1. Understand where specific problems lie in effectiveness of democracy assistance programs. 2. Learn some hopeful areas of improvement in programs. 3. Learn how indirect international factors may encourage democratization.

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.

Globalization, Diffusion, and the Snowball Effect Indirect International Forces:

International influences that may encourage democracy 1. Demonstration effects. 2. International norms/ conventions. 3. Decolonization. 4. Economic globalization (?).

Demonstration Effects or “Snowballing” Democratization in one country can perhaps lead to democratization in other countries.

Demonstration Effects or “Snowballing” Characteristics 1. More important in the third wave, due to expanded communications and transportation. Travel and cultural exchange. Communications technology to link with outside world.

Demonstration Effects or “Snowballing” Characteristics 2. Tend to be clustered in particular regions. Portugal  Spain  Latin America. Philippines  South Korea. Eastern Europe. Now post-Communist “Colour Revolutions”.

Demonstration Effects or “Snowballing” Characteristics 3. Can jump from region to region, but weaker. Eastern Europe  Zaire & Nepal (incomplete transitions).

4. Speed up and grow in importance during wave of democratic transitions. Pro-democracy movements elsewhere begin to think democratization is natural outcome. Demonstration Effects or “Snowballing” Characteristics

Demonstration Effects or “Snowballing” How important is it overall? Not as important as domestic factors. However, some cases of snowballing where no prior domestic support. E.g. Albania. But resulting democracy not stable.

International Norms and Conventions Governments sign international conventions that demand democratic behaviour, with no intention of complying. Domestic opposition forces then demand compliance with international standards. E.g. USSR & Helsinki Accords (1975).

International Norms and Conventions “Democracy” as universal international norm. China, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe call themselves democracies – potential fuel for domestic mobilization. Now anti-democracy coalition developing to change norm?

International Norms and Conventions Desire to join international organizations  incentive for democratic consolidation. E.g. European Union candidates.

Effects of Decolonization Retreat of colonizing power creates necessary condition for democracy. Eastern Europe 1989: USSR would not intervene to suppress opposition. Cases with earlier colonial powers not so clear.

Effects of Economic Globalization (Friedman) Stringent demands of foreign investors for transparent government and consistent regulation encourage democratization.

Effects of Economic Globalization (Friedman) Investors don’t demand democracy but demand stability, transparency, and protection of private property. Threat: can always move their money elsewhere.

Effects of Economic Globalization Do investor demands always encourage democracy? Historical context: not really. Natural resource industries particularly indiscriminate. But perhaps today’s stock market investors more interested in transparent government than traditional MNCs.