Search

Begin New Search Topic Democracy Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 25 Years Publication Year within 10 Years

1. An Economic Defense of Multiple Antitrust Goals: Reversing Income Inequality and Promoting Political Democracy

Author:
Mark Glick
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
Two recent papers by prominent antitrust scholars argue that a revived antitrust movement can help reverse the dramatic rise in economic inequality and the erosion of political democracy in the United States. Both papers rely on the legislative history of the key antitrust statutes to support their case. Not surprisingly, their recommendations have been met with alarm in some quarters and with skepticism in others. Such proposals by antitrust reformers are often contrasted with the Consumer Welfare Standard that pervades antitrust policy today. The Consumer Welfare Standard suffers from several defects: (1) It employs a narrow, unworkable measure of welfare; (2) It excludes important sources of welfare based on the assumption that antitrust seeks only to maximize wealth; (3) It assumes a constant and equal individual marginal utility of money; and (4) It is often combined with extraneous ideological goals. Even with these defects, however, if applied consistent with its theoretical underpinnings, the consideration of the transfer of labor rents resulting from a merger or dominant firm conduct is supported by the Consumer Welfare Standard. Moreover, even when only consumers (and not producers) are deemed relevant, the welfare of labor still should consistently be considered part of consumer welfare. In contrast, fostering political democracy—a prominent traditional antitrust goal that was jettisoned by the Chicago School—falls outside the Consumer Welfare Standard in any of its constructs. To undergird such important broader goals requires that the Consumer Welfare Standard be replaced with the General Welfare Standard. The General Welfare Standard consists of modern welfare economics modified to accommodate objective analyses of human welfare and purged of inconsistencies.
Topic:
Economics, Democracy, Income Inequality, and Antitrust Law
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Aid’s impact on democracy

Author:
Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Ana Horigoshi, and Rachel M. Gisselquist
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
This paper investigates the impact of foreign aid on democratic outcomes using a panel of countries for the period between 1995 and 2018. In so doing, it speaks to a major critique of foreign aid, which is that it negatively impacts democratic governance. The analysis distinguishes between developmental aid and democracy aid, and examines democracy aid to specific sectors, in order to explore variation across different aid types. It draws on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Creditor Reporting System (CRS) data on foreign aid and indices of democracy from the Varieties of Democracy project, employing a combination of a maximum likelihood estimation and structural equation modelling (ML-SEM) model and fixed effects models. Overall, using a more extensive set of data and methods than previous analyses, we offer comprehensive evidence pointing to aid having a positive if modest impact on democratic outcomes. Our analysis suggests this effect is more significant for democracy aid than developmental aid, but there is no evidence of negative impact for either. These results are robust to multiple specifications.
Topic:
Development, Foreign Aid, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. People or Technology: What Drives Democracy

Author:
Paul Nemitz
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:
There is no doubt that technology has shaped democracy. However, it is also the legal rules concerning technology which have shaped and have been shaped by democracy. Developing and using technologies according to democratic rules is what we need. There are libertarians today who deliberately design technological systems in a way that makes control by democratic states increasingly difficult. However, there is sufficient counter power and engagement, at least in Europe, to ensure that democracy functions and we work together to produce rules that are sensible for the future of democracy and confirm the supremacy of democracy over technology and business interests.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Democracy, Business, and Rule of Law
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. AI Challenging Sovereignty and Democracy

Author:
Paul Timmers
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:
AI is wonderful. AI is scary. AI is the path to paradise. AI is the path to hell. What do we make of these contradictory images when, in a world of AI, we seek to both protect sovereignty and respect democratic values? Neither a techno-utopian nor a dystopian view of AI is helpful. The direction of travel must be global guidance and national or regional AI law that stresses end-to-end accountability and AI transparency, while recognizing practical and fundamental limits. We also need a deeper understanding of tensions between AI and sovereignty and democratic values, in order to address them in the interplay of the social construction of sovereignty and democracy and the technological construction of AI
Topic:
Science and Technology, Sovereignty, Democracy, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Democratizing AI

