Human Rights and U.S. Aid Influences in Latin America

Aaron N. Nelson

Department of Geography

Marshall University

Capstone Project

Mentor: Anita Walz

This study was presented at theCollege of Liberal Arts Research and Creativity Conference

April 2013

Abstract

Is there a significant relationship that exists between Latin American countries that receive U.S. foreign aid and human rights violations as measured by the physical integrity of the citizens? The focus of this analysis is to identify Latin American countries and other geographic regions which could be at risk for violating the physical integrity human rights standards. A correlation analysis preformed on secondary quantitative data based on the amount of bilateral US foreign aid that is distributed and the physical integrity index values could lend significance to the existence of this relationship. This relationship may also demonstrate how U. S. foreign aid policies, which assist in determining distribution, can potentially have profound impacts on the citizens of recipient governments. Identification of the specific countries in Latin America that receive foreign aid can illustrate the geographic regions where physical integrity rights should be held to a higher standard of adherence. The results of this analysis could also provide an insight for the framework of a standardized guide for continuous, dynamic improvement of international law, policy, and relationships where human rights are conceived by governments as right and just.

Background and Introduction

There have been many studies done on the association between physical integrity rights and the impact that U. S. foreign aid has on the countries that are receiving the assistance. While many indicators can be used to measure the treatment of people by government entities, the physical integrity index is a combined index, designed by D.L. Cingranelli and D.L. Richards (2012), which gives an overview of government adherence to four important human rights, which include the freedoms from torture, extrajudicial killing, political imprisonment and forced disappearance. The physical integrity of the citizens of a particular country can be an indicator of a government’s treatment of the country’s citizens. A strong adherence to the physical integrity evidences a high government respect for their citizens’ rights, while a lower adherence to physical integrity standards lends support to a government having little respect for these rights. The grants received by each Latin American country in the form bilateral aid programs will be used in this study and it will be limited to the historical, or actual, aid amount reported by the recipient country as funds received.

A Brief History of Human Rights and Foreign Aid Beginning as early as World War II and continuing throughout the 1970s, human

rights became a dominate feature in American diplomacy. However, it wasn’t until the 1970s that human rights were explicitly stated in public laws. In this decade, human rights became entwined in law and defined as “phenomena that should trigger actions in defense of human rights abroad” which means that human rights can be measured and that the U.S.

government should react by voting to stop the foreign assistance that was being given to countries that were violating human rights law (Cingranelli & Pasquallero, 1985). Many modern democracies have once been authoritarian or totalitarian, while in these previous, non-democratic states; history indicates that there have been grave violations against the people’s human rights. Upon establishing themselves as democracies, these grave abuses have been drastically reduced (Gibney, 1997).

Also, during the 1970s, human rights were given priority in foreign policy decisions and Congress wrote the formal requirements in regard to restriction and denial of foreign aid to violating countries (Apodaca, 2005). The policy shifted from one centered on national security to one with earmarks of the inclusion of human rights. This became an integral and legitimate part of U. S. Foreign Aid policy, mostly due to the international human rights movement. However, it was the seven year period encompassing the years from 1973 to 1980 that U. S. foreign policy was altered to explicitly incorporate human rights into the foreign policy calculation. It was during this time that human rights policies began to influence the dynamics of nations with military dictatorships. Human rights became institutionalized as part of diplomacy as well as the policy making process in the United States through the promotion of democracy, thus, human rights can offer a different policy framework for policy making decisions. This bases the framework on human rights as an “overarching policy paradigm on par with containment, anticommunism or antiterrorism” and not as just a secular matter themselves (Schmitz, 2006).

Literature Review

Defining Human Rights When discussing human rights, a concept of view is helpful to put the information in

perspective, and assist in deriving meanings and possible guidelines of appropriate actions. The concept of human rights identifies rights as higher order norms, which can in turn define the minimum conditions and practices that institutions should meet. Occasionally, these minimum conditions and practices are met by adhering to the rule of law, where officials are given general guidelines that assist them in discriminating legal treatment from arbitrary treatment. However, as the concept of human rights can be conceived in different ways, the view also changes. The most general concept of human rights is understood as standards of legitimacy, forcing human rights to be seen as universal, basic and inalienable. In this conceptual model, human rights are expressed in the normal grammar of rightness and justice. These concepts provide standard guides for the dynamic improvement of international law and relations (Chwaszcza, 2010).

There are many institutions and persons that have attempted to define human rights, some with more success than others. The most widely accepted and simplistic definition of human rights is generally accepted as those rights that people have simply because they are human, these rights respect human dignity and force governments to uphold human rights as fundamental to each person (Chwaszcza, 2010). Amnesty International defines human rights as “basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language or other status.” Amnesty continues to include civil and political rights as well as social, cultural and economic rights (Amnesty International, 2012). Human rights are also defined by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is an entity of the United Nations. OHCHR defines human rights as rights that all humans are entitled to without discrimination because they are inherent to all human beings these rights are considered to be interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. Human Rights are usually guaranteed by treaties and international law of various forms, which, obligates governments to practices certain behaviors and refrain from others (United Nations, 2012). The most influential document in the international laws and treaties is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed on December 10, 1948, outlines the general human rights that a person or persons is given just because they are of the human family tree.

Defining Physical Integrity The quantitative data that were gathered from the Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human

Rights Data Project are measures of government human rights practices. It is important to note that this index does not reflect the human rights conditions of a country; the rate of occurrence is reported as the practices of a government and its officials. The physical integrity index is a combination of four categories of human rights practiced by governments. The index is constructed from the torture, extrajudicial killing, political imprisonment and disappearance values that range from 0 to 2. The physical integrity index sums the values for the four human rights categories and the sums may range from 0, indicating frequent violations of these rights, to 8, or little to no occurrences of violations of rights (Cingranelli& Richards, 2008a).

Torture is noted as the infliction of extreme pain, mental or physical, the use of physical force and other forces by law officers/government officials that are considered to be cruel, inhumane or degrading, that are carried out by government officials or private individuals and whose command originated from government officials of some type. Also a custodial death that has occurred while a person has been in custody that was caused by government negligence is also included in torture (Cingranelli & Richards, 2008a).

Extrajudicial killings are classified as killings that have taken place without due process of law and have been carried out by government officials and/or private groups. This classification applies if the killing that occurred was ordered by government officials. The deliberate, illegal and excessive use of lethal force by police, security forces or other agents of the state resulting in the death of a person is also defined as extrajudicial killing (Cingranelli, 2012).

