Thanks. Even the study you quote – which wanted to make the case for a negative relationship – summarized the empirical literature thus:

Generally, thus, the literature finds a negative relationship between aid and revenue collection, but this is not a conclusive result. For all of the studies, there are considerable concerns about the quality of the data and also the sensitivity of the results to specification changes, which make firm causal conclusions about the aid-revenue relationship impossible.

Similarly, the negative correlation between tax effort and governance has not been shown empirically either. Yet both these would need to be true (a negative causal effect between aid and tax effort, and a negative causal effect between tax effort and governance) for the argument to have empirical substance. (I stand ready to be corrected, but I can’t recall Mick Moore producing any evidence for this either.)

So we are faced the obvious benefits of aid, which we can see every day, with a theoretical double chain of causation of aid on poor governance for which the empirical evidence is extremely weak or non-existent. (If the aid advocates were relying on such weak empirics the aid sceptics would be crawling all over them.)

Other worthwhile reads are:
Brautigam, Deborah A & Knack, Stephen, 2004. “Foreign Aid, Institutions, and Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(2), pages 255-85, January.

and anything by Mick Moore on the topic.