Search

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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. Restoring Trust in the Think Tank Sector

Author:
Ben Freeman and Eli Clifton
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Think tanks produce valuable research reports, opinion pieces, and expert commentary on television and radio; their research fellows and associates testify regularly before Congress. But their work can be compromised by their funders, a lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest. Given public distrust of the U.S. policymaking process, think tanks have a valuable opportunity to take tangible and necessary steps to help reinstill public confidence in the government’s ability to address our nation’s economic, health, environmental, and foreign policy challenges. Embracing simple standards of funding transparency, complying with the Foreign Agent Registration Act, FARA, and identifying potential or apparent conflicts of interest are necessary steps for think tanks to bolster the credibility of their work and help restore public confidence in the policymaking process. The specific measures explored in this paper are three: Basic standards of donor disclosure and funding transparency must be more widely embraced. Think tanks should be transparent about their funding to preempt potential criticism of undisclosed conflicts of interest involving funders and research products. The long-term benefits of transparency far outweigh the short-term difficulties and publicity challenges that may result from disclosing sources of funding. Good-faith efforts to disclose activity that may require registration under FARA regulations are essential. This would demonstrate institutional commitments to transparency, avoid any impression of undisclosed conflicts of interest, and serve as endorsements of the Justice Department’s efforts to limit foreign interference in the U.S. political system. Think tanks should proactively identify the appearance of potential conflicts of interest between sources of funding and staff doing work to be offered in the public sphere. Such measures would show that research institutions take seriously the potential for such conflicts and are disclosing when funders — even if funding is not directed to the research product in question — may stand to benefit directly or indirectly from a research product or policy proposal. Taken together, these measures are essential to setting think tanks apart from a political system the public does not trust and sees as captured by special interests and dark money, money from opaque sources intended to influence political and policy outcomes. Rebuilding and maintaining credibility in an era increasingly marked by misinformation and public cynicism requires think tanks to actively address the areas in which they have often fallen short: donor transparency and conflict-of-interest avoidance.
Topic:
Democracy, Think Tanks, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. Protecting Democracy: The Relevance of International Democracy Promotion for Term Limits

Author:
Julia Leininger and Daniel Nowack
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The question of whether and how democracy can be promoted and protected through international support has recently gained relevance. On the one hand, the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan has reignited a public debate on the limits of democracy promotion. On the other hand, the need for international democracy protection is growing due to an increase in autocratisation trends worldwide. DIE research shows that it is possible to effectively support and protect democracy. In this context, both the protection of central democratic institutions, such as term limits for rulers, and the promotion of democratic forces that pro-actively resist attempts at auto¬cratisation are central. Since 2010, autocratisation trends have been characterised by the fact that they often slowly erode achieved democratisation successes and consolidate autocracies. The circumvention and abolition of presidential term limits by incumbent presidents are part of the typical “autocratisation toolbox”. Term extensions limit democratic control and expand presidential powers. Democracy promotion and protection play a relevant role in preserving presidential term limits, and thus in protecting democracy. They contribute towards improving the “duration” and “survival chances” of presidential term limits. The more international democracy promotion is provided, the lower the risk that term limits will be circumvented. For example, a DIE analysis found that a moderately high democracy promotion mean of $2.50 per capita over four years on average halves the risk of presidential term limits being circumvented.
Topic:
NATO, Development, Diplomacy, Democracy, and Autocracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

46. The changing nature and architecture of U.S. democracy assistance

Author:
Luiza Rodrigues Mateo
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
Institution:
Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
Abstract:
Democracy assistance is an important tool of United States foreign policy, serving strategic interests in association with several agendas, from human rights to national security. The objective of this article is to make a historical reconstruction of the definitions and practices of American democracy assistance, describing its institutional architecture, budgetary levels and political priorities. Special attention is given to U.S. foreign aid rationale and contemporary trends, recapturing the last thirty years of growth in democracy assistance since the end of the Cold War.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Foreign Aid, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