Political imprisonment is defined as the incarceration of a person or persons by government officials due to speech, non-violent opposition to government, religious beliefs, non-violent religious practices or membership in a group, including racial or ethnic groups.

Disappearances are defined as instances where a person disappears, stimulus for this disappearance is most likely political and the person has not been found. Knowledge of the whereabouts of the person in question are not known, however, the party that is responsible for the disappearance is usually known as are the circumstances under which the person was taken(Cingranelli, 2012).

This database is designed for use by scholars and students who seek to test theories about the causes and consequences of human rights violations, as well as policy makers and analysts who seek to estimate the human rights effects of a wide variety of institutional changes and public policies including, but not limited to, democratization, economic aid, military aid, structural adjustment, and humanitarian intervention. The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset contains standards-based quantitative information on government respect for 15 internationally recognized human rights for 195 countries, annually from 1981-2010 (Cingranelli& Richards, 2008a). Data provided by CIRI describes a wide variety of government human rights practices over a 29-year period and it is replicable and reliable; it can be requested at any time for further analysis or new analysis and reliability scores are available for each human rights variable. Data is gathered on an annual basis by coding the US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as well as Amnesty International's Annual Report according to the guidelines that are set forth by CIRI. The variables are scored with 0, 1 and 2, where 0 indicates frequent occurrences of human rights violations, 1 indicates the occasional occurrence of human rights violations and 2 indicates no occurrence of human rights violations (Cingranelli& Richards, 2008b). These measurements can be analyzed separately or they can be combined into indices. The physical integrity index is one of these indices and it will be used in this study.

Defining U.S. Bilateral AidAid programs were originally designed to stimulate economic development and policy

reforms. U.S. bilateral aid is the foreign aid that the United States gives a country that is participating in programs that are sponsored by the government and this aid supports many different objectives. This is considered as economic assistance and it includes several

programs that provide assistance in many forms such as loans, grants, commodities and training. The goals of U.S. aid programs is to support five core operational goals (Tarnoff & Nowles, 2005)

1. Promote transformational development2. Strengthening fragile states3. Providing humanitarian assistance4. Supporting U.S. geostrategic interests5. Mitigating global and international ills

There are various types of aid and each type supports different objectives. Bilateral aid assistance is designed to foster sustainable economic progress and social stability and these funds are managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which became an independent agency in 1999 and it serves under the Secretary of State. These aid assistance programs are generally used for long term projects, private sector development, democracy promotion, environmental protection, population and human health. USAID is directly responsible for most bilateral assistance programs jointly with the Department of State. Some bilateral assistance may go to distinct government funded institutions such as Peace Corps and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which are administered by the State Department. Other bilateral aid supports U.S. political and security objectives such as the Economic Support Fund (ESF) and these funds may be used for development projects or in other ways that assist countries in stabilizing their economies (Tarnoff & Nowles, 2005).

The amount of bilateral aid for this study was gathered from the U. S. Overseas Loans and Grants, more commonly known as Greenbook. Greenbook is updated annually and it contains data about U.S. Government foreign assistance since 1952, this data is for public use and has been made available due to public demand (U. S. Overseas Loans and Grants, 2013). The data contained within this source is in monetary funds that have been recorded over a considerable amount of time. Greenbook gives information in several ways; however the most common are the historical dollar amounts, which are the actual amount of funds that was given to a country while the constant dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation (U. S. Overseas Loans and Grants, 2013). Reported by the recipient country and further organized by geographic region, the data is categorized as either economic or military assistance. The historical dollar amount will be used in this study and it will be gathered for each of the countries in and it will encompass the yeas of 2000 though 2010.

U.S. Foreign Aid and Human Rights PoliciesThe human rights policy of the United States combines a unique blend of

humanitarian and strategic concerns that intersect foreign policy, foreign aid and the concept of human rights. This unique and complex blend of humanitarian and strategic concerns affects the actors within the foreign policy decision making process. This also influences the allocation of foreign aid which is also an important mechanism to further national interests as an indispensable tool for policy makers when they are making decisions on foreign policy, security and humanitarian problems that encounter them. The intention behind these policy decisions was to “distance the U.S. from the morally reprehensible behavior of foreign aid recipients” with the side intention of directing foreign aid to more democratic regimes that were respecting the human rights of their populations(Apodaca, 2005).

Bilateral aid is managed by USAID directly and sometimes it is jointly managed by USAID and the State Department. Congress appropriates funds for all of these activities and USAID organizes bilateral assistance around three strategic “pillars” that allocate resources to fourteen specific programs. The three strategic pillars are global health, economic growth and democracy. Congress appropriates most foreign aid funds through the Foreign Operations appropriations bill which is assessed annually and represents direct congressional actions on foreign assistance decisions (Tarnoff & Nowles, 2005).

The distribution of aid, which is highly scrutinized by Congress, should show the stipulations in effect; however it reveals evidence that supports either the adherence or the lack thereof to the human rights policies of the United States. Policymakers, however, only recognize human need as the important determinate for providing foreign assistance. Various congressional committees and subcommittees maintain primary responsibility for U.S. foreign assistance and these committees are the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on International Relations with food aid falling under the responsibilities of the Agricultural Committees. Although human rights are an intertwined factor within the foreign aid policies of the United States, economic aid is rarely denied due to their human rights performance of the country because the U. S. aid projects are designed to basically meet the basic human needs of the poverty stricken portions of the populations. Because of the need to meet the basic human needs of this section of the population, almost all U. S. aid loans and grants can be given without consideration or assessment of the human rights within the country that is applying for the assistance (Cingranelli & Pasquallero, 1985). The appropriation of foreign aid is provided wholly through the subcommittee of the Appropriations panels in the House and the Senate; most foreign aid funding falls within the Foreign Operations Subcommittee with the exception of food aid (Tarnoff & Nowles, 2005).

