower socioeconomic status than men in most societies and in Nigeria. Older people also tend to have more income, access to funds and better socioeconomic status than younger people; although this could be contested, nevertheless, it is an important individual attribute to examine/control (Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Obs.	Mean	Standard deviation	Min	Max
Foreign aid is useful (all participants)	4709	0.918	0.275	0	1
Foreign aid is useful (Akwa Ibom)	1474	0.843	0.364	0	1
Foreign aid is useful (Anambra)	746	0.914	0.28	0	1
Foreign aid is useful (Enugu)	1156	0.97	0.171	0	1
Foreign aid is useful (Rivers)	1333	0.956	0.204	0	1
Gender (female) all participants	4709	0.477	0.5	0	1
Gender (female) – Akwa Ibom	1474	0.463	0.499	0	1
Gender (female) – Anambra	746	0.394	0.489	0	1
Gender (female) – Enugu	1156	0.553	0.497	0	1
Gender (female) – Rivers	1333	0.473	0.499	0	1
Monthly income (all participants)^a	4709	63,561.835	143,653.83	0	5,000,000
Monthly income (Akwa Ibom)	1474	58,167.065	181,858.74	0	5,000,000
Monthly income (Anambra)	746	74,961.33	91,356.515	0	600,000
Monthly income (Enugu)	1156	74,633.497	162,927.3	0	3,000,000
Monthly income (Rivers)	1333	53,546.099	91,482.09	0	1,000,000
Educational level (all participants)	4709	0.61	0.488	0	1
Education (Akwa Ibom)	1474	0.672	0.47	0	1
Education (Anambra)	746	0.497	0.5	0	1
Education (Enugu)	1156	0.661	0.474	0	1
Education (Rivers)	1333	0.56	0.497	0	1
Age (all participants)	4709	29.455	10.692	18	95
Age (Akwa Ibom)	1474	30.677	11.238	18	82
Age (Anambra)	746	34.895	12.071	18	80
Age (Enugu)	1156	27.138	9.701	18	95
Age (Rivers)	1333	27.068	8.527	18	82

Salary in Nigerian Naira (NGN – ₦).

The gender of the participants is coded as a dichotomous variable with ‘1’ representing females and ‘0’ representing males. For ease of interpretation, the unit used in the analysis for monthly income is ₦10,000. The educational levels of the participants are equally transformed into a binary variable with ‘0’ representing participants with secondary education and below and ‘1’ representing participants with at BSc level (or equivalent) and above.

Result and discussion

The results in Table 3 show that the arguments on aid effectiveness will remain contestable. The clear pattern is that people with lower socioeconomic status such as women, lower income earners, and younger people are more optimistic about the impacts of aid than people with higher socioeconomic status. However, this is not applicable across all the states. Some states have either insignificant or at worst contrasting opinions. For instance, the general trend shows that women are more optimistic about the impacts of foreign aid than men. This is equally the case in Akwa Ibom State. Nevertheless, there is no significant difference between the perceptions of women and men in Anambra and Enugu State. Most importantly, women in Rivers State are more pessimistic about the usefulness of aid than men in Rivers State. These could strongly reflect the experiences of women with aid in the state.

Table 3.

Perception of foreign aid in Nigeria.

Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
	Foreign aid is useful = 1
	All states	Akwa Ibom	Anambra	Enugu	Rivers
Gender: Women = 1	0.281** (0.111)	0.582*** (0.154)	0.087 (0.295)	−0.047 (0.350)	−0.558** (0.277)
Average monthly income	−0.007*** (0.003)	−0.014*** (0.005)	−0.028** (0.013)	−0.000 (0.009)	0.012 (0.019)
Educational level	0.129 (0.110)	0.207 (0.154)	0.420 (0.272)	−0.290 (0.409)	0.405 (0.311)
Age	−0.019*** (0.004)	−0.001 (0.006)	−0.012 (0.011)	−0.018 (0.016)	−0.047*** (0.013)
Constant	2.850*** (0.172)	1.421*** (0.256)	2.815*** (0.463)	4.204*** (0.572)	4.418*** (0.427)
Observations	4709	1474	746	1156	1333

Standard errors in parentheses.

Average monthly income in 10,000s.

***

p < 0.01; **p < 0.05.

