现代意义上的大规模教育援助诞生于第二次世界大战之后，自其兴起之日起便带有鲜明的国际外交属性。伴随全球化进程的日益深入、多极化趋势的日益明显以及国际化事务的日益增多，对外教育援助成为世界各国外交战略的关键组成部分。作为近现代西方对外教育援助的首倡者和主导者，美国将对外教育援助视作实现全球战略、维护国家利益的有效外交工具。本研究关注美国对外教育援助如何服务国家外交的战略需求，试图厘清美国开展对外教育援助的逻辑理念与实践路径。

本研究从建构主义国际关系学的理论视角切入，以政策过程三阶段模型为分析框架，综合运用文献研究法、案例研究法，梳理了美国对外教育援助的战略演进历程，从“国内—国际”两个层面探析了美国对外教育援助的战略决策、战略实践及其取得的成效与面临的挑战，勾勒出美国以对外教育援助服务外交现实需要、维护国家利益诉求的图景脉络。本研究聚焦美国对外教育援助服务国家外交战略的动态过程，并解读了在此过程中美国“民主”与“霸权”并行的迷思，不仅有助于加深学界对于美国社会历史文化、外交理念以及权力运行机制的理解，也为我国在全球大变局下借助对外教育援助开展中国特色大国外交提供了经验反思与实践依据。

本研究的核心结论如下： 第一，美国对外教育援助始终围绕美国外交的现实需要进行战略调整，不断根据自身利益取向与国际外部环境的变化来调整教育援助的规模、内容与方式。第二，美国对外教育援助建立在自我与他者明显分野的基础之上，形成了“卫士”、“商人”与“牧师”三种国家身份。其中，“卫士”身份的援助动机是维护国家安全，“商人”身份的援助动机是扩大经济贸易，“牧师”身份的援助动机是服务民主输出，三者共同反映了美国社会对国家利益的综合诉求。第三，美国对外教育援助决策过程主要涉及白宫部门、内阁部门、联邦独立机构等行政参与主体以及以美国国会为代表的立法参与主体，各主体遵循“提案—授权—拨款”的机制流程进行决策合作与权力博弈，围绕对外教育援助的对象选择、聚焦领域与权责划分生成其具体战略内容。第四，美国在对外教育援助的实践场域中构建起以“自由”为核心的经济性发展叙事、以“良治”为核心的政治性发展叙事、以“人权”为核心的道德性发展叙事，并进一步通过条件性援助、伙伴关系转型以及国际多边援助体系的规范建构来确保实践效能。第五，美国对外教育援助较好回应了美国开展国际外交与维护国家利益的战略需求，同时也在一定程度上提高了受援国的教育整体水平，但也面临内部组织管理薄弱、与受援国之间的合作对接不畅、与其他援助国之间的竞争加剧等一系列现实挑战。第六，美国对外教育援助的战略理念与实践反映了其内在的矛盾张力，具体表现为理想主义与现实主义失调造成的战略取向偏移、世界主义与孤立主义矛盾造成的合法性遭质疑、民主与霸权并行造成的动员能力弱化。

基于上述研究，本研究又对建构主义国际关系理论应用于美国对外教育援助战略研究的效度与限度、传统援助国与新兴援助国对外教育援助的战略差异、中国对外教育援助的核心特点及其未来发展的可行战略等问题进行了深入讨论。本研究认为：首先，建构主义国际关系理论坚持反理性主义与反物质主义的原则，以文化、观念、认同等非物质性结构为逻辑起点，对国际政治的社会性建构进行诠释和阐析，为解释美国对外教育援助民主与霸权并行的迷思提供了独特角度，但也存在理论假设落入主客二分的主体性本体论、方法设计难以进行跨领域移植挪用、偏重解释而预测功能乏力等明显限度。其次，传统援助国与新兴援助国在教育援助的理念、机制、方法与形式等方面具有明显差异，但经过不断的国际交往互动，两者正呈现出一定的趋同倾向。最后，作为新兴援助国中南南合作最主要的代表国，中国的对外教育援助具有与西方截然不同的鲜明特色，未来中国应以人类命运共同体理念为引领，通过平等互利、开放包容、共同进步的发展合作来消除国际社会的“非法性争议”，以“仁、义、礼”的中国特色传统思想文化超越西方“民主、平等、自由”的规范塑造，整合援助力量、拓宽援助渠道、扩大援助领域、创新援助方式，为世界发展贡献中国智慧和中国方案。

Large-scale educational aid in the modern sense was born after the Second World War. Since its rise, it has had a distinctive international diplomatic attribute. With the deepening of globalization, the increasingly obvious trend of multi-polarization, and the increasement of international affairs, foreign educational aid has become a key component of the diplomatic strategies. As the initiator and leader of Western foreign educational aid, the United States regards foreign educational aid as an effective diplomatic tool to achieve its global strategies and safeguard national interests. This study focuses on how U.S. foreign educational aid serves its strategic needs of national diplomacy, and attempts to clarify the logical concepts and practical paths for U.S. foreign educational aid.

