1. Weigh macro-level ethical questions surrounding democracy assistance. 2. Assess generally how effective democracy assistance programs have been and where specific problems lie. 3. Learn some hopeful areas of improvement in programs.

1. Illegitimate political intervention?  Usually not. 2. Narrow version of democracy promoted?  Typically yes. 3. Hypocrisy given Western democracies’ flaws?  Yes, needs acknowledging.

1. Overall ability to affect regime minimal.  Primary change must come from within to be sustainable.  Without domestic support, change at formal levels but not attitudinal levels. 2. Ability to affect particular regime components more successful.  Formal institutional design.  Professionalization, styles and techniques of actors.

1. “Universal Democracy Template” (Carothers)  Same basket of strategies worldwide, regardless of local variations.  Based on what exists at home rather than any theoretical logic or analysis.

2. Success in designing institutions, but not changing the way they function.  Perfect institutions may be set up, but then operate in undemocratic ways.  e.g. Central Asia.

3. Detachment of assistance recipients from grassroots population.  Westernized elites trained and funded, but they have no connection to ordinary citizens.

4. Lack of sustainability.  Unlikely that progress made through foreign assistance can continue once foreign support removed.  e.g. NGO development, bureaucratic agency reform.

5. Donor obstacles to improvement.  Competition among donors  lack of information-sharing.

1. More use of trainers from similar regions or same country. 2. Realization that programs need staff members who know the local context well. 3. Some improvement in foreign donor information sharing.