47. Democracy by Design: An Affirmative Response to the Illiberal Use of Technology for 2021

Author:
Kara Frederick
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Aglobal contest between democracies and autocracies is raging on the digital front. Technology stands to alter the balance between free, open societies and closed, repressive regimes. Nation states in direct competition with the United States seek to project global influence by shaping an existing digital order to their will. Impulses toward illiberal use of technology at home threaten to curtail individual liberties, constrict opportunity, and erode a truly open society. Democracies do not yet have a model for how to confront this. In the United States, a roadmap for a solution must start with the fundamental question: How should U.S. technology companies, with the help of the U.S. government, respond to the illiberal use of technology by authoritarian actors abroad? This report contends with this question by identifying concrete actions and threat-mitigating strategies that contain the input of government, the tech sector, civil society, and academia. It provides starting points to address the systemic risk inherent in dealing with authoritarian regimes and also examines cost imposition on those complicit in tech-enabled human rights abuses. Yet a strategy aimed only at staunching the illiberal use of technology will fail in the long term. Instead, the U.S. government and tech companies alike must recruit democratic allies to purvey an affirmative agenda that promotes digital freedom across the globe. This report proposes an agenda that stresses privacy leadership by the United States and its technology companies. It identifies areas of collaboration for U.S. allies and democratic partners, like digital trade, foreign law enforcement requests for data, and technical standards. This report’s affirmative agenda also contains an imperative for U.S. tech companies to build commercial norms toward digital freedom and incentivize transparency within their own ranks. For digital freedom to prevail over authoritarian uses of technology, democracies must present something better. Together, they must establish an alternative model for the use of technology globally. These recommendations build that democratic case, starting with the United States.
Topic:
Human Rights, Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

48. Detecting the Ideological Position of Political Islam Towards Liberal Democracy in Muslim Countries

Author:
Nikola Gjorshoski and Goran Ilik
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
The question of the correlation between Islam, political Islam, and liberal democracy has so far been the most exposed topic in exploring the democratic capacity of political Islam and Islamic societies in general. What is particularly intriguing about the relationship between political Islam and liberal democracy is the fact of its westernized triviality that has received a pejorative tone in Islamic political circles. Simplified, the triviality of liberal democracy for the Islamic political campus implies imposing a model of democracy that cannot be fully compatible with the original Muslim notion of society and government. Hence, the following paper analyzes exactly the relations of political Islam to specific inherent categories of liberal democracy such as the rule of law, representative government, the separation of powers, and secularism as diferenta specifica of liberal western democratic discourse. Through the methods of induction and deduction, the author will illustrate how appropriate tangent or divergence is illustrated and how this is reflected in the general ideological positioning of political Islam towards liberal democracy in Muslim countries through an axiological and praxeological perspective.
Topic:
Democracy, Rule of Law, Islamism, Liberalism, Secularism, and Sharia
Political Geography:
Middle East, North Africa, and Global Focus

49. Fragile States Index 2020

Author:
Fund for Peace
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Fund for Peace
Abstract:
The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index — and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built — makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:
Democracy, Fragile States, Brexit, COVID-19, and Instability
Political Geography:
Africa, Iraq, United Kingdom, Europe, South Asia, Sudan, Central Asia, Middle East, India, Uzbekistan, Libya, Colombia, South America, Lebanon, Mozambique, Chile, Côte d'Ivoire, Global Focus, and Burkina Faso

50. Political Trust vs. Turnout in Modern Democracies

Author:
Izabela Kapsa
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The article analyzes the relations between political trust - one of the most important values in the life of political communities - and election-related behaviors in the narrow meaning of voting. Researchers investigate the phenomenon of decreasing turnout as one of the expressions of democratic crisis. When studying such a complex problem, it is essential to search for multi-theme causes which might be helpful in understanding the topic and possibly finding a solution for it. The author of this article, while assuming the correctness of analyzes conducted thus far, which indicate that the problem lies in weaker attachment to political parties, less interest in politics and inadequate tools, raises questions whether the decreasing turnout in individual states may be related to the level of trust that citizens put in political institutions and whether there is a relation between these both indicators. In order to answer these questions, the author employs a quantitative analysis of data which derive from reports containing percentage levels of political trust and turnout in the elections, a comparative analysis, as well as an overview of literature on the subject.
Topic:
Elections, Democracy, Voting, Participation, and Turnout
Political Geography:
Global Focus