Based on the theoretical perspective of constructivist international relations, this study uses the three-stage policy process model as the analytical framework, and comprehensively uses a mix method of document analysis, systematic literature reviews and case study to sort out the strategic evolution of U.S. foreign educational aid. This paper explores the strategic decision-making and practices of U.S. foreign educational aid, as well as its achievements and challenges from the domestic and international, and outlines the context of U.S. foreign educational aid serving the practical needs of diplomacy and safeguarding national interest demands. By focusing on the dynamic process of U.S. foreign educational aid serving the country's diplomatic strategy, and interpreting the paradox of U.S. "democracy" and "hegemony", this study will not only help deepen the academic understanding of U.S. society, history, culture, and diplomatic concepts as well as the understanding of the operating mechanism of power, but also provide reflections and pathways for China to carry out diplomacy with Chinese characteristics under the great global changes.

The core conclusions of this study are as follows: First, U.S. foreign educational aid has always been strategically adjusted around the practical needs of U.S. diplomacy, and the scale, content and methods of educational aid have been constantly adjusted based on changes in its internal interests and the external environment. Second, U.S. foreign educational aid is based on the clear distinction between self and other, forming three national identities, which are " guardian", "businessman" and "pastor". Among them, the motivation for assistance as the " guardian" is to maintain national security, the "businessman" is to expand economic trade, and the "pastor" is to serve the export of democracy. Together, these identities reflect the comprehensive national interests. Third, the U.S. foreign education aid decision-making process mainly involves entities such as White House departments, cabinet departments, federal independent agencies, and legislative participating entities represented by the U.S. Congress. Each entity follows the “proposal-authorization-appropriation” process to make strategic decisions. The game of power generates specific strategic content for foreign educational aid around the selection of objects, focus areas, rights and responsibilities. Fourth, in the practical field of foreign educational aid, the U.S. has constructed an economic development narrative with "freedom" as the core, a political development narrative with "good governance" as the core, and a moral development narrative with "human rights" as the core. To further ensure the effectiveness of education aid, the U.S. adopts practical conditional aid, partnership transformation, and the normative construction of the international multilateral aid system. Fifth, U.S. foreign educational aid has well responded to the U.S.’s strategic needs for international diplomacy and national interests. It has also improved the overall education level of the recipient countries to a certain extent. However, it also faces practical challenges such as weak internal organizational management, unsmooth cooperation with the recipient countries and intensified competition with other donor countries. Sixth, the strategic concepts and practices of U.S. foreign educational aid reflect its inherent contradictions and tensions, including the shift in strategic orientation caused by the imbalance between doctrine and realism, the questioning of legitimacy caused by the contradiction between cosmopolitanism and isolationism, and the weakening of mobilization capabilities caused by the parallelism of democracy and hegemony.

Based on the above research, this study also explores the validity and limitations of constructivist international relations theory, the strategic differences between traditional and emerging donor countries, and the core characteristics of China’s foreign education aid and pathways for future development. First, constructivist international relations theory adheres to the principles of anti-rationalism and anti-materialism, interprets the social construction of international politics, and provides a unique perspective to explain the myth of the parallelism of democracy and hegemony in U.S. foreign education aid. However, there are also obvious limitations such as theoretical assumptions that fall into the subjective ontology of subject and object dichotomy, method design that is difficult to transplant and appropriate across fields, and a focus on strategic explanation rather than strategic prediction. Second, there are obvious differences between traditional and emerging donor countries in terms of concepts, mechanisms, methods and forms of educational aid. Through continuous international interactions, traditional and emerging donor countries are showing a certain tendency to converge. Third, as the most important representative of the south-south cooperation, China’s foreign educational aid has distinctive characteristics that are different from those of the West. China should insist the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, adhere to the traditional Chinese ideological culture elements of “benevolence, righteousness and rites”, transcending the western norms of "democracy, equality, and freedom". At the specific technical level, China should integrate assistance forces, broaden assistance channels, expand assistance fields, innovate assistance methods, and ultimately contribute Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions to world development.