In addition, people with lower income are generally more optimistic about the usefulness of aid than people with higher income, although this is not significant in Enugu and Rivers States. Furthermore, older people are more pessimistic about aid, but this result is not significant in Akwa Ibom, Anambra and Enugu States. Finally, the educational levels of the participants did not significantly influence the perceptions of the participants across all the models.

Table 4 attempts but fails to identify convincing patterns or similarities of the participants’ perceptions based on their states/regions and the levels of conflicts in each state. The result shows how perceptions differ within and across different groups. This result is in line with the study by Adedokun (2017), which emphasised that different heterogeneous factors within and across recipient countries and regions can influence the effectiveness of aid. In other words, what works for a particular group of people, at a given time, may not necessarily work for another group, or even the same group of people at another time. A very clear example of this in this study is the results on average monthly income, which is a core variable for socioeconomic (especially economic) status. While lower earners are more optimistic about the usefulness of aid than higher earners, these differences vary within and across regions, states and the level of conflicts. This shows that while quantitative analysis and rational model, which are rampant in the aid and development literature (Annen and Moers, 2017; Asongu and Nwachukwu, 2016; Burnside and Dollar, 2000; Deaton, 2013; Easterly, 2005; Moyo, 2009; Steinwand, 2015), provide general trend and grand theories, this trend may not, and in most cases, will not be applicable in most circumstances. They are just what they are, ‘a trend’ and not the ‘unique realities’ of each locality at a given time. In regard to this, this study firmly supports the heterogeneous effects of foreign aid and the theoretical stance that aid will have conditional impacts. These impacts are shaped by the characteristics of the donors and recipient locality within a given time, as well as other exogenous and endogenous factors.

Table 4.

Varying perceptions of aid within and among regions and states.

Variable	Region and state similarities or differences	Level of conflict similarities and differences
Women	All sample – foreign aid is usefulSouth-East – not usefulSouth-South – varying impactsAkwa Ibom – foreign aid is usefulRivers – not useful	Lower conflict – varying impactsAkwa Ibom – foreign aid is usefulEnugu – not significantHigher conflict – varying impactsRivers – not usefulAnambra – not significant
Average monthly income (higher earners relative to lower earners)	All sample – foreign aid is not usefulSouth-East – varying impactsAnambra – not usefulEnugu – not significantSouth-South – varying impactAkwa Ibom – not usefulRivers – not significant	Lower conflict – varying impactsAkwa Ibom – not usefulEnugu – not significantHigher conflict – varying impactsRivers – not significantAnambra – useful
Age (older relative to younger people)	All sample – not usefulSouth-East – not significantSouth-South – varyingAkwa Ibom – not significantRivers – not useful	Lower conflict – not significantHigher conflict – varying impactsRivers – not usefulAnambra – not significant

These results flag the heterogeneous and conditional effects of aid. Foreign aid can have varying effects based on different factors. It is not a ‘one size fits all approach’. What works in one locality may not necessarily apply in another locality, or group of people. Rather, a hybrid system that involves the end-users of aid is encouraged and is imperative for aid effectiveness. Adequate attention and consultations should be taken before the allocation of any type of aid. The perception of the recipients and individuals within a locality matter, as it can draw pointers to some grey or unobserved areas. Baseline analysis such as consultations, surveys, focus groups, the perceptions of recipients and end-users of aid, as found in Aja-Eke (2023), can point out if and how foreign aid can be used to enhance development in a particular locality and for a particular group of people.

For instance, one of the interviewees in the study by Aja-Eke (2023) indicated that in lots of scenarios, donors come with their own ‘agendas, which may be incompatible with the needs and priorities’ (p. 716) of the people. This is rooted in the argument of why donors allocate aid. The motives of foreign aid donors can be egoistic – geared towards promoting their national interest (Bermeo, 2017; Fuchs and Vadlamannati, 2013); altruistic – a stronger desire to meet the development needs of recipient countries (Azam and Laffont, 2003; Sumida, 2017); or a combination of both (Berthélemy, 2006a, 2006b; Hoeffler and Outram, 2011). These motives influence the allocation and effectiveness of aid. However, the motives of donors are usually a combination of altruistic and egoistic motives. The motives of donors can largely influence the effectiveness of the aid. In other words, the more altruistic and interested the donor is at enhancing the development needs of the recipient states, the more effective the aid will be. However, if the donor is more interested in promoting its national interest (at the detriment of the recipients’ needs) the less effective, or at worst detrimental, the aid would be to the (development of the) recipient state. It should be emphasised that these motives can be in contrast with the needs of a state, locality or group of people. This is evident in other development strategies and programmes such as the structural adjustment programme (Bracking, 1999; Greenaway and Morrissey, 1993; Willis, 2021; Wuyts, 1996), which makes use of either general trends, models and rational analysis without paying attention to the specific needs and unique differences of a particular group of people, and apparently failed. Due to this, a hybrid-aid allocation system that involves the end-users of aid cannot be overemphasised.