Author:
Mark Findlay
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:
How can we locate the position of Artificial Intelligence when it comes to democracy? Rather than trying to put a framework built on an agent-based or globalization contexed approach, this paper aims to evaluate the Artificial Intelligence from a contextual perspective. While doing so an attempt on understanding how it can function within a community gains a considerable foothold. To achieve a success in such an attempt, two of the most important democratic discourses that resonate on this ground emerge critical: rule of law and the sustainable development goals. Especially, the recent Covid pandemic gave a considerable case study through which we can completely comprehend both of the matters of how AI can be used in surveillance and how can we be sure that it can be democratized.
Topic:
Globalization, Science and Technology, Democracy, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Increasing the Success and Sustainability of Democracy and Governance Interventions in Post-conflict Countries

Author:
Fernanda Buril
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:
n countries riven by conflict, weak institutions, social divisions and grievances, political strife and security threats can hinder efforts to build or rebuild democracy and good governance. Donors and implementers need evidence of what works to better support partners in these contexts, optimize resources and adapt and improve programs. Increasing the Success and Sustainability of Democracy and Governance Interventions in Post-conflict Countries: Analyzing Literature Findings and Partner Perspectives, focuses on the perspectives of partners on the receiving end of CEPPS assistance, examines specific approaches that CEPPS took to support democratization and stabilization in post-conflict environments and analyzes the success and sustainability of these interventions. Its recommendations can be used by donors and implementers to design and implement more effective programs.
Topic:
Governance, Democracy, Political stability, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Competition between Democracy and Autocracy: The Defining Challenge of the 21st Century

Author:
Derek Mitchell
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:
Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:
Ambassador Derek Mitchell is the president of the National Democratic In- stitute. He served as the U.S. ambassador to Myanmar from 2012 –2016, following a long and distinuguished career in and outside the government.
Topic:
International Affairs, Democracy, Strategic Competition, and Autocracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

8. Government Internet Shutdowns Are Changing. How Should Citizens and Democracies Respond?

Author:
Steven Feldstein
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Governments worldwide continue to deploy internet shutdowns and network disruptions to quell mass protests, forestall election losses, reinforce military coups, or cut off conflict areas from the outside world. Data from the past few years show that incidences of global shutdowns have remained steadily high: 196 documented incidents in 2018, 213 incidents in 2019, and 155 in 2020. The first five months of 2021 recorded fifty shutdown incidents.1 Government-instigated internet shutdowns largely took place in relation to five event types: mass demonstrations, military operations and coups, elections, communal violence and religious holidays, and school exams. As Clément Voule, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, pointedly observes: “Shutdowns are lasting longer, becoming harder to detect and targeting particular social media and messaging applications and specific localities and communities.”2 Events in Russia have put a finer point on internet shutdown trends. On March 4, 2022, Roskomnadzor, the Russian internet regulator, announced that it would block Facebook and Twitter and would ban new uploads to TikTok.3 On March 14, it added Instagram to the banned list.4 Russian authorities have also restricted access to a slew of news websites, including the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Voice of America. Roskomnadzor claimed these measures were enacted in response to new limits imposed by platforms on Russian propaganda outlets—accusing Facebook of “discrimination.”5 The Kremlin’s crackdown is an ominous signal about where the shutdown struggle is headed in authoritarian countries. Despite these bleak trends, there is a growing international consensus—at least among liberal democracies—that protecting internet access is integrally linked to freedoms of expression and association and forms a crucial part of the global democracy and human rights agenda. This paper picks up on this emerging norm and probes several key questions: What can citizens do to evade authoritarian controls and regain internet access? How can democratic governments support these efforts and push back against governments that shut down and block the internet? The short answer is that there is a multitude of responses available to democracies and civil society organizations to push back against internet blackouts and network disruptions. Democracies can exert meaningful pressure against repressive governments to ease internet blocks, and citizens are able to exercise creative options to circumvent internet controls. The paper walks through different tools available to citizens to evade internet controls. It examines where internet shutdown trends are headed and incentives for particular regimes to adopt new modes of censorship. It then presents a multifaceted strategy for democracies, civil society organizations, and technology developers and companies to counter internet shutdowns.
Topic:
Government, Science and Technology, Democracy, and Internet
Political Geography:
Russia and Global Focus

