Political, economic, and humanitarian motivations for PL 480 food aid: Evidence from Africa

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 514-537

  Ball, Richard ^a   Johnson, Christopher ^a  

^a HAVERFORD COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AID POLICY; FOOD AID; US AID;

AFRICA;

EID: 0029908961     PISSN: 00130079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/452230     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Vernon Ruttan describes the roles of Congress and various government agencies in the management of PL 480: "In contrast to other foreign assistance programs, alternative legislative and administrative channels are involved in both the authorization and the administration of food aid programs. The Senate Rules provide equal status to the Foreign Relations Committee and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. In practice, membership of the two committees has overlapped. In the House of Representatives, food aid legislation is considered by the House Agriculture Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Select Committees on Hunger. Administration of food aid is even more complex. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) determines what commodities and quantities are available; the Treasury Department sets the terms of the loans; the Office of Management and Budget determines if funding is available; the Department of State assesses the political ramifications; and the Agency for International Development implements the programs in the field. Interagency disagreements are worked out in the Food Aid Subcommittee of the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC)" (Vernon W. Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy: A Historical Review," in Why Food Aid? ed. Vernon Ruttan [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993], p. 2).
2. In discussing the role of special interest groups, Ruttan cites the "four major clients of the PL 480 program - the farm commodity groups that benefit from market development, the agribusiness firms who handle the commodities, the maritime interests that are involved in the overseas shipment of farm commodities and the private voluntary organizations involved in the distribution of Title II commodities" (Vernon Ruttan, "Does Food Aid Have a Future?" in Ruttan, ed., p. 217).
3. The exact composition of the countries included in our sample is given in app. A.
4. Helen Kitchen, U.S. Interests in Africa (New York: Praeger, 1983), p. 2; cited in Naomi Chazan, Robert Mortimer, John Ravenhill, and Donald Rothchild, Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1988), p. 373.
5. Helen Kitchen, U.S. Interests in Africa (New York: Praeger, 1983), p. 2; cited in Naomi Chazan, Robert Mortimer, John Ravenhill, and Donald Rothchild, Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1988), p. 373.
6. Chazan et al., pp. 362-81. Conflicts in the Belgian Congo (now Zaire), Ethiopia, Angola, Namibia, and Mozambique, e.g., have all attracted varying forms of intervention from the United States and the Soviet Union.
7. For more detail on the administration of PL 480 aid and on the individual titles, see "The United States Food for Peace Program" (International Trade and Development Education Foundation, Spring 1985, mimeographed), esp. pp. 35-41. See also app. 1 of Charles Hanrahan, ed., "The Effectiveness of Food Aid: Implications of Changes in Farm, Food Aid, and Trade Legislation" (proceedings of a Congressional Research Service Workshop held on April 25, 1988, June 1, 1988, mimeographed).
8. For more detail on the administration of PL 480 aid and on the individual titles, see "The United States Food for Peace Program" (International Trade and Development Education Foundation, Spring 1985, mimeographed), esp. pp. 35-41. See also app. 1 of Charles Hanrahan, ed., "The Effectiveness of Food Aid: Implications of Changes in Farm, Food Aid, and Trade Legislation" (proceedings of a Congressional Research Service Workshop held on April 25, 1988, June 1, 1988, mimeographed).
9. An excellent, up-to-date historical survey of the political economy of PL 480 is presented in Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy." Other excellent studies include Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Food for War-Food for Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980); Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala, Global Food Interdependence: Challenge to American Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), esp. chap. 3; and Kathleen Ann Cravero, "Food and Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Food Aid Policies, 1949-1979" (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1982). A succinct legislative history of PL 480, as well as text from the original legislation, is provided in Food for Peace, 1954-1978 - Major Changes in Legislation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979). For references that explicitly divide the motivations behind PL 480 aid into categories similar to the four we identify here, see James E. Austin and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, "Reformulating U.S. Food Aid Policy for Development," World Development 7 (1979): 635-46; I. M. Destler, "United States Food Policy, 1972-1976: Reconciling Domestic and International Objectives," in The Global Political Economy of Food, ed. Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Charles Hanrahan, "Farm Policy, Food Aid and Trade: A Survey of the Issues," in his edited volume The Effectiveness of Food Aid.