Conclusion

This paper makes use of novel data to study the perceptions of foreign aid in four states in Nigeria. The findings of the paper show persuasive evidence that foreign aid could have different impacts on different groups of people, as well as different localities. While the general trends show that foreign aid could enhance socioeconomic conditions, this is not applicable in all the states. In other words, foreign aid, intervention or assistance should not be treated as ‘a one size fit all approach’. Consultations on the peculiar needs of local communities, groups and individuals, as opposed to the mere generic needs of recipient and donor states and government, are imperative for aid effectiveness. These results provide evidence in support of the conditional and heterogeneous effects of foreign aid. In addition, one of the most glaring observations is the varying perceptions of women across all the states. Women are generally more optimistic about the impacts of foreign aid than men. However, this is not the case in Anambra, Enugu and Rivers States. This is also the case when the economic status of the participants is examined. While lower earners are more optimistic about the usefulness of aid than higher earners, these differences vary within and across regions, states and the level of conflicts.

Therefore, the major recommendations of this study are to critically examine, consult and work with the end-users of aid, state and local governments, as well as relevant non-governmental organisations to identify and address the basic needs of a society and group of people at a given time. A ‘one-size-fit-all’ approach will be ineffective.

In addition, this study identified some of the endogenous factors – such as gender, ethnic groups, religion, age, income and intensity of conflict – that could influence the perceptions of foreign aid, which in turn provides an inkling on how these exogenous factors can influence aid. However, the data used in this study are only limited to two regions (the South-East and the South-South regions) and four states (Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Enugu and Rivers) in Nigeria. Due to this, it could not examine the (varying or similar) perceptions of other relevant groups, such as a comparison from people from other religions, ethnic groups and regions in Nigeria. For instance, religion, ethnic and political rivalry have been identified as majors cause of conflict (Abadie, 2006; Byman, 1998; Cederman et al., 2010; Gunning and Jackson, 2011; Lewis and Dawson, 2018). However, Christianity was the predominant religion in the sample and there was no comparison of different ethnic groups in the study. There was also no examination of how different political affiliations influence the perceptions of the participants. Hence, an examination of these factors needs to be done in order to get a clear picture on the perceptions of foreign aid and how aid allocation and aid effectiveness can be improved. Furthermore, critical studies on how the impacts of foreign aid on women influence their perceptions of aid; how the impacts of different types of conflicts across different localities (at a given time and different periods in time) influence the perceptions of aid; and how the impacts of other exogenous and endogenous factors influence the perceptions of aid are equally crucial for future studies. It will also be useful to carry out more studies on how these factors, on a flipside, influence aid effectiveness.

Footnotes

The author sincerely thanks Prof Samuel Brazys,Prof Krishna Vadlamannati,Prof Michael Tierney,Prof Patrick Paul Walsh,Prof Olanrewaju Olaniyan and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and reviews. The author also appreciates Mr Nyakno Udoette,Ms Fiona Udebunu,Mr Ogbonnaya Okoro,Mr Ambrose Inyang,Mr Uche Nwachukwu,Ms Fidelia Alawa,and all the research participants for their assistance during the field trip.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship and/or publication of this article: The author is thankful to the Irish Research Council (IRC) for funding the project under the IRC Laureate Project “Trade Related Assistance for Development: Evidence from Micro-Level Evaluation” (TRADE ME),Grant Number: IRCLA/2017/92 .

ORCID iD

Doris Aja-Eke

Author biography

Dr. Doris Aja-Eke is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Anti-Corruption Research Centre (ARC) and DCU Business School,Dublin City University,Ireland. Her research focuses on the use of mixed method approaches in development studies.