Previous StudiesVarious studies have been conducted to evaluate the association between U. S.

foreign assistance programs and the government’s respect for human rights. Various conclusions have been reached, though not all studies have been conducted in the same manner. As found in one study which was conducted by D. L. Cingranelli and T. E. Pasquallero (1985), the decision process was classified as “routine” when aid decisions for Latin American aid distributions were debated. They further dissected the decision process into to a two-fold process. However the findings of this study did not show a consistent relationship between the human rights practices and distribution of aid monies yet the results did suggest that the human rights practices of the Latin American government may be of greater importance to the U. S. policymakers. This was a bold conclusion to come to and it has been examined by other researchers, who have responded by reanalyzing the information that was presented. In a responding study, conducted by J. M. McCormick and N. Mitchell (1988) an inclusive research model was used in place of the model that excluded some countries, based on development. When this analysis was applied, it did not show human rights were important factors in aid decisions due to the inclusion of all Latin American countries and the inclusion of physical integrity, which is most commonly used as the standard for evaluating human rights.

Materials and MethodologiesIt was crucial to summarize the data so that it could be arranged into meaningful sets

that could be evaluated. The physical integrity index from the CIRI Human Rights Data Project (2012) was first cleaned to provide values for only Latin American countries. Since the physical integrity index is an additive index, it was verified by calculating the sum of torture, forced disappearances, political imprisonment and extrajudicial killings human rights values. Each Latin American country was displayed as a record with each field in the table representing one year of values from 2000 to 2010 (Table 1).

Latin America Physical Integrity Index Values

Country 2000200

1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Argentina 3 3 4 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 5

Bolivia 4 7 7 4 5 6 6 4 4 6 5Brazil 2 3 4 4 4 4 2 5 5 3 5Chile 4 6 8 6 5 7 7 5 5 5 7

Colombia 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 6 5 1 5Ecuador 6 4 5 3 7 4 4 6 7 4 7

Guyana 6 6 4 4 3 5 5 2 2 5 3Paraguay 4 5 4 6 7 6 4 6 7 6 8

Peru 4 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 5 4Suriname ND 5 ND 6 8 6 6 7 8 7 8Uruguay 7 8 8 6 5 6 8 7 7 7 6

Venezuela 4 4 4 4 6 2 2 5 6 3 6Belize 5 7 6 6 0 5 6 0 0 6 1

Costa Rica 6 7 7 7 5 7 7 6 7 7 7El Salvador 6 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5Guatemala 2 4 4 5 4 6 5 4 4 6 3Honduras 6 6 6 5 7 5 5 7 7 2 4

Mexico 2 2 2 3 6 3 1 6 6 3 6Nicaragua 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 7 6 5 7Panama 6 7 8 7 4 6 7 3 4 7 4

Antigua & Barbuda ND 7 ND 7 4 7 7 6 5 7 4Bahamas ND 7 ND 6 4 7 6 4 4 6 4Barbados ND 7 ND 7 6 7 6 7 5 7 7

Cuba 4 5 4 4 6 4 4 8 8 4 6Dominica ND 7 ND 7 2 6 7 2 3 7 2

Dominican Republic 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 7 6 4 6Grenada ND 8 ND 8 5 6 6 6 6 7 6

Haiti 5 4 3 2 5 2 4 6 5 5 4Jamaica 7 6 6 5 7 5 5 7 7 5 7

Saint Kitts & Nevis ND 7 ND 8 7 8 8 7 7 8 7Saint Lucia ND 6 ND 8 2 6 5 5 5 5 6

Saint Vincent ND 6 ND 7 4 5 7 5 5 5 4Trinidad and Tobago 8 7 7 6 7 6 6 5 5 6 6

Table 1 The physical integrity index values of Latin American countries over a specific time period of 2000-2010. ND values indicate no data for an identified year.

The data acquired from U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants Programs (2013) or Greenbook was also summarized in the same manner as the physical integrity index. The monetary data was first cleaned to include only Latin American countries and the time frame of 2000-2010; this displayed the amount of aid that each country received per each program and year. The total amount of bilateral aid per country per year was then calculated (Table 2).

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TotalColombia 1,037.07 69.29 384.64 482.62 475.03 566.88 1,117.18 280.93 713.71 710.66 675.50 6,513.53

Haiti 77.40 91.91 32.15 83.36 158.31 223.80 241.47 208.26 309.12 366.03 1,406.35 3,198.18Peru 192.88 191.72 269.03 220.13 262.03 183.36 326.47 156.77 150.81 140.43 187.97 2,281.61

Bolivia 232.68 180.64 171.19 202.11 173.61 156.70 219.70 179.35 126.83 100.13 97.27 1,840.21Mexico 23.85 32.77 79.59 53.29 82.45 92.13 170.11 72.97 82.58 430.92 622.25 1,742.91

El Salvador 43.92 130.31 113.19 56.83 59.72 49.33 50.94 241.50 199.75 139.65 124.96 1,210.09Guatemala 85.49 81.01 87.31 82.17 74.22 94.48 83.90 78.06 108.29 138.02 159.74 1,072.68Honduras 46.11 49.94 45.96 69.13 57.16 258.29 85.52 59.63 68.90 25.15 112.74 878.54Nicaragua 34.36 65.10 51.81 65.56 59.14 94.42 111.13 52.96 118.96 38.54 44.33 736.32Ecuador 70.92 46.88 64.48 65.58 71.49 66.21 52.53 44.40 30.33 20.06 45.26 578.14

Dominican Republic 18.10 38.68 20.22 36.57 40.99 32.95 42.89 54.05 51.33 67.22 88.25 491.26Jamaica 30.95 34.73 21.72 24.26 36.71 62.94 33.68 33.87 20.32 34.45 34.40 368.03

Brazil 20.11 20.02 24.34 40.42 24.63 46.63 37.63 20.03 36.33 41.97 31.19 343.29Paraguay 9.06 13.43 15.37 13.20 18.53 12.95 51.79 16.51 14.87 55.77 27.68 249.17Panama 12.00 10.77 18.17 16.65 21.53 17.65 28.42 24.34 11.58 24.48 33.88 219.47Guyana 11.45 16.73 5.72 10.08 20.02 21.34 20.12 29.99 28.35 21.94 18.28 204.02

Cuba 4.34 3.60 7.50 9.01 12.43 15.32 17.57 12.10 33.96 21.51 14.90 152.23Venezuela 8.85 4.34 11.12 10.08 11.25 8.95 9.46 7.50 18.67 5.97 10.22 106.42Costa Rica 1.29 3.22 11.59 2.67 3.51 4.24 4.75 6.47 6.32 6.10 8.81 58.96