10. An excellent, up-to-date historical survey of the political economy of PL 480 is presented in Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy." Other excellent studies include Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Food for War-Food for Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980); Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala, Global Food Interdependence: Challenge to American Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), esp. chap. 3; and Kathleen Ann Cravero, "Food and Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Food Aid Policies, 1949-1979" (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1982). A succinct legislative history of PL 480, as well as text from the original legislation, is provided in Food for Peace, 1954-1978 - Major Changes in Legislation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979). For references that explicitly divide the motivations behind PL 480 aid into categories similar to the four we identify here, see James E. Austin and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, "Reformulating U.S. Food Aid Policy for Development," World Development 7 (1979): 635-46; I. M. Destler, "United States Food Policy, 1972-1976: Reconciling Domestic and International Objectives," in The Global Political Economy of Food, ed. Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Charles Hanrahan, "Farm Policy, Food Aid and Trade: A Survey of the Issues," in his edited volume The Effectiveness of Food Aid.
11. An excellent, up-to-date historical survey of the political economy of PL 480 is presented in Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy." Other excellent studies include Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Food for War-Food for Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980); Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala, Global Food Interdependence: Challenge to American Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), esp. chap. 3; and Kathleen Ann Cravero, "Food and Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Food Aid Policies, 1949-1979" (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1982). A succinct legislative history of PL 480, as well as text from the original legislation, is provided in Food for Peace, 1954-1978 - Major Changes in Legislation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979). For references that explicitly divide the motivations behind PL 480 aid into categories similar to the four we identify here, see James E. Austin and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, "Reformulating U.S. Food Aid Policy for Development," World Development 7 (1979): 635-46; I. M. Destler, "United States Food Policy, 1972-1976: Reconciling Domestic and International Objectives," in The Global Political Economy of Food, ed. Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Charles Hanrahan, "Farm Policy, Food Aid and Trade: A Survey of the Issues," in his edited volume The Effectiveness of Food Aid.
12. An excellent, up-to-date historical survey of the political economy of PL 480 is presented in Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy." Other excellent studies include Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Food for War-Food for Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980); Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala, Global Food Interdependence: Challenge to American Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), esp. chap. 3; and Kathleen Ann Cravero, "Food and Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Food Aid Policies, 1949-1979" (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1982). A succinct legislative history of PL 480, as well as text from the original legislation, is provided in Food for Peace, 1954-1978 - Major Changes in Legislation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979). For references that explicitly divide the motivations behind PL 480 aid into categories similar to the four we identify here, see James E. Austin and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, "Reformulating U.S. Food Aid Policy for Development," World Development 7 (1979): 635-46; I. M. Destler, "United States Food Policy, 1972-1976: Reconciling Domestic and International Objectives," in The Global Political Economy of Food, ed. Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Charles Hanrahan, "Farm Policy, Food Aid and Trade: A Survey of the Issues," in his edited volume The Effectiveness of Food Aid.
13. An excellent, up-to-date historical survey of the political economy of PL 480 is presented in Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy." Other excellent studies include Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Food for War-Food for Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980); Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala, Global Food Interdependence: Challenge to American Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), esp. chap. 3; and Kathleen Ann Cravero, "Food and Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Food Aid Policies, 1949-1979" (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1982). A succinct legislative history of PL 480, as well as text from the original legislation, is provided in Food for Peace, 1954-1978 - Major Changes in Legislation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979). For references that explicitly divide the motivations behind PL 480 aid into categories similar to the four we identify here, see James E. Austin and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, "Reformulating U.S. Food Aid Policy for Development," World Development 7 (1979): 635-46; I. M. Destler, "United States Food Policy, 1972-1976: Reconciling Domestic and International Objectives," in The Global Political Economy of Food, ed. Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Charles Hanrahan, "Farm Policy, Food Aid and Trade: A Survey of the Issues," in his edited volume The Effectiveness of Food Aid.
