Yang Zhang’s thesis, awarded the University of Tartu Asia Centre scholarship, explores the political effects of Chinese aid
We are pleased to announce that the University of Tartu Asia Centre scholarship in the Faculty of Social Sciences was awarded to Yang Zhang for the MA thesis "Aid as an Authoritarian Gift: The Associations between the Chinese Aid and Democracy“.
A recipient of the University of Tartu Asia Centre’s scholarship, Yang Zhang’s master's thesis explores the complex relationship between Chinese foreign aid and democracy in recipient states. The study finds that Chinese aid is not politically neutral. While it may entrench authoritarian regimes in parts of Africa, its global effects vary depending on sectoral allocation and domestic political context. By disaggregating aid types and regime types, the thesis offers fresh insight into the mechanisms of authoritarian influence. Yang Zhang completed the thesis at the Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies, on the English-taught Politics and Governance in the Digital Age MA programme. Thesis supervisor was Martin Mölder.
Read below an interview with the author about the choosing of the topic as well as most surprisng findings.
What was your main trigger whilst choosing this topic for your thesis on the aid as an authoritarian gift?
My main trigger in choosing this topic stemmed from a growing discomfort with the overly binary discourse surrounding foreign aid, particularly the assumption that aid is either benevolent democratizing support or strategic soft power. While the literature on authoritarian diffusion is expanding, it often lacks the empirical nuance to distinguish between how aid operates across different sectors and contexts. What drew me in was the puzzle of how China, as a non-democratic donor, manages to extend its influence through economic tools in ways that are neither straightforwardly coercive nor entirely benign. I was especially struck by the fact that many African countries with high aid or loan inflows from China were experiencing subtle yet measurable institutional changes, not always aligning with democratization, yet not reducible to simplistic “debt trap” narratives.
This tension, between China’s economic statecraft and the domestic political consequences in recipient states, became intellectually urgent when I began reviewing project-level data, such as infrastructure development, communications systems, and social sector allocations. These projects are more than financial transactions; they are, in many cases, embedded political choices. The deeper I explored sectoral differences and the institutional conditions in recipient countries, the more I realized that aid could function not only as a financial lifeline but as an authoritarian gift: one that facilitates regime survival, patronage expansion, or insulation from public pressure, especially where institutional oversight is weak (assuming an authoritarian country with only a fixed amount of funds to use. It now has to build railways and roads to meet the most basic public services; however, the arrival of Chinese aid can save the largest part of the construction expenses. Where will the remaining money go? Some people speculate it will be used to strengthen social and political control.). This conceptual insight ultimately shaped my desire to test, disaggregate, and explain the political effects of Chinese aid with a more rigorous methodological framework.
What challenges did you face during your research, and how did you overcome them?
When working with Chinese foreign aid and lending data, a significant challenge was data consistency and transparency. This involved navigating incomplete reporting, discrepancies across datasets, and ambiguous or overlapping sectoral classifications. For example, harmonizing project-level records from AidData (William & Mary) and China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) datasets necessitated extensive cleaning, standardization, and at times, subjective judgment regarding sector coding or missing values. This was particularly demanding when constructing a harmonized dataset to accurately reflect long-term exposure to Chinese economic engagement at the country level.
Beyond data challenges, visualization and content formatting required considerable effort to achieve aesthetic standards. While the Python Matplotlib package offered flexibility for creating sophisticated visualizations, the learning curve for mastering its customization was steep. My statistical analyses primarily utilized Python, though I intermittently used RStudio and Stata for offline research, as Google Colab requires an internet connection. For thesis formatting, the University of Tartu's Overleaf Premium subscription proved invaluable. This service is highly beneficial for quantitative research in the social sciences and other disciplines requiring extensive equations and visualizations. Consequently, I developed a LaTeX thesis template for other Skytte Institute students.
Were there any surprising or unexpected discoveries in your research?
There were indeed several surprising and unexpected findings in my research. One particularly noteworthy result concerns the role of Chinese migrant labor, specifically, contracted laborers employed by Chinese construction companies operating in Africa. Contrary to my initial theoretical expectations, the total number of these workers between 1992 and 2018 appears to be associated with improvements in the democratic quality of recipient countries. This outcome challenged the prevailing assumptions regarding Chinese labor migration as a mechanism of elite capture or authoritarian reinforcement. During my thesis defense, I addressed this finding by highlighting the potential for cultural and social interaction between Chinese migrant workers and local communities, which may have facilitated informal channels of influence beyond state-level transactions.
This observation resonates with earlier findings in the migration and political behavior literature. For instance, Pfutze (2012) demonstrates that an increase in the number of immigrant families significantly reduces the probability of electoral success for Mexico’s historically dominant party, the PRI. Similarly, Kessler and Rother (2016, p. 155) offer a compelling explanation for such trends by emphasizing that “with regard to the assumption that the political system is decisive in influencing migrants’ attitudes toward democratic values… it is less the political system as such than secure labor rights in combination with the space offered for political action and personal freedom.” These insights suggest that the presence of foreign labor even under the auspices of authoritarian donor countries can catalyze democratizing effects when embedded in contexts that allow room for personal and collective agency.
Hope you do not mind widening the topic a bit. Considering the current situation with threats democracies today then what are the three most important lessons from your thesis that we, as a society should be aware of?