Chile 0.68 1.97 0.54 2.00 1.62 2.37 0.98 1.06 2.51 5.17 29.21 48.12Bahamas 1.00 1.20 1.71 1.41 1.57 1.86 1.00 1.82 6.69 3.13 7.58 28.97Argentina 1.04 2.08 0.88 0.66 1.87 0.93 2.05 7.91 2.93 2.36 5.76 28.47

Belize 1.68 1.85 1.91 1.75 1.95 1.93 1.91 2.18 1.95 2.62 5.97 25.68Suriname 0.04 0.81 0.86 1.14 1.21 2.01 1.36 1.40 0.01 1.94 1.83 12.62Barbados 0.69 1.21 0.22 0.43 0.79 1.62 2.94 0.32 0.17 0.17 0.51 9.06

Trinidad & Tobago 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.03 1.35 0.21 0.04 1.41 0.75 1.02 0.35 6.55

Uruguay 57.53 120.84 113.41 35.93 468.49 608.40 0.00 567.15 658.04 972.11 562.33 4,164.23Saint Vincent 0 0 0 0 0 23.67 53.12 0 0 79.00 199.91 355.70

Dominica 0 0 0 0 0 30.00 29.45 58.27 0 51.50 0.17 169.39Antigua & Barbuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.76 0 0 25.09 118.29 160.13

Saint Lucia 0 2.56 2.56 0 0 0 0 22.18 18.25 0.17 0 45.72Grenada 153.47 8,328.66 10.00 10.00 4,690.36 1,403.74 19,869.88 3,407.04 2.45 17.34 0.25 37,893.19

Saint Kitts & Nevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Bilateral Aid

Thousands of Dollars

Millions of Dollars

Table 2 The total amount of bilateral aid received per Latin American country for each year of the study period in millions of dollars or thousands of dollars. Amounts in this table were calculated by summing the amount of aid per each program for each year.

Correlation analysis was employed in this research to estimate the statistical relationship between U.S. bilateral aid amounts and the physical integrity index values for the whole region of Latin America combined and each sub-region that is contained within Latin America separately. The analysis was performed for each year separately as well as for all years combined and for the time periods from 2000 to 2004 and from 2005 to 2010. P-values were extracted as a measure of correlation strength (or significance).

ResultsTable 3 shows the strength of the correlation (p-value). Signs have also been

included to indicate each correlation as positive or negative. Significant p-values (less than or equal to 0.05) are highlighted in bold.

P-Values for Latin America and the Sub-Regions

Year CaribbeanMexico and Central America

South America

Latin America

2000 + 0.7067 - 0.2384 - 0.0236 - 0.00632001 - 0.0059 - 0.7699 - 0.7609 - 0.11642002 - 0.2582 - 0.1431 - 0.1441 - 0.25822003 - 0.0002 - 0.0634 - 0.0004 - 0.00002004 + 0.6975 + 0.1135 - 0.0977 - 0.44882005 - 0.0023 - 0.4060 - 0.0076 - 0.00002006 - 0.0806 - 0.0025 - 0.0322 - 0.00072007 + 0.5936 - 0.5251 + 0.9615 - 0.78762008 - 0.9852 - 0.6460 - 0.8684 - 0.70962009 - 0.2793 - 0.3375 - 0.0146 - 0.00112010 - 0.4322 + 0.9116 - 0.7453 - 0.43332000-04 - 0.0162 - 0.3600 - 0.0000 - 0.00002005-10 - 0.0160 - 0.6448 - 0.0000 - 0.00002000-10 - 0.0380 - 0.1008 - 0.0008 - 0.0000

Table 3 This displays a summary of correlation analysis output for each sub-region and the whole region of Latin America. Bold numbers indicate a significant relationship between the variables.

The Caribbean sub-region correlation output present results that display three of eleven years that indicate significant p-values. These significant values occurred for the years of 2001, 2003, and 2005 while the remainder of the values are indicative of insignificant relationships. Mexico and Central America annual correlations are well above the generally accepted 0.05 with only one year demonstrating a significant value. The Mexico and Central American correlation output only produced one p-value that indicated there was a significant relationship between U.S. bilateral aid and physical integrity values, 2006. Annual correlation results for South America indicate that the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables range from significant to insignificant with six of the years displaying insignificant results and the rest of the years showing insignificant results. The Latin America correlation output also point to a variation in the relationship of U.S. bilateral aid amounts and the physical integrity index values. Five of the annual correlation p-values indicate a significant relationship, which occurred in the years of 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2009 while the remaining six years indicate an insignificant relationship. From the total forty-four annual correlations, fifteen of the output results

indicate a significant relationship between the variables of U.S. bilateral aid and the physical integrity index values.

Eight grouped correlation analyses were performed, four for the years of 2000-2004 and four for the years of 2005-2010, which were performed on each sub-region and Latin America, which returned various results in the correlation output p-values. The Caribbean exhibited values that indicated a significant relationship between the variables of U.S. bilateral aid and physical integrity values as did South America. Mexico and Central America however, displayed results that indicated that there was not a significant relationship between the variables in this sub-region while Latin America’s correlation output returned values that were well below the significant p-value of 0.05 which showed a highly significant relationship between the variables.

Four correlation analyses were performed for the overall time period of 2000-2010, each sub-region and the Latin American region produced output p-values which were compared against the significant p-value of 0.05. The Caribbean sub-region correlation output returned a significant p-value while Mexico and Central America’s p-value was insignificant; South America’s correlation output indicated a significant relationship between the variables. The overall correlation result for the entire Latin American region returned a p-value that indicates a highly significant relationship between U. S. bilateral aid and physical integrity index values for the region.

The total amount of U.S. bilateral aid and the average physical integrity value was used to create map that allows for the comparison of the two variables (Figure 1). The color scheme in the map indicates “good” as green and “bad” as red even though the legend for each map is reversed. The aid per capita indicates low amounts of aid with green and high amounts of aid with red while the average physical integrity map indicates low scores as red and high scores with green. The aid per capita was figured by total aid divided by the 2010 population which produced the map on the left. The average physical integrity was calculated by averaging the physical integrity scores for each country over the eleven year period from 2000 to 2010.

Figure 1 Total amount of U.S. bilateral aid per capita (left) and the average physical integrity index value (right). Island counties are not labeled in these images.