9. AI Startups and the Fight Against Mis/Disinformation Online: An Update

Author:
Anya Schiffrin, Hiba Beg, Pablo Eyzaguirre, Zachey Kliger, Tianyu Mao, Aditi Rukhaiyar, Kristen Saldarini, and Ojani Walthrust
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The events following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have shown again the power of online mis/disinformation. As it continues to grow and spread, there are new and continuing attempts to address this problem. These include supply-side and demand-side fixes (including media-literacy programs, fact-checking and, in Europe, new regulations) but few of these have scaled. This paper looks at one kind of supply-side attempt to tackle the prevalence of online mis/disinformation: the market for tech-based solutions that use some form of artificial intelligence (AI) machine/deep learning for content moderation, media integrity, and verification. This paper presents the findings of interviews of 20 niche firms that use AI to identify online mis/disinformation, many of which were previously surveyed for a 2019 paper on the role of AI startups in the fight against disinformation. These companies did not release their revenue figures but it seems that the market for their services is smaller than many entrepreneurs had originally hoped, and that Google and Facebook are not relying on such firms for help in identifying online mis/disinformation. The cost of the services provided by these startups and the desire to keep things in-house and protect their activities from outside scrutiny are part of why the tech giants do not rely on small startups for help with screening online mis/disinformation. This may be why funding for these startups does not seem to have grown significantly and so more than half of them are now focusing on the business-to-business market, selling mis/disinformation mitigation services to, for example, insurance companies, large public entities, and governments, among others. There also appears to be a limited market for business-to-consumer solutions for detecting mis/disinformation. However, continuing advances in AI as well as forthcoming regulation by the European Union and the United Kingdom will continue to spur innovation, which may stimulate demand. University initiatives, academics, journalism organizations, and cybersecurity experts are all also trying to come up with ways to identify and control the spread of mis/disinformation. Ultimately, despite its advances, technology alone will not solve the online mis/disinformation problem. Giant social media platforms have few financial incentives to crack down on this—quite the opposite, in fact. To push social media platforms to act against online mis/disinformation and illegal speech, regulation must deftly address the issue while preserving freedom of expression. There is a further problem in the form of the political polarization that has intensified in the United States and other parts of the world. Fixing this is likely to be well beyond the role of business and technologists.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Artificial Intelligence, Disinformation, Misinformation, and Startup
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. AI Audit-Washing and Accountability

Author:
Ellen P. Goodman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
We are still some distance from a worldwide robot takeover, but artificial intelligence (AI)—the training of computer systems with large data sets to make decisions and solve problems—is revolutionizing the way governments and societies function. AI has enormous potential: accelerating innovation, unlocking new value from data, and increasing productivity by freeing us from mundane tasks. AI can draw new inferences from health data to foster breakthroughs in cancer screening or improve climate modeling and early-warning systems for extreme weather or emergency situations. As we seek solutions to today’s vexing problems—climate disruption, social inequality, health crises—AI will be central. Its centrality requires that stakeholders exercise greater governance over AI and hold AI systems accountable for their potential harms, including discriminatory impact, opacity, error, insecurity, privacy violations, and disempowerment. In this context, calls for audits to assess the impact of algorithmic decision-making systems and expose and mitigate related harms are proliferating1 , accompanied by the rise of an algorithmic auditing industry and legal codification. These are welcome developments. Audits can provide a flexible co-regulatory solution, allowing necessary innovation in AI while increasing transparency and accountability. AI is a crucial element of the growing tech competition between authoritarian and democratic states—and ensuring that AI is accountable and trusted is a key part of ensuring democratic advantage. Clear standards for trustworthy AI will help the United States remain a center of innovation and shape technology to democratic values. The “algorithmic audit” nevertheless remains ill-defined and inexact, whether concerning social media platforms or AI systems generally. The risk is significant that inadequate audits will obscure problems with algorithmic systems and create a permission structure around poorly designed or implemented AI. A poorly designed or executed audit is at best meaningless and at worst even excuses harms that the audits claim to mitigate. Inadequate audits or those without clear standards provide false assurance of compliance with norms and laws, “audit-washing” problematic or illegal practices. Like green-washing and ethics-washing before, the audited entity can claim credit without doing the work. To address these risks, this paper identifies the core questions that need answering to make algorithmic audits a reliable AI accountability mechanism. The “who” of audits includes the person or organization conducting the audit, with clearly defined qualifications, conditions for data access, and guardrails for internal audits. The “what” includes the type and scope of audit, including its position within a larger sociotechnical system. The “why” covers audit objectives, whether narrow legal standards or broader ethical goals, essential for audit comparison. Finally, the “how” includes a clear articulation of audit standards, an important baseline for the development of audit certification mechanisms and to guard against audit-washing. Algorithmic audits have the potential to transform the way technology works in the 21st century, much as financial audits transformed the way businesses operated in the 20th century. They will take different forms, either within a sector or across sectors, especially for systems which pose the highest risk. But as algorithmic audits are encoded into law or adopted voluntarily as part of corporate social responsibility, the audit industry must arrive at shared understandings and expectations of audit goals and procedures. This paper provides such an outline so that truly meaningful algorithmic audits can take their deserved place in AI governance frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Regulation, Accountability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