The world today is undergoing one of the most profound geopolitical transformations since the end of World War II. As part of his broader vision for globalization, former U.S. President Bill Clinton supported China’s integration into global economic and institutional networks, a decision that, at the time, was framed as a pragmatic bet on liberal convergence. Yet what was once a latent structural challenge to the liberal international order has now become increasingly visible. China’s expansive influence is no longer confined to Asia; its political and economic footprint now extends deeply into Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands. With increasing power concentrated in the hands of the Chinese leadership, the country has begun to resemble the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union, particularly in its strategic use of foreign aid as a mechanism for international co-optation.
Given the nature of China’s foreign aid and lending architecture, my research underscores three critical insights. First, not all forms of foreign economic engagement are politically neutral. The sectoral composition of aid and loans, especially when provided by authoritarian donors, significantly shapes domestic regime outcomes. Infrastructure-heavy projects, when executed through opaque, elite-controlled mechanisms, tend to strengthen autocratic durability by entrenching clientelist networks, bypassing civil society, and diluting institutional accountability. This challenges the long-held assumption that development assistance, regardless of its source, inherently promotes democratization.
Second, authoritarian diffusion is not inevitable. One of the most unexpected findings in my study was the positive correlation between the presence of Chinese contracted labor and improvements in democratic indicators across recipient countries. This suggests that people-to-people interactions, especially when embedded in contexts that allow for labor rights and social mobility, can create unexpected spaces for democratic values to take root. Even in the absence of normative democratic intent at the state level, these micro-level transnational encounters, including the circulation of ideas, exposure to alternative worldviews, and the lived experience of negotiated coexistence, can serve as subtle yet resilient drivers of democratization. In today’s polarized international environment, such grassroots mechanisms offer a crucial counterweight to top-down authoritarian influence and deserve greater scholarly and policy attention.
While concerns over authoritarian diffusion are real, it is important not to adopt a purely deterministic or pessimistic view of the global democratic future. The institutionalist perspective articulated by Acemoglu and Robinson, especially in Why Nations Fail and The Narrow Corridor, reminds us that the long-run trajectory of development is not merely a function of economic output, but of the inclusiveness and accountability of the institutions that underpin it. Historically, models of “developmental authoritarianism,” such as Park Chung-hee’s South Korea or Deng Xiaoping’s reform-era China, were often praised for achieving rapid growth. But Acemoglu and Robinson compellingly argue that such growth is fragile if rooted in extractive institutions. Without checks and balances, political voice, and legal protection, these systems inevitably confront structural limits.
China’s current predicament illustrates this principle with sobering clarity. The same low-rights labor regime once seen as a “comparative advantage” ; what scholars call the 低人权优势 (low human rights advantage) is increasingly a liability. As China undergoes an industrial transformation that demands innovation, creativity, and a highly educated workforce, the constraints of an extractive institutional environment are becoming more apparent. Issues such as workers’ rights, gender inequality, and the lack of freedom of assembly are no longer marginal concerns; they are symptoms of a development model that is losing its legitimacy. At the same time, the growing awareness and articulation of rights-based demands among Chinese citizens, especially the intelligentsia and younger generation, signals that the seeds of democratic aspiration persist, even in repressive contexts.
For democratic societies, the task is not to impose, but to resonate. Western democracies should frame their engagement with China around the universal values that already find expression in Chinese civil society, labor justice, women’s rights, academic freedom, and transparency. These are not foreign concepts; they are deeply human claims that speak directly to the lived experience of many in China. By supporting these domains through soft power, open information, and principled solidarity, democracies can offer an alternative not by confrontation, but by example, one that shows that dignity, rights, and inclusive institutions are not Western ideals, but global necessities. In this sense, democratization may be difficult, but the current extractive model is proving itself even more unsustainable. The future remains uncertain, but it is not hopeless.
What advice would you give to other students or researchers interested in this field?
For students or researchers interested in studying authoritarian diffusion, foreign aid, and China’s global economic footprint, my first piece of advice is to embrace complexity rather than seek simplified narratives. This field sits at the intersection of international political economy, development studies, and comparative authoritarianism. The relationships between aid, economic engagement, and political outcomes are rarely linear. It’s tempting to categorize Chinese aid as inherently coercive or liberalizing, but reality often defies such binaries. Be prepared to work through contradictory patterns and case-specific variations.
Second, let the data challenge your assumptions. In my own project, I expected Chinese labor exports to be purely instrumental for regime legitimation, yet the data pointed to potential democratizing side effects. Allowing empirical results to reshape your theoretical framing, rather than force-fitting data into a predefined model, makes your research both more honest and more valuable. This also means being rigorous with your methodology: take time to understand how to clean, merge, and interpret messy datasets like AidData or CARI, and be transparent about your aggregation choices.
Lastly, connect your research to people. It’s easy to get lost in regression tables and lose sight of what authoritarian diffusion means on the ground , for civil society actors, marginalized communities, or young workers facing structural constraints. If your work can illuminate those lived dynamics and help inform smarter policy or scholarly debate, it will matter more. This field is not just about power; it’s about how people live under it, resist it, or reshape it. Stay curious, stay critical, and don’t be afraid to ask uncomfortable questions.
Thank you!
Interview after the graduation ceremony in 2025
Questions: Evelyn Pihla
Read more similar news