The average physical integrity for each country was used to create a map that displays a range of values that indicate the occurrence of human rights violations committed by the government of each country. Colombia displays the lowest value of 2.09 which indicates very frequent violations of the citizens’ physical integrity. Any country that has a physical integrity value of less than five indicates that physical integrity is often violated by the government/government officials. Few countries possess values that indicate less frequent occurrences of physical integrity violations. While violations of physical integrity are considered to be frequent in most of the countries in Latin America, the bilateral aid that is received by violating countries is not always low. While there are several countries that have received small amounts of bilateral aid per capita, there are also many violating countries that receive a large amount of aid.

The data was further examined by plotting the physical integrity index value and the total amount of bilateral aid in millions of dollars. Figure 2 illustrates this data, with shows that the countries that have the highest physical integrity values receive the least amount of aid on a consistent basis, while the countries that have mid-level to lower level physical integrity values receive greater amounts of aid.

0 50000000 100000000 150000000 200000000 250000000 300000000012345678

2000-2010

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 2 The scatter plot shows the amount of bilateral aid received and the physicalintegrity index of each country over an eleven year period from 2000 to 2010.

Each year was also examined to determine any outliers that were within the data (the scatter plots for each year are provided in Appendix B). The outliers were examined to find the country and the bilateral aid program that caused the country to be classified as an outlier within the data. The most common country to be classified as an outlier was Colombia and the program that caused the increase in aid funds was identified as Narcotics Control, which made it necessary to determine the total amount of bilateral aid per program. The bilateral aid amounts per program were used to generate a pie chart that identified the total amount of bilateral aid per program as a percentage of the total amount of aid received by Latin American countries (Figure 3). Table 4 is a listing of each program and the percentage of aid that each program contributes.

Child Health and Survival

Development AssistanceDevelopment Security

Assistance

Emergency Security Funds

Food for Education

Global HIV and Aids Ini-tiative

Global Health and Child Survival

Millinnium ChallengeMigration and Refugee

Assistance

Narcotics Con-trol

Non-Proliferation and Anti-Terrorism

Other Grant ProgramsOther FoodAID

Other StateAIDOther USAID

Peace Corps Title ITitle II

Bilateral Aid per Program

Figure 3 U.S. Bilateral Aid per program.

Bilateral Aid per ProgramProgram Percent of Total Total Per Program

Child Health and Safety 4% $925,781,567Development Assistance 11% $2,438,074,651

Development Security Assistance 2% $429,931,247Emergency Security Assistance 11% $2,552,360,646

Food for Education 1% $141,724,943Global HIV and Aids Initiative 1% $224,959,222

Global Health and Child Survival 3% $648,264,425Millennium Challenge 4% $906,704,632

Migration and Refugee Assistance 1% $133,752,021Narcotics Control 42% $9,395,780,735

Non-Proliferation and Anti-Terrorism 0% $65,770,662OGP 3% $758,609,417

Other Food Aid 1% $260,182,609Other State Aid 1% $112,402,908

Other USAID 6% $1,284,145,671Peace Corps 2% $417,531,604

Title I 1% $321,006,440 Title II 6% $1,428,071,715

Table 4 Bilateral aid per program expressed as a percent of the total funds to Latin America.

Due to finding that almost half of the total budget for assistance programs to Latin America is contributed by Narcotics Control, a map was generated to display that total amount of aid including Narcotics Control and excluding Narcotics Control (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Bilateral aid amounts including Narcotics Control (right) and excluding Narcotics Control (left).

When evaluating the differences between bilateral aid with and without Narcotics control, the differences are apparent. When Narcotics control is excluded from the total bilateral aid, there is a four billion dollar difference in the amount of bilateral aid flowing into Latin America. This substantial difference impacts the classification of Latin American countries which can be seen on the above maps. Some countries are displayed in higher classifications when Narcotics control is not included and these classifications change when Narcotics Control is included, however other countries such as the Andean Region remain in similar classification classes.

While Narcotics Control is a large portion of the total bilateral aid to Latin America, the

further evaluation of bilateral aid was necessary to find how the bilateral aid was being dispersed. The

aid programs were grouped according to type of funds and this produced four classifications which are

food programs, humanitarian programs, security programs and other programs. The programs were classified by the type or the majority use of the aid. A chart was produced to show the

percentage of each type of aid program (Figure 5).

Security Aid74%

Humanitarian Aid18%

Other Aid6%

Food Aid1%

Figure 5 Aid programs grouped by type of assistance.

Each program type was used to produce a map to display the total aid to Latin America per each program grouping. The majority of aid was dispersed by security programs, at 74% of the total aid to Latin America, while food aid and humanitarian aid dispersed 1% and 18%, respectively. Other aid was shown to comprise 7% of the total aid. These results can be seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6 U.S. bilateral aid programs, total per each type of program.

Discussion The annual results suggest that on a yearly basis, there is not a consistent

significant relationship between the variables of U. S. bilateral aid amounts to each country and the physical integrity index value of each country in Latin America and its sub-regions. Latin America and each sub-region on an annual basis produced insufficient significant p-values to assume that there is a relationship between the two variables.

Grouped years correlation results suggest that in a given time period, each sub-region and Latin America as a whole vary in relationship significance between the variables of U. S. bilateral aid and physical integrity index values. Two sub-regions, the Caribbean and South America, exhibit significant p-values for each of the grouped correlations; however the Mexico and Central American sub-region did not exhibit any significance between the variables of this study. There is a relationship between the variables of U.S. bilateral aid and physical integrity values for the Caribbean and South American sub-regions but, there is not a significant relationship for the Mexico and Central American sub-region. When Latin America, as a region was examined in these grouped correlation outputs, it was evident that there was a significant relationship between the U. S. bilateral aid amount and the physical integrity index values for Latin America due to the p-values that were returned in the correlation analysis.

The Latin American region has produced sufficient results indicating that over time, there is a relationship between the U.S. bilateral aid received and physical integrity index values and this relationship is considered to be significant. Although the annual results did not return sufficient significant p-values, the correlation analysis that was performed on the grouped and overall time frames did return sufficient significant p-values that indicate a relationship between these variables. While U.S. Foreign Aid policies still include the human rights requirements, it can be seen that human rights issues do not provide a great deal of influence while aid amounts are being decided by the congressional committees. Human rights are entwined in the policies however they are not being closely examined when aid is being decided.