11. How Populism Dies: Political Weaknesses of Personalistic Plebiscitarian Leadership

Author:
Kurt Weyland
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
Kurt Weyland examines the weaknesses of populist leadership. He argues that populist leaders are prone to errors and misdeeds, have difficulty dealing with other political forces, and face institutional and external constraints. Consequently, he concludes, they damage and suffocate democracy not as easily and frequently as recent observers have feared.
Topic:
Democracy, Leadership, Populism, and Political Science
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. U.S. Democracy Aid and the Conditional Effects of Donor Interests, Media Attention and Democratic Change, 1975-2010

Author:
James M. Scott, Charles M. Rowling, and Timothy M. Jones
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Democracy promotion emerged as a US foreign policy priority during the late 20th century, especially after the Cold War. Scarce resources, however, require policymakers to make difficult choices about which countries should receive democracy aid and which ones should not. Previous studies indicate that a variety of factors shape democracy aid allocations, including donor strategic interests and democratic openings within potential recipient states. Research has also shown that media coverage plays a significant role in these decisions. We model the conditional effects of media attention and regime shifts on US democracy aid decisions, controlling for other recipient and donor variables. We argue that these factors are contingent on the salience, in terms of broad interest profiles, of a particular country for policymakers. The donor’s overall level of interest in a potential recipient systematically shapes the effects of media attention on democracy assistance. Broadly speaking, low-interest conditions elevate the agenda-setting impact of media attention and regime conditions/shifts while high-interest conditions reduce that effect. To assess these contingent relationships, we examine US democracy aid from 1975-2010. Our results support our argument and present a more nuanced explanation of the relationship between the media’s agenda-setting role, recipient characteristics and donor interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Democracy, Media, and Donors
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

13. Cross-Country Evidence on the Determinants of Preferences for Redistribution

Author:
Gianluca Grimalda and David Pipke
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
Redistribution differs widely across countries, but our understanding of why this is the case is limited. In democracies, the extent of redistribution should ultimately reflect citizens’ preferences. We measure preferences for redistribution in six developed countries through internationally standardized questions in which respondents are faced with realistic budgetary constraints on their choice. We also measure a broad array of demographic, attitudinal, and ideological characteristics and examine their correlations with the preferred pattern of redistribution. As expected, individual income is associated with lower demand for redistribution, but this relationship loses significance once other factors are controlled for. Beliefs on social mobility have, in the aggregate, the largest effect in reducing demand for redistribution, the effect being largest in the US but insignificant in Italy and Slovenia. Trust in government has a negative effect on demand for redistribution across all countries. In line with other studies, we interpret this result as evidence that people believing that the political élite is corrupt demand more redistribution. Financial security, a proxy for the Prospect of Upward Mobility hypothesis, is also a significant correlate of preferences for redistribution, the effect being largest in Japan but small in the UK and Slovenia. Finally, discrimination of racial minorities is associated with lower demand for redistribution, but the effect is only significant in the US and Germany. Overall, the main theories that have been proposed to account for preferences for redistribution are confirmed to be valid, but with significant variation across countries.
Topic:
Minorities, Democracy, Economic Mobility, Social Order, and Redistribution
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. How the United States Can Support Nascent Political Parties

