1. Become familiar with history, comparative figures, and ethical questions on 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.

 Marshall Plan: Germany post-WWII.  German “Stiftungen” beginning 1950s.  Part of international development programs beginning 1960s.

 1970s: US human rights priority established (Carter).  1980s: Reagan focus on democracy and human rights.  1983: National Endowment for Democracy (NDI, IRI).  1984: US State Dept. Office of Democratic Initiatives.

 1989: US Congress passed Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act.  1993: Clinton declared democracy a new priority in USAID.

 By mid-1990s, huge “democracy industry” established.  Government agencies:  USAID, CIDA, European Commission.  NGOs  Government-funded orgs, think tanks, technical assistance orgs, advocacy NGOs.  Private granting foundations  Ford, Soros, Macarthur.

1. New opportunities from end of Cold War, collapse of Soviet power. 2. A method of boosting popularity of foreign aid at home. 3. Ideas about relationship between economic and political development changed.

 US dominant in absolute figures (27.6 billion USD in 2005).  But almost smallest in proportion of national income (0.22% GNI vs. Sweden highest at 0.94% GNI in 2005). Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee

 Worldwide:  3.3 billion USD (2002) – about 8% of bilateral ODA.  8 billion USD (2005) – about 10% of bilateral ODA.  US: 3 billion USD (2005).  18.3% of bilateral ODA (up from 9% in 2002).  EU: 4.2 billion USD (2005)  16% of total bilateral ODA (up from 13% in 2002).  Canada: 311 million USD (2005).  15.6% of total bilateral ODA (up from 10% in 2002). Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee

1. State 1. Effective state institutions 2. Judiciary 3. Electoral system 4. Legislation 2. Society 1. Political parties 2. NGOs 3. Mass media 4. Civic education

1. Training 1. At home 2. Overseas 2. Grants 1. Project grants 2. Maintenance grants

1. Democracy for the value itself. (Altruistic) 2. Idea that promoting democracy will promote world peace. (Strategic) 3. Goal to control democratic transitions and prevent mass participation. (Sinister)

 According to need or greatest promise?  Bigger countries emphasized?  No clear pattern of distribution overall.  EU focus on neighbours.  US strategic interests.  Scandinavians most even-handed.

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.