51. Linking Values and Strategy: How Democracies Can Offset Autocratic Advances

Author:
Jessica Brandt, Zack Cooper, Bradley Hanlon, and Laura Rosenberger
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The United States and other liberal democracies face a persistent asymmetric threat from authoritarian challengers who aim to reshape the global order in their favor. Illiberal regimes use a wide range of tools across the political, economic, technological, and information domains to undermine democratic institutions and alliances, prevent criticism of their own regimes and governance systems, and establish norms and standards favorable to autocratic rule. In the case of digital information technology, these efforts go beyond shaping norms to controlling the infrastructure that transmits information itself. To date, democracies have been slow to adapt to this contest, allowing autocrats to seize the initiative by taking advantage of the openness of liberal systems. Fortunately, the United States can regain the initiative in this emerging competition with authoritarianism—if it addresses its vulnerabilities, leverages its strategic advantages, and reframes the contest on its own terms. The United States faces an array of domestic challenges—political polarization, inequality and racism, erosion of traditional media, a growing tech-government divide, flawed and porous political influence systems, and impaired economic competitiveness—that threaten to undermine the United States’ competitive strengths. Autocrats can leverage these cleavages and constraints in the short-term, but in the long-term democratic characteristics confer tremendous strategic advantages. The United States’ advantages include a vibrant civil society, dynamic and competitive economy, innovative private sector, and robust network of alliances. Leveraging these strengths requires a national strategy to offset autocratic advances by seizing on the advantages of open systems, building resilience into democratic institutions, and exploiting the brittleness of authoritarian regimes. This Task Force report outlines the logic and contours of such a national strategy across four overlapping non-military domains.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

52. Global Governance in 2030: Prospective Scenarios on the Future of Politics

Author:
Julia Pomares and María Belén Abdala
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for the Implementation of Public Policies for Equity and Growth (CIPPEC)
Abstract:
We are living in an era of unprecedented changes. Mature democracies, emerging polities and the least electorally competitive countries are now facing new challenges in a globalized world. They are all dealing with technological breakthroughs, changes in global economic power, ageing populations and urbanization of their territories. Today’s picture shows that social inclusion seems to be an unfulfilled promise, and social cohesion is weakening. Some citizens are disenchanted, and political systems are having trouble adapting and responding to new demands. According to Edelman’s Trust Barometer (2017), one in every two countries does not have faith in the system, and we still do not know how this picture is going to evolve. In democracies, pro-democracy attitudes coexist with openness to nondemocratic forms of governance, such as rule by experts (49 per cent), strong leaders (26 per cent) or the military (24 per cent). This picture might be part of a transition period or indicating that polities are not being able to cope with some of the new challenges. It is why we need to think about the future of politics and how these trends will shape global governance in the next 10 to 20 years. Are political systems ready to govern a digital economy? How should political leaders evolve to address radical changes in an automated world? What will the consequences be for global governance and for the role of G20? This paper analyzes current global trends in domestic politics and the prospective scenarios on the future of politics. To do so, the paper presents a brief description on three forces we know will forge the future: technological breakthroughs, demographic changes and shifts in global economic power. Later, it turns to the uncertainty of the future. We live in nation states, so we first attempt to devise how these forces will shape domestic politics. We then look at global governance and the way these trends will impact upon it. The final stop of this journey is an analysis of the implications of these scenarios for the role of the G20.
Topic:
Economics, International Cooperation, Governance, Democracy, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Global Focus