14. An excellent, up-to-date historical survey of the political economy of PL 480 is presented in Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy." Other excellent studies include Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Food for War-Food for Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980); Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala, Global Food Interdependence: Challenge to American Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), esp. chap. 3; and Kathleen Ann Cravero, "Food and Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Food Aid Policies, 1949-1979" (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1982). A succinct legislative history of PL 480, as well as text from the original legislation, is provided in Food for Peace, 1954-1978 - Major Changes in Legislation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979). For references that explicitly divide the motivations behind PL 480 aid into categories similar to the four we identify here, see James E. Austin and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, "Reformulating U.S. Food Aid Policy for Development," World Development 7 (1979): 635-46; I. M. Destler, "United States Food Policy, 1972-1976: Reconciling Domestic and International Objectives," in The Global Political Economy of Food, ed. Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Charles Hanrahan, "Farm Policy, Food Aid and Trade: A Survey of the Issues," in his edited volume The Effectiveness of Food Aid.
15. An excellent, up-to-date historical survey of the political economy of PL 480 is presented in Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy." Other excellent studies include Mitchel B. Wallerstein, Food for War-Food for Peace (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980); Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala, Global Food Interdependence: Challenge to American Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), esp. chap. 3; and Kathleen Ann Cravero, "Food and Politics: Domestic Sources of U.S. Food Aid Policies, 1949-1979" (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1982). A succinct legislative history of PL 480, as well as text from the original legislation, is provided in Food for Peace, 1954-1978 - Major Changes in Legislation, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, for the Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979). For references that explicitly divide the motivations behind PL 480 aid into categories similar to the four we identify here, see James E. Austin and Mitchel B. Wallerstein, "Reformulating U.S. Food Aid Policy for Development," World Development 7 (1979): 635-46; I. M. Destler, "United States Food Policy, 1972-1976: Reconciling Domestic and International Objectives," in The Global Political Economy of Food, ed. Raymond F. Hopkins and Donald J. Puchala (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Charles Hanrahan, "Farm Policy, Food Aid and Trade: A Survey of the Issues," in his edited volume The Effectiveness of Food Aid.
16. Congressional Research Service, p. 2.
17. Ibid., p. 3.
18. Ibid.
19. See the wording of the original PL 480 legislation presented in ibid., pp. 31-59.
20. Ibid., p. 34.
21. Ibid., pp. 35-36.
22. Ibid., p. 47.
23. Ibid., p. 50.
24. Wallerstein, pp. 148-49.
25. Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy," p. 19.
26. Robert C. Eggleston, "Determinants of the Levels and Distribution of PL 480 Food Aid: 1955-79," World Development 15 (1987): 797-808; quotation taken from p. 797.
27. Shahla Shapouri and Margaret Missiaen, "Food Aid: Motivation and Allocation Criteria," Foreign Agricultural Economic Report Number 240 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February 1990).
