[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-600593-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-600593-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","the-aid-debate-beyond-the-liberalconservative-divide","The Aid Debate - Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide","","Examines critiques of international aid that often emphasize market solutions over aid institutions. Argues that neoliberal logic has been normalized through historical shifts, yet progressive analyses are marginalized in mainstream debates. Develops a progressive framework by redefining “progressive” usage in U.S. discourse, assesses exclusions that block Left critiques, and outlines policy actions and struggles in parts of the Third World. Treats the author as an ally within the progressive camp while challenging what is elided in the debate.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-aid-debate-beyond-the-liberalconservative-divide/600593/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-aid-debate-beyond-the-liberalconservative-divide/600593.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"OmBimo","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the essay argue about mainstream evaluations of international aid?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It states that many recent works are overwhelmingly pessimistic about aid’s effectiveness and favor markets as an antidote to international aid.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the author explain the rise of neoliberalism as “common sense”?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The author points to three moments: the fall of communist states, Third World and post-socialist states’ shift to neoliberal policy regimes, and the success of “neocon” propaganda equating markets with democracy.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What is the author’s main concern about the progressive perspective in the debate?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The author argues that Klees’ essay does not adequately elaborate progressive analysis, and that common U.S. usage of “progressive” obscures rather than clarifies, blocking Left critiques and alternatives.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},600593,1792251699,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":106,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962090893581,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","The Aid Debate: Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide  \nSangeeta Kamat  \nUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst  \nTowards the end of the twentieth century a sickness struck the world. Not everyone died, but all suffered from it. The virus which caused the epidemic was called the‘liberal virus.’ (Amin, 2003, p. 6)  \nRecent works  \ninternational  \nthat assess whether development has been well-served, or served at all, by aid, are overwhelmingly pessimistic in their assessment and in favor of the  \nmarket as the antidote to international aid (Klees, 2010) . Three of the books reviewed by Steve Klees – Easterly (2006), Moyo (2009), and Dichter (2009)– conclude that the market is a more potent mechanism for alleviating poverty and ensuring development than are aid institutions. These writings reflect the normalization of the neoliberal logic that endorses a market solution to all socio-economic issues and argues for private capital to stimulate economic development in the Third World. The underlying assumption is that economic growth and private enterprise will have spillover effects on social life and assure improvements in health and education indices, a sort of lateral version of the “trickle down” of modernization theory. While this assumption is not new and represents classic liberal thinking, the neoliberal logic inserts an additional twist and endorses private entrepreneurship and quasi-market behavior in social sectors of education and health to substitute for state and international aid investments.  \nAs Klees states at the outset, to find this view expressed by development experts is hardly surprising. To extend Klees’ argument about the ascendancy of the neoliberal perspective over the last three decades, I would append three moments that have been instrumental in mobilizing neoliberalism as the new “common sense”: i) the fall of communist states and the “end of history” that anointed western “free market” ideology as the heir apparent of a new post-cold war geopolitics; ii) the capitulation of Third World and post-socialist states to neoliberal policy regimes; and iii) the success of the “neocon” propaganda campaign that equates markets with democracy. Klees provides a faithful review of the perspectives of the five authors and rightly situates their work as representing oneof two main theoretical/political frameworks: the neoliberal and the liberal. He also identifies a third political framework, the progressive, with which he is aligned and that he finds rather scarce in the scholarship on international aid. However, I find that in his essay Klees does not adequately compensate for this lacuna; his essay focuses on the neoliberal and liberal frameworks that represent the mainstream view on aid, but offers very little elaboration of the progressive perspective that Klees endorses.  \nMy interest in this essay therefore is to extricate the progressive perspective (as defined by Klees) from its premature burial and elaborate on progressive analysis on the future of aid and development. I do this by first parsing the very category of “progressive” and contend that its typical usage within U.S. political discourse obfuscates rather than clarifies political analysis. I build on this point to argue that the ways in which the “progressive” perspective is circumscribed in Klees’ essay and within general U.S. political debate rules out Left critiques of international aid and the alternatives proposed from within this framework. Finally, I outline some recent policy actions and people’s struggles in different parts of the Third World that illustrate a Left  \n© 2010 Current Issues in Comparative Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Current Issues in Comparative Education, 13(1), 44-50.  \nThe Aid Debate: Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide  \nperspective on aid and development quite distinct from the liberal progressive critiques that we have on the table thus far.1  \nIt should be abundantly clear ","cbCaioK6hWvmp1YB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioK6hWvmp1YB","pdf",184629,"English","# Recent works\n# Restating the Terms of the Debate\n## Afghanistan and convergence among positions","[{\"question\":\"What does the essay argue about mainstream evaluations of international aid?\",\"answer\":\"It states that many recent works are overwhelmingly pessimistic about aid’s effectiveness and favor markets as an antidote to international aid.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the author explain the rise of neoliberalism as “common sense”?\",\"answer\":\"The author points to three moments: the fall of communist states, Third World and post-socialist states’ shift to neoliberal policy regimes, and the success of “neocon” propaganda equating markets with democracy.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the author’s main concern about the progressive perspective in the debate?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues that Klees’ essay does not adequately elaborate progressive analysis, and that common U.S. usage of “progressive” obscures rather than clarifies, blocking Left critiques and alternatives.\"}]","The Aid Debate - Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide | PDF",1792091004,18]