democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Master in Development Evaluation and Management
Democracy Promotion 2.0
Donor side analysis of post-2005 democracy promotion institutions
Mateo Porciúncula
Supervisor: Dr. Nadia Molenaers
September 2015
![Page 2: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
1. Relevance2. Research questions3. Methods4. Findings of theoretical part5. The cases of UNDEF and EED6. Findings of empirical part7. Recommendations
Outline
![Page 3: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Renewed interest in democracy promotion (Carothers, 2015), but…
…Age of diminishing expectations (Santiso 2001)
• Tarnish of democratization• Closing space for civil society• High ground lost
Revisionism in democracy promotion (Youngs, 2011, etc.)
1. Relevance
![Page 4: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
What are the characteristics of second generation democracy promotion institutions?
To what extent new institutions represent a shift in approach of democracy promotion by the international community? The cases of UNDEF and EED
Why are these new institutions created in their current form?
2. Research questionsDonor institutions need to adapt: a “Second Generation”?
![Page 5: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
3. Methods
Theoretical Analysis
Literature Review
Empirical Analysis
BackgroundDescriptive
analysis with framework
Political analysis
Concept of democracy
Understanding of democratization• Timing• Drivers of change
Methods• Approach• Main recipients• Relation to host
government
Framework of analysis
![Page 6: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
4. Findings of theoretical part
• Broad and more complexConcept of democracy
• Post-institutional, agent driven, non-linearUnderstanding of the democratization process
Appr
oach • From elections to
other dimensions• Aid effectiveness contributions Re
cipie
nts • Bottom up and
top down• Expanded range of organizations
Rela
tions
hip
with
t go
vern
men
ts • Coherence• Address challenges
![Page 7: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
5. Cases: United Nations Democracy Fund and European Endowment for Democracy
UNDEF Established by the UN Secretary-General as a United Nations General Trust Fund
2005
EED Fashioned after the US National Endowment for Democracy, it is constituted as a private non-for profit institution
2011
/201
3
![Page 8: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
6. Findings of descriptive analysis
Convergence:
• Broad, more complex conception of
democracy
• Post-institutional, agency oriented theory
• Demand side support
• Complementing older institutions
• Broader range of recipients
• long term perspective still needs work
Divergence:
• Different mechanisms of engagement.
• EED: engages irregular and
unregistered recipients
• UNDEF: high level political tools
governments buy-in
The analysis framework yields resultsBoth UNDEF and EED can be considered “Second generation”
![Page 9: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
7. Findings of political analysis
Translation of ideas from theory to practice was not automatic
Ideology was not main determinant, ability to mobilize resources was
Institution form resulted from interaction of donor motivations, understanding, circumstance and norms
Role of “champions “ was paramount
Easier to build than to reform
Political path favours some features, hinders other
![Page 10: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
8. Recommendations
For theoretical debate:• Democracy as a
world development issue
For practice:• Enhance demand
side support with diffusion and broader range
• Identify and recruit champions
For further work• Understand
political drive of donors better to overcome shortcomings (e.g. timeframes
• Further study recipient side and interaction
![Page 11: Democracy promotion 2.0 an analysis of donor side institutions](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070522/58ede6201a28ab49428b4671/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Thank you!