References

Abadie

(2006) Poverty, political freedom, and the roots of terrorism. American Economic Review 96(2): 50–56.

Adedokun

(2017) Foreign aid, governance and economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: does one cap fit all? African Development Review 29(2): 184–196.

AidData (2016) NigeriaAIMS_GeocodedResearchRelease_Level1_v1.3.2 Geocoded Dataset. Williamsburg, VA; Washington, DC: AidData.

Aja-Eke

(2023) Bypassing government and state agencies in aid allocation: evidence from conflict-affected regions in Nigeria. Development in Practice 33(6): 713–720.

Al-Fadhat

Prasetio

(2024) How China’s debt-trap diplomacy works in African countries: evidence from Zimbabwe, Cameroon, and Djibouti. Journal of Asian and African Studies 59: 1463–1483.

Alrababa’h

Myrick

Webb

(2020) Do donor motives matter? Investigating perceptions of foreign aid in the conflict in Donbas. International Studies Quarterly 64(3): 748–757.

Annen

Moers

(2017) Donor competition for aid impact, and aid fragmentation. World Bank Economic Review 31(3): 708–729.

Armah

(2010) Does political stability improve the aid-growth relationship? A panel evidence on selected Sub-Saharan African countries. African Review of Economics and Finance 2(1): 54–76.

Asongu

Nnanna

(2019) Foreign aid, instability, and governance in Africa. Politics & Policy 47(4): 807–848.

10.

Asongu

Nwachukwu

(2016) Foreign aid and governance in Africa. International Review of Applied Economics 30(1): 69–88.

11.

Azam

J-P

Laffont

J-J

(2003) Contracting for aid. Journal of Development Economics 70(1): 25–58.

12.

Baldwin

Winters

(2018) Bypass aid and perceptions of local government performance and legitimacy. Available at: https://docs.aiddata.org/ad4/pdfs/WPS56_Bypass_Aid_and_Perceptions_of_Local_Government_Performance_and_Legitimacy.pdf

13.

Bermeo

(2017) Aid allocation and targeted development in an increasingly connected world. International Organization 71(4): 735–766.

14.

Berthélemy

(2006a) Aid allocation: comparing donors’ behaviours. Swedish Economic Policy Review 13(2): 75–110.

15.

Berthélemy

(2006b) Bilateral donors’ interest vs. recipients’ development motives in aid allocation: do all donors behave the same? Review of Development Economics 10(2): 179–194.

16.

Bracking

(1999) Structural adjustment: why it wasn’t necessary & why it did work. Review of African Political Economy 26(80): 207–226.

17.

Burnside

Dollar

(2000) Aid, policies, and growth. American Economic Review 90(4): 847–868.

18.

Burnside

Dollar

(2004) Aid, policies and growth: revisiting the evidence. World Bank, Policy Research Working paper 3251. Washington, DC: World Bank.

19.

Byman

(1998) The logic of ethnic terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 21(2): 149–169.

20.

Cederman

L-E

Wimmer

Min

(2010) Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Politics 62(1): 87–119.

21.

Deaton

(2013) The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.

22.

de Ree

Nillesen

(2009) Aiding violence or peace? The impact of foreign aid on the risk of civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Development Economics 88(2): 301–313.

23.

Easterly

(2005) What did structural adjustment adjust? The association of policies and growth with repeated IMF and World Bank adjustment loans. Journal of Development Economics 76(1): 1–22.

24.

Easterly

Williamson

(2011) Rhetoric versus reality: the best and worst of aid agency practices. World Development 39(11): 1930–1949.

25.

Falode

(2011) The Nigerian civil war, 1967–1970: a revolution? African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 5(3): 120–124.

26.

Findley

Harris

Milner

, et al (2017) Who controls foreign aid? Elite versus public perceptions of donor influence in aid-dependent Uganda. International Organization 71(4): 633–663.

27.

Fuchs

Vadlamannati

(2013) The needy donor: an empirical analysis of India’s aid motives. World Development 44: 110–128.

28.

Gerring

(2017) Qualitative methods. Annual Review of Political Science 20: 15–36.

29.