ConclusionThe identification of this significant relationship indicates that the U. S. should

look more closely at the human rights practices of these governments when making decisions concerning aid distribution to this region of the world. The adherence to physical integrity standards should be considered when aid is applied for by each of these countries. The practices of these governments, as far as human rights are concerned could possibly be influenced by the amount of bilateral aid this region’s countries receive. Latin America should be looked at closely when aid funds are being allocated for each program, humanitarian programs and food programs seem to have the least budgeted and security programs have the highest budgets. The amount of security aid to Latin America indicates that human rights are not considered fully when aid allocation is being evaluated and the intertwined human rights policies are being circumvented for one reason or another. These would appear to be regions that have high rates of human rights violations and high amounts of aid being received. Countries with low physical integrity values indicate a lack of adherence to the human rights clause within the foreign policy. Aid has been given regardless of human rights violations for various regions; however the most highly funded programs are security programs.

There are many things that this study did not address that should be looked at, such as the exact process of aid dispersal and allocation and the disaggregated values of the physical integrity index. New questions have been revealed by this study such as does one human rights value have more influence than another and if a specific program has more influence over human rights practices. Further recommendations for additional research are not limited by the suggestions offered previously. There are many aspects to this relationship that would have to be examined to fully understand the relationship between U.S. bilateral aid programs and physical integrity index values of Latin America.

BibliographyAmnesty International. (2012, September 2). Human Rights Basics. Retrieved from Amnesty

International USA: http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics

Apodaca, C. (2005). U. S. Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance: A Short History. Ritsumeidan International Affairs. Vol.3, 63-80.

Chwaszcza, C. (2010). The Concept of Human Rights in Contemporary Human Rights Discourse. Ratio Juris, 23:3, 333-364.

Cingranelli, D. L. and Richards, D. L. 2008 (a).The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI)Human Rights Data Project Coding Manual Version 2008.3.13.http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_coding_guide.pdf

Cingarnelli, D. L. (2012).Short Variable Descriptions for Indicators in the Cingarnelli-Richards Human Rights Dataset. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from CIRI: http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation.asp

Cingranelli, D. L., Pasquarello, T. E. (1985). Human Rights Practices and the Distribution of U. S. Foreign Aid to Latin American Countries. American Journal of Political Science, 29:3, 539-563.

Cingranelli, D.L., Richards, D.L. (2012). The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project. Human Rights Quarterly, 32:2, 401-424.

CIRI. (2011, October 4). CIRI Human Rights Data Project. Retrieved October 13, 2011, from http://ciri.binghamton.edu/

Gibney, M. (1997). Prosecuting Human Rights Violations From a Previous Regime: East European Experience. East European Quarterly, XXXI:1, 93-110.

McCormick, J. M., Mitchell, N. (1988). Is U. S. Aid Really Linked to Human Rights in Latin America? American Journal of Political Science, 32:1, 231-239.

Schmitz, D. F. (2006). Feature Review: The Human Rights Framework. Diplomatic History, 30:2, 311-314.

Tarnoff, C., Nowles, L. (2005). Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy. Report for Congress, 1-37.

United Nations.(2012, 10 14).Human Rights. Retrieved from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/rights/

CIRI. (2011, October 4). CIRI Human Rights Data Project. Retrieved October 13, 2011, from http://ciri.binghamton.edu/

U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants. (2013, Febuary 17). Retrieved from U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants: http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/

Appendix A.

Bilateral Aid Tables

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TotalColombia 16% 1% 6% 8% 7% 9% 17% 4% 11% 11% 10% 100% 6,513,533,393

Haiti 2% 3% 1% 3% 5% 7% 8% 6% 10% 11% 44% 100% 3,198,177,881Peru 8% 8% 12% 10% 12% 8% 14% 7% 7% 6% 8% 100% 2,281,611,474

Bolivia 13% 10% 9% 11% 9% 9% 12% 10% 7% 5% 5% 100% 1,840,213,032Mexico 1% 2% 4% 3% 5% 5% 10% 4% 5% 25% 36% 100% 1,742,914,519

El Salvador 4% 11% 9% 5% 5% 4% 4% 20% 16% 12% 10% 100% 1,210,094,370Guatemala 8% 7% 8% 8% 7% 9% 8% 7% 10% 13% 15% 100% 1,072,680,499Honduras 5% 6% 5% 8% 6% 29% 10% 7% 8% 3% 13% 100% 878,535,408Nicaragua 5% 9% 7% 9% 8% 13% 15% 7% 16% 5% 6% 100% 736,319,199Ecuador 12% 8% 11% 11% 12% 12% 9% 8% 5% 4% 8% 100% 578,142,884

Dominican Republic 4% 8% 4% 7% 8% 7% 9% 11% 10% 14% 18% 100% 491,261,847Jamaica 8% 10% 6% 7% 10% 17% 9% 9% 6% 9% 9% 100% 368,028,507

Brazil 6% 6% 7% 12% 7% 14% 11% 6% 10% 12% 9% 100% 343,294,435Paraguay 4% 5% 6% 5% 8% 5% 21% 7% 6% 22% 11% 100% 249,165,445Panama 6% 5% 8% 8% 10% 8% 13% 11% 5% 11% 15% 100% 219,465,598Guyana 5% 8% 3% 5% 10% 10% 10% 15% 14% 11% 9% 100% 204,023,856

Cuba 3% 2% 5% 6% 8% 10% 12% 8% 22% 14% 10% 100% 152,229,384Venezuela 8% 4% 10% 9% 11% 8% 9% 7% 18% 6% 10% 100% 106,415,402Costa Rica 2% 5% 20% 5% 6% 7% 8% 11% 11% 10% 15% 100% 58,958,761

Chile 2% 4% 1% 4% 3% 5% 2% 2% 5% 11% 61% 100% 48,124,555Grenada 0% 22% 0% 0% 12% 4% 53% 9% 0% 0% 0% 100% 37,893,189Bahamas 4% 4% 6% 5% 5% 6% 4% 6% 23% 11% 26% 100% 28,965,980Argentina 4% 8% 3% 2% 7% 3% 7% 28% 10% 8% 20% 100% 28,471,067

Belize 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 7% 8% 8% 10% 23% 100% 25,681,911Suriname 0% 6% 7% 9% 10% 16% 11% 11% 0% 15% 15% 100% 12,621,760Barbados 8% 13% 2% 5% 9% 18% 32% 3% 2% 2% 6% 100% 9,061,957

Trinidad & Tobago 6% 15% 0% 0% 21% 3% 1% 22% 11% 16% 5% 100% 6,552,455Uruguay 1% 3% 3% 1% 11% 15% 0% 14% 16% 23% 13% 100% 4,164,226

Saint Vincent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 15% 0% 0% 22% 56% 100% 355,695Dominica 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 17% 34% 0% 31% 0% 100% 169,387

Antigua & Barbuda 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 16% 74% 100% 160,130Saint Lucia 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 48% 40% 0% 0% 100% 45,724

Saint Kitts & Nevis 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0

6 countries recived 40% or more total funds in one year, Haiti (earthquake), Chile, Grenada, St. Vincent, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia.5 countries received less than 1 million dollars for the entire study period, St. Vincent, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts4 countries received more than 40% of their total aid in 2010, Haiti, Chile, St. Vincent, and Antigua and Barbuda

Bilateral Aid (Percent per Year)

Table 5 Total aid received expressed as a percentage for each year from 2000 to 2010.