53. The End of History Revisited

Author:
Yascha Mounk
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Democracy
Institution:
National Endowment for Democracy
Abstract:
Until a few years ago, many argued that liberal democracy was the most just and attractive political regime. The most prominent manifestation of this optimism was Francis Fukuyama’s thesis of the “end of history.” Ironically, many of the same social scientists who dismissed Fukuyama’s work out of hand at the time were themselves committed to equally far-reaching assumptions. Now, as the tides of history are rapidly turning, the hypotheses of theory are being reversed. Indeed, some authors today predict that as the conditions that made liberal democracy possible fade away, it is likely to be supplanted by illiberal democracy, competitive authoritarianism, or outright dictatorship. Such conclusions risk being just as rash as the more optimistic ones that preceded them.
Topic:
Democracy, Populism, and Illiberal Democracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

54. 30 Years of World Politics: What Has Changed?

Author:
Francis Fukuyama
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Democracy
Institution:
National Endowment for Democracy
Abstract:
Since the publication of the Journal of Democracy began in 1990, the political climate has shifted from one of democratic gains and optimism to what Larry Diamond labels a “democratic recession.” Underlying these changes has been a reorientation of the major axis of political polarization, from a left-right divide defined largely in economic terms toward a politics based on identity. In a second major shift, technological development has had unexpected effects—including that of facilitating the rise of identity-based social fragmentation. The environment for democracy has been further transformed by other slow-moving changes, among them the shift toward neoliberal economic policies, the legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lowered expectations regarding democratic transitions. Sustaining democracy will require rebuilding the legitimate authority of the institutions of liberal democracy, while resisting those powers that aspire to make nondemocratic institutions central.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Democracy, Legitimacy, and Democratic Decline
Political Geography:
Global Focus

55. Democracy and Prosperity: Reinventing Capitalism through a Turbulent Century, Torben Iversen and David Soskice

Author:
Christopher Way
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
In a climate of concern about the future of capitalism and democracy, this book provides a robust defense of both. Capitalism and democracy, Torben Iversen and David Soskice argue, are mutually reinforcing, and the combination has been remarkably successful over the past century. In what will probably be the most discussed part of the book, they anticipate that the symbiotic pair will continue to thrive, overcoming the challenges posed by populism and inequality. Democracy and Prosperity provides a challenge to those who believe that capitalism is increasingly unable to fulfill the needs of broad swaths of society and that democracy is creaking under the strains of populism.
Topic:
History, Democracy, Capitalism, and Book Review
Political Geography:
Global Focus

56. How Democracy Ends, David Runciman

Author:
Tom Ginsburg
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
It is hardly a secret that democracy is in trouble around the world, and the phenomenon of backsliding has prompted a small wave of books diagnosing the problem and suggesting solutions. David Runciman’s contribution to this literature is a breezy and readable tour through mechanisms and alternatives. Easily weaving political theory with grounded examples, he has produced a highly accessible analysis focusing more on diagnosis than cure. Runciman’s title is to be distinguished from accounts of how specific democracies are dying or what might be done to save constitutional democracy. Instead, he focuses on the idea that Western democracy is undergoing something of a midlife crisis. Nothing lasts forever, and while democracy has had a pretty good run, it now “looks exhausted in the places it has the deepest roots” (p. 72). Contemplating democracy’s death, the book is organized around a series of mechanisms by which this might come about: coup, environmental catastrophe, technological displacement, and the various alternatives of benevolent and not so benevolent authoritarianism that have been put on offer. His main argument is that while we are attracted to democracy because of its history, the past does not repeat itself, and we are likely to face new challenges not yet contemplated. If democracy dies, the autopsy will be a new one.
Topic:
Democracy, Book Review, and Political Science
Political Geography:
Global Focus