Gilpin

(2023) China, Africa and the international aid system: a challenge to (the norms underpinning) the neoliberal world order? Journal of Asian and African Studies 58(3): 277–297.

30.

Girón

Kazemikhasragh

(2022) Gender equality and economic growth in Asia and Africa: empirical analysis of developing and least developed countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 13(2): 1433–1443.

31.

Greenaway

Morrissey

(1993) Structural adjustment and liberalisation in developing countries: what lessons have we learned? Kyklos 46(2): 241–261.

32.

Greenberg

Zuckerman

(2009) The gender dimensions of post-conflict reconstruction: the challenges in development aid. In: Addison

Brück

(eds) Making Peace Work. London: Springer, pp.101–135.

33.

Gunning

Jackson

(2011) What’s so ‘religious’ about ‘religious terrorism’? Critical Studies on Terrorism 4(3): 369–388.

34.

Handrahan

(2004) Conflict, gender, ethnicity and post-conflict reconstruction. Security Dialogue 35(4): 429–445.

35.

Hoeffler

Outram

(2011) Need, merit, or self-interest – what determines the allocation of aid? Review of Development Economics 15(2): 237–250.

36.

Kadafa

(2012) Oil exploration and spillage in the Niger Delta of Nigeria. Civil and Environmental Research 2(3): 38–51.

37.

Lewis

Dawson

(2018) Introduction: religion and terrorism. Numen 65(2–3): 117–124.

38.

Mangwanya

(2022) Evaluating the impacts of foreign aid on low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science 11(6): 370–377.

39.

Manjoo

McRaith

(2011) Gender-based violence and justice in conflict and post-conflict areas. Cornell International Law Journal 44: 11.

40.

Mevayerore

(2020) Natural-resource curse, Niger Delta crisis and oil exploration in Nigeria: a theoretical analysis. World Scientific News 141: 1–11.

41.

Moyo

(2009) Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is Another Way for Africa. London: Allen Lane.

42.

Niu

(2016) China’s development and its aid presence in Africa: a critical reflection from the perspective of development anthropology. Journal of Asian and African Studies 51(2): 199–221.

43.

Nnodim

Osita-Njoku

Onyekwere

(2024) Ipob Sit-at-home order and insecurity in the Southeast Nigeria. African Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences 14(1): 2535.

44.

Nnorom

(2021) Boko Haram and rising developmental crises in Nigeria: overview and sociological implications. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies –Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity 16(1): 82–99.

45.

Ofoma

(2023) Foreign aid in Nigeria: a departure from economic development impact to social development impact. Journal of Management Sciences and Applications 2(2): 219–232.

46.

Omotola

(2009) ‘Garrison’ democracy in Nigeria: the 2007 general elections and the prospects of democratic consolidation. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 47(2): 194–220.

47.

Riddell

(1999) The end of foreign aid to Africa? Concerns about donor policies. African Affairs 98(392): 309–335.

48.

Sachs

(2006) The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. London: Penguin Books.

49.

Smith

Nemetz

(2009) Social entrepreneurship compared to government foreign aid: perceptions in an East African village. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 11: 49–65.

50.

Steinwand

(2015) Compete or coordinate? Aid fragmentation and lead donorship. International Organization 69(2): 443–472.

51.

Stina

(2019) UCDP GED Codebook version 19.1. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University. Available at: https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/ged/ged191.pdf

52.

Strandow

Findley

Young

(2016) Foreign aid and the intensity of violent armed conflict. Aiddata Working paper no. 24. Williamsburg, VA: AidData at William & Mary.

53.

Sumida

(2017) Donor’s motivation of the educational aid. International Journal of Educational Development 55: 17–29.

54.

Sundberg

Melander

(2013) Introducing the UCDP georeferenced event dataset. Journal of Peace Research 50: 523–532.

55.

Tang

K-B

Bundhoo

(2017) Foreign aid and economic growth in developing countries: evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Theoretical Economics Letters 7(5): 1473.

56.

Willis

(2021) Theories and Practices of Development. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

57.

Winters

Dietrich

Mahmud

(2017) Perceptions of foreign aid project quality in Bangladesh. Research & Politics 4(4): 2053168017735200.

58.

Wuyts

(1996) Foreign aid, structural adjustment, and public management: the Mozambican experience. Development and Change 27(4): 717–749.