Author:
Patrick Quirk and Jan Surotchak
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Council on International Policy (CIP)
Abstract:
Supporting democracy and human rights overseas is front and center in the Biden administration’s foreign policy. The White House has committed to hold a “summit for democracy” this year, vocally condemned human rights abuses by China, and called for budget increases in foreign assistance and diplomacy critical to execute its democracy agenda abroad. As the Biden team designs this agenda, it will take stock of existing democracy assistance approaches and toolkits to make sure they address the current landscape of threats (i.e., a rise in Russian and Chinese malign influence) and changing needs of democracy partners on the ground (i.e., training on new technology). One area that is in desperate need of an update is how the U.S. helps strengthen political parties abroad, something it has done since the 1980s. The U.S. approach to supporting parties has not kept pace with the evolution of these organizations over the last ten years. Increasingly, political parties are taking novel forms that arise from so called “people power” movements and often focus more on mobilizing voters than formulating policy. One of the four most common types of parties today are those that emerge from mass protest movements and widespread latent dissatisfaction with traditional parties. Examples include the Five Star Movement in Italy, the Union to Save Romania, the New Conservative Party in Latvia, and Semilla in Guatemala. Getting support to this party type ‘right’ is important because many of the countries where these entities are emerging matter for U.S. interests. In both the Czech Republic and Slovakia – NATO allies on the front line of countering Russian and Chinese influence – new, anti-establishment parties are running the government, as traditional parties have struggled with accusations of corruption and failure to meet citizen needs. In Mexico and Brazil, both major strategic partners of the United States, emergent political organizations have taken power. In Iraq, citizens protesting government corruption and inefficiencies have formed several new parties to contest the October 2021 elections and challenge the political establishment. Yet in these and other contexts, the United States lacks an approach to structure its support of such nascent parties. Here, we outline recommendations for selecting which parties to support and then a framework to maximize effectiveness of U.S. assistance to them.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Democracy, Political Parties, Influence, and Partisanship
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

15. The Digital Technology Agenda at the Summit for Democracy

Author:
Eileen Donahoe
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Ambassadors Review
Institution:
Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:
The United States plans to host a Summit for Democracy to advance President Joseph Biden’s stated priority for national security of revitalizing democracy. Digital technology must be a focal point of the Summit. The future of democracy depends, in large part, on the ability of democracies to confront the digital transformation of society – to address the challenges and to capitalize on its opportunities. Over the past decade, democracies have struggled to meet this test, while authoritarians have used technology to deepen repression and extend global influence. To combat the digital authoritarian threat, democracies must be rallied around a shared values-based vision of digital society and a joint strategic technology agenda. The Summit tech agenda should revolve around five core themes: 1) Democracies must get their own tech policy “houses” in order; 2) To win the normative battle, democracies must compete and win the technology battle; 3) Technological transformation necessitates governance innovation; 4) To win the geopolitical battle for the soul of 21st century digital society, democracies must band together; 5) Technology must be reclaimed for citizens and humanity.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Democracy, and Summit
Political Geography:
Global Focus

16. What Is So Foreign About Foreign Influence Operations?

Author:
Hedvig Ördén and James Pamment
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Influence operations are increasingly seen as a threat to democratic societies because they can corrupt the integrity of political deliberation. As individuals engage in debate on social media, political deliberation becomes vulnerable to potentially destructive forms of interference. Many debates on what to do about influence operations emphasize that these operations constitute what is deemed to be a foreign threat. But does the notion of foreignness, viewed in isolation, constitute a helpful lens for distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate influence operations? Ultimately, the lens of foreignness is only helpful when applied to a narrow set of cases. One sensible way of reviewing when the concept of foreignness can be useful in distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate influence operations is to consider three separate conceptions of how to determine what counts as foreign: foreign states, foreign citizens, and foreign interests. In the first case, influence operations are seen as threatening acts directed at a targeted state by foreign states, using behaviors seen as analogous to acts of war. In the second instance, influence operations are considered threatening acts conducted by foreign citizens that undermine domestic democratic systems in a targeted state. In cases of the third sort, influence operations are viewed as acts aimed at advancing foreign interests through the illegitimate employment of soft power. Given these various models, the notion of foreignness constitutes a useful lens for discussions of influence operations in cases when there is overwhelming evidence of state-based, hybrid, and irregular warfare. An argument can also be made for employing the distinction in relation to the protection of democratic institutions, such as elections. However, when influence operations are regarded as a more generalized threat to political deliberation, foreignness is not a helpful category for determining the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such campaigns. In such cases, rather than focusing on the (domestic or foreign) identity of the malicious actors themselves, it is more fruitful to conceive of illegitimacy in terms of specific manipulative communication techniques. Suitable countermeasures could include, for instance, creating greater transparency surrounding, or even restricting, the use of artificial techniques to inflate the level of perceived engagement a piece of online content generates.
Topic:
Democracy, Soft Power, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. How Middle-Power Democracies Can Help Renovate Global Democracy Support