28. See the results reported in ibid., table 11, p. 27.
29. See the results presented in ibid., table 12, p. 32, and the discussion on p. 30.
30. See the results presented in ibid., table 13, p. 35, and the discussion on p. 34.
31. We thank D. Gale Johnson for this suggestion.
32. Alternatively, the strategic objectives being pursued with military aid might be related not to the internal security of the recipient country but to the donor country's interest in maintaining access to strategic ports or military facilities or rights to pass through the recipient's air space. In such cases, we would expect that arms transfers would be less closely linked to population size. Several authors have analyzed patterns of arms transfers from the United States and the Soviet Union to developing countries and identified both the enhancement of the internal security of allied nations and the maintenance of access to strategic military installations as important motivations for such aid. See Andrew J. Pierre, The Global Politics of Arms Sales (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982); Bruce E. Arlinghaus, ed., Arms for Africa (Lexington, Mass: Heath, 1983); and Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy, eds., Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
33. Alternatively, the strategic objectives being pursued with military aid might be related not to the internal security of the recipient country but to the donor country's interest in maintaining access to strategic ports or military facilities or rights to pass through the recipient's air space. In such cases, we would expect that arms transfers would be less closely linked to population size. Several authors have analyzed patterns of arms transfers from the United States and the Soviet Union to developing countries and identified both the enhancement of the internal security of allied nations and the maintenance of access to strategic military installations as important motivations for such aid. See Andrew J. Pierre, The Global Politics of Arms Sales (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982); Bruce E. Arlinghaus, ed., Arms for Africa (Lexington, Mass: Heath, 1983); and Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy, eds., Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
34. Alternatively, the strategic objectives being pursued with military aid might be related not to the internal security of the recipient country but to the donor country's interest in maintaining access to strategic ports or military facilities or rights to pass through the recipient's air space. In such cases, we would expect that arms transfers would be less closely linked to population size. Several authors have analyzed patterns of arms transfers from the United States and the Soviet Union to developing countries and identified both the enhancement of the internal security of allied nations and the maintenance of access to strategic military installations as important motivations for such aid. See Andrew J. Pierre, The Global Politics of Arms Sales (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982); Bruce E. Arlinghaus, ed., Arms for Africa (Lexington, Mass: Heath, 1983); and Stephanie G. Neuman and Robert E. Harkavy, eds., Arms Transfers in the Modern World (New York: Praeger, 1979).
35. This expectation of positive signs on the coefficients of USARMS and UNVOTING, and a negative sign on SOVARMS, reflects an underlying hypothesis that PL 480 is used to shore up alliances with friendly countries to reward behavior in the international arena that is consistent with U.S. strategic interests or to punish (by withholding food aid) countries that transgress. A potential competing hypothesis is that PL 480 might be used to woo unfriendly nations into the American camp. This hypothesis would imply that food aid would be given generously to countries receiving large quantities of Soviet military aid and to those frequently voting against the United States in the United Nations. This alternative hypothesis, however, turns out not to be borne out by the data.
36. A leading explanation of how food aid can contribute to economic development is that by increasing the supply and decreasing the price of staple commodities, or wage goods, food aid can help a country escape a Ricardian bottleneck and stimulate development in the industrial sector. For a study of a case in which this appears to have occurred, see John Cathie, Food Aid and Industrialization: The Development of the South Korean Economy (Brookfield, Vt.: Gower, 1989), pp. 176-95. A counterpoint to this argument is that by keeping agricultural prices low, food aid can also depress producer incentives and retard agricultural development. On this point, see James Bovard, "How American Food Aid Keeps the Third World Hungry," in The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, August 1, 1988). A balanced survey of these issues is presented in Paul J. Isenman and H. W. Singer, "Food Aid: Disincentive Effects and Their Policy Implications," Economic Development and Cultural Change 25 (January 1977): 205-37. All three of these works are excerpted or reprinted in Ruttan, ed. (n. 1 above).
37. A leading explanation of how food aid can contribute to economic development is that by increasing the supply and decreasing the price of staple commodities, or wage goods, food aid can help a country escape a Ricardian bottleneck and stimulate development in the industrial sector. For a study of a case in which this appears to have occurred, see John Cathie, Food Aid and Industrialization: The Development of the South Korean Economy (Brookfield, Vt.: Gower, 1989), pp. 176-95. A counterpoint to this argument is that by keeping agricultural prices low, food aid can also depress producer incentives and retard agricultural development. On this point, see James Bovard, "How American Food Aid Keeps the Third World Hungry," in The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, August 1, 1988). A balanced survey of these issues is presented in Paul J. Isenman and H. W. Singer, "Food Aid: Disincentive Effects and Their Policy Implications," Economic Development and Cultural Change 25 (January 1977): 205-37. All three of these works are excerpted or reprinted in Ruttan, ed. (n. 1 above).
