ABSTRACT In 2018, a Tanzanian government official announced a crackdown on homosexuality. International actors rapidly expressed their disapproval and temporarily suspended some foreign aid, which elicited a negative response from the Tanzanian government and soured donor–recipient relations. The incident was short‐lived, however, and expressed mainly at the symbolic level and does not appear to have achieved any change in policies or practices either among the donors or in Tanzania. How should one interpret this sudden eruption of frictions and its lack of impact and what are its implications? I argue that international actors felt pressure to take quick, visible action, regardless of how ineffective those steps could be expected to be. Politicians from Tanzania's ruling party seized this occasion to ramp up anti‐LGBT+ and anti‐donor rhetoric, attempting to strengthen their standing domestically. Both sides used the opportunity to express their identity as either defenders or opponents of LGBT+ rights. This case shows how donor–recipient frictions can be primarily performative and reflect both sides' desire to please their own constituencies without implementing any lasting changes to aid flows or domestic policy in the recipient country.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.