Author:
Rachel Kleinfeld, Thomas Carothers, Steven Feldstein, and Richard Youngs
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Middle-power democracies—countries which regardless of their geopolitical weight have made democracy support a sustained component of their foreign policy—will be crucial to reimagining democracy support strategies and policies to better meet the moment. Some of these states have crafted new initiatives and wielded diplomatic tools to deepen their impact in recent years. However, these states have on the whole punched below their collective weight. This paper suggests that middle-power democracies can maximize their impact on global democracy in the following ways: Enhancing solidarity: when a country acts courageously in defense of democracy, it needs to know that others will stand alongside it. Sharpening their focus: middle-power democracies should target policy areas aligned with democratic values on issues both at the top of the geopolitical agenda and at the top-of-mind for citizens around the world—for example, economic recovery, injustice and discrimination, corruption, digital repression, and climate change. Improving diplomatic cooperation: pursuing flexible and focused multilateral partnerships allows for collaboration on key policy interests and amplifies middle-power actions.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Democracy, Solidarity, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

18. Democracy in a Post-Covid World

Author:
Madeleine Albright
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
The SIPRI Lecture is an annual event focusing on major themes in peace and security. The event provides a platform for prominent global thought leaders sharing the values underpinning SIPRI, its research and other activities. The third SIPRI Lecture, which was held virtually on 24 May 2021, was delivered by HE Dr Madeleine Albright and focused on the theme of ‘Democracy in a Post-Covid World’. The lecture highlighted ways in which the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftershocks have transformed the world. It also stressed the importance of placing democratic values and international cooperation at the centre of any post-pandemic strategy to create a more secure, stable, healthy and prosperous world.
Topic:
Security, Development, Democracy, Peace, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

19. Paraguay's Compliance With The Inter-American Human Rights System

Author:
Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Madeline Soiney, and Andrés Hernández
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kellogg Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
Why do new democracies comply with international human rights obligations? We analyze Paraguay’s compliance with all reparation measures requested by the Inter-American Human Rights System over the past two decades. In contrast to most studies, which focus on reparation measures ordered by a single organ in the system, our study covers all orders resulting from friendly settlements, reports published by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. We provide a novel classification of human rights cases, and evaluate three competing explanations for compliance: legal factors, international pressures, and domestic political will. Our analysis of 1,426 reparation-years underscores the importance of changes in political will over time.
Topic:
Human Rights, Democracy, Rule of Law, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Latin America, Paraguay, and Global Focus

20. Can the U.S. Still Be an Example to the World?

Author:
Renee M. Earle
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Between January 6 and January 20, disbelieving viewers in America and throughout the world watched two weeks of American history, unlike any before, cascade across their TV screens like a 33vinyl record played at 78 RPMs. Cameras recorded the dizzying transformation of the Capitol from take-for-granted placidity, to unimaginable desecration, and finally to a stage festooned to welcome the inauguration of a new president. Foreign Service friends and colleagues in Washington, DC and abroad wondered what the world would take away from these images. We had often encountered military and armed police patrolling cities in other countries—but never in OUR capital. A Department of Justice colleague worried that our work abroad, such as justice system reform in countries from Colombia to Afghanistan, might now be at risk. After witnessing the January 6 events on Capitol Hill, would our overseas partners embrace us with as much confidence? The Constitution and citizen participation in a democracy played a large role in my career abroad as a public diplomacy foreign service officer with the State Department. In the years after the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain fell, supported by the FAS (Freedom Support Act) and SEED (Support for East European Democracy) Congressional appropriations, helping the people of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union construct, or reconstruct, democratic institutions and practice was an important focus for our embassies in East and Central Europe. These programs were broadly welcomed by our host countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Democracy, and January 6
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America