38. A leading explanation of how food aid can contribute to economic development is that by increasing the supply and decreasing the price of staple commodities, or wage goods, food aid can help a country escape a Ricardian bottleneck and stimulate development in the industrial sector. For a study of a case in which this appears to have occurred, see John Cathie, Food Aid and Industrialization: The Development of the South Korean Economy (Brookfield, Vt.: Gower, 1989), pp. 176-95. A counterpoint to this argument is that by keeping agricultural prices low, food aid can also depress producer incentives and retard agricultural development. On this point, see James Bovard, "How American Food Aid Keeps the Third World Hungry," in The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, August 1, 1988). A balanced survey of these issues is presented in Paul J. Isenman and H. W. Singer, "Food Aid: Disincentive Effects and Their Policy Implications," Economic Development and Cultural Change 25 (January 1977): 205-37. All three of these works are excerpted or reprinted in Ruttan, ed. (n. 1 above).
39. Ruttan, "Does Food Aid Have a Future?" (n. 2 above), pp. 223-24.
40. In each of these regressions, to control for within-country fixed effects, we included dummy variables for each of the countries in our sample. For discussion of this least squares dummy variable model, see William H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, 2d ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1993), pp. 466-68. We report only the output concerning the nine explanatory variables of particular interest to this study, and suppress the results for the dummy variables. Because the units in which the right-hand-side variables are measured differ so drastically (USARMS, e.g., is measured in millions of inflation-adjusted dollars, INFMORT represents the number of infant deaths per thousand live births, and SUPPLY is measured in metric tons per capita), it is difficult to interpret and compare the magnitudes of the estimated coefficients. For this reason, we also report elasticities, computed at the mean values of the dependent and independent variables. See app. B for details on the units in which each of the variables is measured.
41. We do not run separate regressions for Title III because commodities transferred under this Title make up a very small proportion of total PL 480 aid, usually less than 5%.
42. U represents the sum of the two sums of squared residuals from the two unconstrained regressions (one for each of the 10-year subsamples), R equals the number of restrictions imposed (in this case there is one restriction for each parameter-that it is the same across the two subsamples - and since we have 11 parameters whose coefficients are reported plus 43 country dummies, R = 54), T equals the number of observations (757), and K equals the number of parameters (54). We calculated this statistic for each of the three forms of our regressions: with total PL 480, Title I and Title II as the left-hand-side variables. For total PL 480, the value of this statistic was 3.184, which allows us to reject the null hypothesis of equal parameters across decades with a P-value of less than .0001; for Title I the value of the statistic is 5.903, which again allows us to reject the null hypothesis with a P-value of less than .0001; and for Title II the value of the statistic is 1.639, which allows us to reject with a P-value of .0033. We thus have strong evidence that there is in fact a statistically significant difference between the 1970s and the 1980s in the coefficients on the explanatory variables. For a discussion of this Chow test, see Peter Kennedy, A Guide to Econometrics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1979), pp. 44-50, 55.
43. For USARMS, SOVARMS, and INTRES, the mean is less than the fourth percentile of the range. For POP and GNP, the mean is less than the eleventh percentile of the range.
44. We omit discussion of the market development motivation in our comparison of the 1970s and 1980s because the proxies GROWTH and IN-TRES continue to have consistently insignificant coefficients for total PL 480 and for both titles across both decades.
45. With the exception we noted of USARMS in TI/80s, which is significant in the "wrong" direction.
46. Quoted in Harvey Starr and Bruce Russett, World Politics: The Menu for Choice, 4th ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1992), p. 3.
47. Donald Rothchild and John Ravenhill, "Retreat From Globalism: U.S. Policy toward Africa in the 1990s," in Eagle in a New World: American Grand Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era, ed. Kenneth Oye, Robert Lieber, and Donald Rothchild (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), p. 390. They attribute this declining interest to "several factors . . . :The economic difficulties facing the Soviet economy and the need to reduce overseas expenditures; changing perceptions about the West and the role of capitalism in economic development; the desire not to alienate the United States on issues that are of peripheral concern to the Soviet leadership; and disappointment with the performance of Soviet clients in Africa."
48. Oye et al., eds., pp. 389-90.
49. Ruttan, "The Politics of U.S. Food Aid Policy," pp. 33-35.
50. Ibid., pp. 29, 35.