Security Aid per Country

Country ESFSSA NADTR DSA NC Total Security Funds TotalAntigua & Barbuda 0 16756 0 0 16756 33512Argentina 0 1763995 106858 1468624 3339477 6678954Bahamas 0 1935802 222985 7643337 9802124 19604248Barbados 0 1003854 115000 4360293 5479147 10958294Belize 0 0 186345 3843623 4029968 8059936Bolivia 174178230 0 0 912638180 1086816410 2173632820Brazil 9413622 2756520 0 66806922 78977064 157954128Chile 400000 786522 1120000 1113941 3420463 6840926Colombia 765876414 24697062 175000 5441739322 6232487798 12464975596Costa Rica 577290 0 0 4941982 5519272 11038544Cuba 118198740 0 0 0 118198740 236397480Dominica 0 0 0 0 0 0Dominican Republic 43017001 964142 11594 29253968 73246705 146493410Ecuador 102707700 3542451 15000 194299404 300564555 601129110El Salvador 66028866 1356066 176220 21352815 88913967 177827934Grenada 0 0 0 2450 2450 4900Guatemala 98835130 250000 4261000 106383237 209729367 419458734Guyana 614200 0 0 2204847 2819047 5638094Haiti 742983156 0 421403304 91048983 1255435443 2510870886Honduras 15490895 0 8130 16345859 31844884 63689768Jamaica 13955877 895003 650862 19370815 34872557 69745114Mexico 161271002 7890810 1840 1184296775 1353460427 2706920854Nicaragua 22290163 6927989 238753 6325145 35782050 71564100Panama 21176839 931672 15000 65143743 87267254 174534508Paraguay 23244228 3028672 0 4468694 30741594 61483188Peru 148251657 5514926 611688 1187047420 1341425691 2682851382Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 0 0 0 0 0Saint Lucia 0 0 0 0 0 0Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 0 0 0 17815 17815 35630Suriname 218600 0 124740 276965 620305 1240610Trinidad & Tobago 0 1508420 486928 2667883 4663231 9326462Uruguay 100000 0 0 379900 479900 959800Venezuela 23531036 0 0 18262793 41793829 83587658Total 2552360646 65770662 429931247 9393705735 12441768290 24883536580

Table 6 Security Aid programs include Emergency Security Funds and Security State Assistance (ESFSSA), Nonproliferation and Anti-Terrorism (NATDR), Development Security Assistance (DSA) and Narcotics Control (NC).

Humanitarian Aid per Country

Country CHS MCC DA TitleI TitleII Peace_Corps MRA totalAntigua & Barbuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Argentina 0 0 0 0 0 0 325000 325000Bahamas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Barbados 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Belize 0 0 0 0 0 18377286 0 18377286Bolivia 114033095 72805 204022932 26253051 175850150 25338680 0 545570713Brazil 52751746 0 100346812 0 0 0 800000 153898558Chile 0 0 3518167 0 0 0 250000 3768167Colombia 850000 40664 7030853 0 45068200 1181000 105729915 159900632Costa Rica 9532000 0 2331899 0 0 14988638 745700 27598237Cuba 0 0 700000 0 0 3090000 6519012 10309012Dominica 0 0 25000 0 0 0 0 25000Dominican Republic 74489938 60934 130959533 17112914 2521417 35426524 3044849 263616109Ecuador 2601170 0 96606605 41977323 3646600 31354428 6226548 182412674El Salvador 78793773 472636098 277462351 29798170 5965621 29553139 576026 894785178Grenada 0 0 0 0 19859246 8401036 0 28260282Guatemala 104811458 0 220585529 42905286 215551683 36512091 0 620366047Guyana 9427909 6969285 35847172 20005491 0 12773295 0 85023152Haiti 116271093 0 108415484 0 565928636 11955351 7742283 810312847Honduras 91111301 15156207 223356995 34884143 98160216 33769857 557240 496995959Jamaica 33925602 8876890 111229924 20000000 0 21994389 0 196026805Mexico 37551873 0 117760839 0 0 11317019 706114 167335845Nicaragua 60731775 107749394 186764848 1116751 104346562 26836856 255000 487801186Panama 1802 0 44473404 0 0 31043446 9334 75527986Paraguay 16859290 67927935 60050786 0 0 30700930 0 175538941Peru 122037742 36587547 281744402 86091160 191173384 22368830 265000 740268065Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Saint Lucia 0 0 5120 0 0 0 0 5120Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Suriname 0 0 0 862151 0 10548809 0 11410960Trinidad & Tobago 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Uruguay 0 0 635575 0 0 0 0 635575Venezuela 0 0 6679000 0 0 0 0 6679000Table 7 Humanitarian Aid programs include Child Health and Survival (CHS), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Development Assistance (DA), Title I, Title II, Peace Corps, and Migration Refugee Assistance (MRA).

