Search

Research in evolutionary biology and neuroscience has recently entered a domain previously the preserve of philosophers: human morality and altruism. Save for a niche in empirical economics, such research has been widely neglected by social scientists. This article examines recent advances in life sciences to reconsider traditional explanations regarding donors' motives in granting official development assistance (ODA). Foreign aid has been remarkably persistent over the past four decades among industrialised countries and it is expanding in emerging economies, despite significant criticism surrounding its underlying motives and somewhat disappointing return on investment. Traditional international relations (IR) and economic models fall short of explaining the emergence, persistence and extension of ODA. Drawing on research on altruism in other disciplines, we build an empirical model and test the nature-vs-nurture arguments with a view to explaining ODA levels and variation over time. The results lend slightly clearer support to the nature than the nurture argument - or to altruism as hardwired rather than the product of cultural traits - and call for further interdisciplinary research including evolutionary biology and neurology to examine typical issues of interest in IR and development studies such as the determinants of ODA levels and variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Public discourse and the exchange amongst specialists is moving increasingly into the virtual space. The so-called Web 2.0 offers new possibilities to the discipline of International Relations for internal as well as external communication, and changes how we engage in the scientific endeavor. Communication is fast, decentralized and addresses new audiences that could previously not be reached. This creates risks and opportunities. Instead of using the new options and sharpening the profile of the discipline in politics and in the public perception, we all too often lose sight of the opportunities while staring at the potential risks. There is a danger of a widening language gap in the discipline of International Relations and of a loss of relevance. It could happen that the new edition of the Republic of Letters will take place without the participation of the German speaking world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]