ГЕОПОЛІТИЧНІ ІМПЕРАТИВИ ДОНОРСЬКИХ ПРАКТИК: ПОРІВНЯННЯ КИТАЙСЬКОГО ТА АМЕРИКАНСЬКОГО ПІДХОДІВ ДО МІЖНАРОДНОЇ ДОПОМОГИ

Abstract

In today’s world, where geopolitical competition between major powers is taking on new forms, foreign aid is increasingly functioning not only as a tool for development but also as a means of implementing foreign policy strategies. This issue is particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing transformation of the global aid architecture, marked by the decreasing involvement of the United States and the growing influence of China. The article presents an in-depth comparative analysis of two leading models of foreign aid – the American model (implemented through the United States Agency for International Development, USAID) and the Chinese model (implemented through the China International Development Cooperation Agency, CIDCA). The author views foreign aid as a strategic policy instrument that combines declared humanitarian goals with the pursuit of geoeconomic and geopolitical advantages. The methodological basis of the research is the Most Different Systems Design (MDSD), which enables the comparison of aid structures under conditions of significant political, economic, and administrative differences between donor states. The study relies on official documents of aid agencies, reports from international organizations, aid databases, and contemporary scholarly literature on development policy, foreign assistance, and strategic donor practices. The comparison covers four key dimensions. Strategic characteristics include the analysis of core imperatives (security for the U.S. and economic for China), political conditionality, and conceptual understandings of development. Operational characteristics address aid volumes, geographic orientation, the balance between grants and loans, involvement of local actors, and the role of technical assistance. Institutional characteristics involve agency architecture, degree of centralization, inter-agency coordination, transparency, and procedural formalization. Result-based characteristics relate to implementation effectiveness, project speed, cost-efficiency, beneficiary engagement, and aid perception in recipient countries. The study concludes that both models, despite rhetorical differences, serve national interests and involve implicit forms of influence. The U.S. model features institutional continuity but suffers from political volatility and high costs. The Chinese approach is more cost-efficient and adaptive but is undermined by low transparency, economic dependence, and risks of asymmetric interaction.