57. Russia: an increasingly repressive autocracy seeking a place on the UN Human Rights Council

Author:
Lara María Kovandova
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for the Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL)
Abstract:
The Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) 2020 cautiously points to Vladimir Putin’s forging of an authoritarian-bureaucratic nomenklatura. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have denounced the deteriorating human rights situation in Russia, with freedom of speech and assembly systematically undermined and violated. The recent plebiscite to reform the constitution is the epitome of Mr Putin masquerading the authoritarian regime as a democracy.
Topic:
United Nations, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Vladimir Putin, Human Rights Violations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch
Political Geography:
Russia, Latin America, and Global Focus

58. BTI and Cuba: the State of democratic denial

Author:
Manuel Cuesta Morúa
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for the Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL)
Abstract:
Compared with other reports on Cuba, the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) has several noticeable advantages. The first is that it is a comprehensive report, embedded in three pillars: economics, politics and governance. The second is that it captures trends, whereas more reports are static. The third is that it considers themes through indicators, which most reports ignore. And as it is issued every two years it makes it possible to know the consistency (or lack, thereof) of the transformation and its rhythm. The following up. Has Cuba been transformed in 14 years (2006-2020)? Reading the report, it can be concluded that it has, whilst a new concept is introduced: that of static transformation –a sample of changes that leave the structures of a society intact.
Topic:
Human Rights, Governance, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Society, and Human Rights Violations
Political Geography:
Cuba, Latin America, and Global Focus

59. How ‘demos’ met ‘cracy’: debt, inequality, money

Author:
Andreas Antoniades and Ugo Panizza
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex
Abstract:
The recurrence of ever more destructive economic crises and patterns of pervasive indebtedness and inequality threaten the social fabric of our societies. Our main responses to these trends have been partial, focusing on symptoms rather than causes, often exacerbating rather than improving the underlying socio-economic dynamics. To reflect on these conditions and on ‘what needs to be done’ this paper turns to a similar socio-economic malaise faced by the city-state of Athens in the 6th century BC. Most historical studies dealing with this crisis focus on the comprehensive debt relief policy (seisachteia) implemented by Solon. We argue that this debt relief, although necessary, was the least important of Solon’s reforms. Solon read the problem of debt as a problem of money so he went on to reform the monetary and exchange system. But he did not think that these reforms alone could restore socioeconomic sustainability. For this, a redefinition of what was counted as valuable economic activity and as income had also to take place. And for all these to work, citizens had to be involved more in the commons. Far from only achieving socioeconomic sustainability, these reforms gave rise gradually to the demos that we meet in the golden age of Democracy. It is indeed interesting that Democracy, in its ideal type of the 5th century BC, finds its origin in the way in which a society responded to a major socioeconomic crisis, characterised by pervasive indebtedness and destabilising inequalities. Such a broader historical horizon may help us grasp better the problems, stakes and challenges of our times.
Topic:
Debt, Political Economy, History, Democracy, and Global Political Economy
Political Geography:
Greece and Global Focus

60. Effects of US Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building, 1990–2014: An Update

Author:
Steven E. Finkel, Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Michael Neureiter, and Chris A. Belasco
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kellogg Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
This paper updates our earlier work on the impact of US foreign assistance on democratic outcomes in recipient countries using newly available USAID Foreign Aid Explorer data covering the 2001–2014 period, as well as new outcome measures derived from Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data. Building on the theoretical and empirical framework established in our previous study and in subsequent work in the field, we estimate: a) the effect of overall USAID Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) expenditures on general indices of democracy, b) changes in the effects of DRG expenditures after 2001, and c) the conditions that moderate the impact of DRG funding at the country level in the contemporary era. We find that the effect of DRG expenditures decreased dramatically in the 2002–2014 period, relative to the modest effect shown in the previous study for the period immediately following the end of the Cold War. However, DRG aid remains effective in the current era under favorable conditions. Further analysis demonstrates important conditional effects related to patterns of DRG investment, such that aid has greater impact when levels of security assistance are low (indicating competing priorities) and when prior DRG investment is low (indicating diminishing returns). In addition, DRG is more effective at intermediate levels of democratization and less so in contexts of democratic backsliding.
Topic:
Security, Development, Globalization, Governance, Democracy, and Public Policy
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America