Other Aid Programs per Country

Country Total OGP Total OSA Total OUSAID totalAntigua & Barbuda 143374 0 0 143374Argentina 18839420 5756322 210848 24806590Bahamas 16799151 75300 1289405 18163856Barbados 387957 0 2257853 2645810Belize 1833946 317487 1087382 3238815Bolivia 24792648 7617291 68597655 101007594Brazil 69977660 1722776 15671243 87371679Chile 31895763 0 9040162 40935925Colombia 49681247 11672342 54567250 115920839Costa Rica 11432744 587495 13221013 25241252Cuba 5333 15743259 5469201 21217793Dominica 26669 29445 88273 144387Dominican Republic 40283000 166244 39113761 79563005Ecuador 28246996 5877677 29093842 63218515El Salvador 35710609 1904551 108103507 145718667Grenada 8356887 20000 2458933 10835820Guatemala 40002093 8251448 59611575 107865116Guyana 962470 489153 7382430 8834053Haiti 25573087 6992278 575477822 608043187Honduras 24277562 1026814 30902113 56206489Jamaica 27277982 130515 52046961 79455458Mexico 1.69E+08 7890757 23131224 199883093Nicaragua 26259542 9810562 45063892 81133996Panama 41213499 386542 11105005 52705046Paraguay 13664718 1618039 13944517 29227274Peru 37462700 10068596 83002540 130533836Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 0 0 0Saint Lucia 172 0 40432 40604Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 238080 99800 0 337880Suriname 143295 59200 250000 452495Trinidad & Tobago 1489224 0 0 1489224Uruguay 2924751 0 124000 3048751Venezuela 9845726 14089015 31792832 55727573

Table 8 Table 9 Other Aid programs include Other Government Assistance Programs (OGP), Other State Aid Programs (OSA) and Other USAID Programs (OUSAID).

Bilateral Aid per Program Type

Country Security Aid Humanitarian Aid Other Aid Food AidAntigua & Barbuda 33512 0 143374 0Argentina 6678954 325000 24806590 0Bahamas 19604248 0 18163856 0Barbados 10958294 0 2645810 0Belize 8059936 18377286 3238815 0Bolivia 2173632820 545570713 101007594 51704400Brazil 157954128 153898558 87371679 0Chile 6840926 3768167 40935925 0Colombia 12464975596 159900632 115920839 2658898Costa Rica 11038544 27598237 25241252 0Cuba 236397480 10309012 21217793 0Dominica 0 25000 144387 0Dominican Republic 146493410 263616109 79563005 20211719Ecuador 601129110 182412674 63218515 23486075El Salvador 177827934 894785178 145718667 36163754Grenada 4900 28260282 10835820 1975150Guatemala 419458734 620366047 107865116 73477379Guyana 5638094 85023152 8834053 4539103Haiti 2510870886 810312847 608043187 6099568Honduras 63689768 496995959 56206489 41349969Jamaica 69745114 196026805 79455458 38341423Mexico 2706920854 167335845 199883093 0Nicaragua 71564100 487801186 81133996 88957934Panama 174534508 75527986 52705046 0Paraguay 61483188 175538941 29227274 0Peru 2682851382 740268065 130533836 10769380Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 0 0 0Saint Lucia 0 5120 40604 0Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 35630 0 337880 0Suriname 1240610 11410960 452495 0Trinidad & Tobago 9326462 0 1489224 0Uruguay 959800 635575 3048751 0Venezuela 83587658 6679000 55727573 0Total 24883536580 6162774336 2155157996 399734752

Table 9 The total bilateral aid amounts grouped by assistance type where each aid category is constructed from multiple programs.

Appendix B

Physical Integrity and Bilateral Aid Figures

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,200,000,00002468

2000

Bilateral Funds

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 7 A scatter of physical integrity index values andbilateral aid totals for 2000, notice the outlier which was identified as Colombia and the amount of bilateral aid was heavily influenced by Narcotics Control assistance.

0 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000012345678

2001

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 8 A scatter of physical integrity index values and bilateral aid totals for 2001.The three outlers are Bolivia, Peru and El Salvador with Emergency Security Assistance, Other USAID and Narcotics Control heavily influencing the amount of bilateral aid to each of these countries.

0 50000000 100000000 150000000 200000000 250000000 300000000012345678

2002

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical

Inte

grity

Figure 9 A scatter of physical integrity index values and bilateral aid totals for 2002 where the outlier country is Colombia and aid program is Narcotics Control.

0 50000000 100000000 150000000 200000000 250000000012345678

2003

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 10 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals showing three outliers. Colombia, Bolivia and Peru are the outliers, which were influenced by the amount of Narcotics Control aid.

0 100000000 200000000 300000000 400000000 500000000012345678

2004

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 11 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals showing four outliers. Colombia, Bolivia and Peru are the outliers, which were influenced by the amount of Narcotics Control aid. Haiti is added to this cluster due to the influence of Emergency Security Assistance.

0 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000012345678

2005

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 12 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals which identifies five outliers. Colombia, Honduras, Peru, Haiti and Bolivia are the outliers. Colombia, Peru and Bolivia continue to exhibit a high amount of Narcotics control while Honduras and Haiti received the most aid from Title II and Other USAID respectively.

0 200000000 400000000 600000000 800000000 1000000000 1200000000012345678

2006

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 13 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals which identifies five outliers. Colombia, Peru, Haiti, Bolivia and Mexico were identified as the outliers. Colombia, Peru and Bolivia continue to exhibit a high amount of Narcotics Control and they were joined by Mexico; while Haiti received the most aid from Emergency Security Funds.

0 50000000 100000000 150000000 200000000 250000000 300000000012345678

2007

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 14 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals which identifies five outliers which were Colombia, El Salvador, Haiti, Bolivia and Peru. Colombia, Haiti and Peru received influencing aid amounts from Narcotics Control programs. The total aid received by Haiti was influenced by Emergency Security Fund programs while El Salvador’s total aid was influenced by the Millennium Challenge Corp program.

0 200,000,000 400,000,000 600,000,000 800,000,000012345678

2008

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 15 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals which identifies three outliers, Colombia, Haiti and El Salvador. Colombia received a large amount of Narcotics Control aid, Haiti received an influencing amount of aid from Global Health and Child Survival programs while El Salvador’s highest aid program was the Millennium Challenge Corp.

0 200000000 400000000 600000000 800000000012345678

2009

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 16 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals which identifies three outliers. Colombia and Mexico received influencing aid amounts form Narcotics Control programs. Haiti’s largest aid amounts were received by the Global Health and Child Survival program while Peru received influencing aid amounts from Development Assistance.

0 500000000 1000000000 1500000000012345678

2010

Bilateral Aid

Phys

ical I

nteg

rity

Figure 17 A scatter of physical integrity values and bilateral aid totals which identifies three outliers. Colombia and Mexico received influencing aid amounts form Narcotics Control programs. Haiti received a large amount of aid from Other USAID programs due to the devastating earthquake that occurred in 2010.