This Chapter analyses some of the core linkages between democracy and development, including whether development is a pre-requisite for democracy and whether regime type matters for development. It finds that, while economic development per se is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the emergence of democracy, development, and in particular how prosperity is shared across the population and whether development can deliver on citizen expectations and priorities, has a considerable impact on the quality and resilience of democracy. The Chapter also argues that existing literature seeking to establish a causal relationship between regime type and developmental performance remains inconclusive, and the debate is far from settled. By way of conclusion, the chapter posits that, given that most countries in the world today are considered formal democracies, the relevant question and ensuing challenge may no longer be whether democracies or authoritarian systems are better suited to promote development, but rather how democracy can deliver on development needs and expectations more effectively.
Alina Rocha Menocal
The chapter analyses the relationship between democracy and inequalities among groups (horizontal inequalities (HIs)). Democracies are more likely to be associated with lower HIs than non-democracies, because high inequalities may lead to resistance by deprived groups and democratic breakdown, and democracies are more likely to adopt policies which reduce HIs. Statistical evidence across countries supports this view. The relationship depends partly on the group composition of the population and the nature of democratic institutions. Reviewing the experience of some African countries suggests that where there are multiple groups with no one dominating, as in mainland Tanzania, democracy is likely to be most stable and HIs to be lowest. In contrast, where there are two or three sizeable groups with large HIs, as in Cote D’Ivoire and Cameroon, political instability may follow with a breakdown in democratic institutions., Power-sharing democracies can reduce HIS and sustain political stability, illustrated by experience of Ghana and Nigeria.
Bård A. Andreassen
While critical voices are claiming that that there is too little evidence of positive impact of human rights in development work, human rights-based approaches to social change have gained wide-spread support in development work, and have widely influenced development reports, programming, project evaluations and academic studies over the past 25 years. It is likely that human rights-based thinking and practice will continue to deepen and expand in the development discourse in years to come. This chapter addresses how human rights and development have been linked over the past decades, and how human rights is part of the sustainable development goals agenda. The chapter also makes a critical appraisal of the evolution of human rights-based approaches to development, with a particular emphasis on the concepts of human development and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Finally, the chapter asks about the practical consequences of adopting a human rights approach to development and discusses how human rights may be adopted in development programming and implementation of project.
Edited by Gordon Crawford and Abdul-Gafaru Abdulai
Rita Kiki Edozie
In the contemporary Neoliberal world order, the issues that define the age-old debate about the relationship between capitalism and democracy have become more nuanced and critical. In the 21st C, the democracy-capitalism conundrum that Joseph Schumpeter grappled with in the 20th century (Schumpeter, 2008) has become a debate about the relationship between two paradigmatic processes referred to as “neoliberal democracy” and “authoritarian neoliberalism”. Using the two concepts to frame the discussion, the chapter explores five dimensions that shape the relationship between capitalism and democracy reflected around the world in practice in the contemporary global world order. First is the authoritarian regime that strategically leverages neoliberal globalism to achieve newly industrializing development. A second strand stems from transitioning democracies - considered low intensity democracies - that are seen to impose neoliberal economic regimes on their citizens to sustain development goals. In the least developed regions of the world, low intensity neoliberal democracies emerge as choiceless democracies imposed by international finance institutions on aid recipient developing world countries; this presents a third relationship. A fourth relationship resists neoliberalism through progressive populist regimes while a fifth occurs primarily among Western liberal democracies where the crisis of neoliberalism produces the crisis of liberal democracy. We apply all five models to case events that illustrate contemporary political-economic transformations in the UK, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the US, and that examine democratic impact, change, and transformation. The chapter concludes that authoritarian neoliberalism (Bruff, 2013, 2019) has emerged as a dominant regime type around the world whose impact has been to increasingly destabilize liberal democracy in the West and to stunt the substantive consolidation of democracy in the Global South.
This chapter explores to what extent and through which practices participatory budgeting contributed over the last three decades to reversing social and spatial priorities for the benefit of the most deprived areas and disadvantaged social groups. Informed by 19 local studies, interviews with leading world PB specialists and a multi-lingual literature review, different innovative approaches, methods and tools are organised under various forms of PB: Actor-Based PB that consists in earmarking budgetary resources for specific groups; Place based PBs targeting deprived or disadvantaged areas; Thematic based PB and their combinations such as sectorial + actor-based PB, or comprehensive PB with affirmative actions. However, the chapter goes beyond positive practices and identifies numerous pitfalls to be avoided and risks as underlined by practitioners, under five dimensions: participatory; financial and budgetary; institutional and normative; spatial and finally political. The analysis leads to three conclusions: [a] PB can reverse social and spatial priorities through multiple ways, and this is good news; [b] the most successful ones are those PB working “with” people and not “for” people and [c] cities and regions combine creatively different forms of PBs [actors’ based, thematic and place based] to increase their social impact. These results are still limited and suggest that more research should be conducted to provide comprehensive knowledge and know-how, largely missing still.
This chapter explores the concept of post-conflict reconstruction by focussing on the way it is defined from different perspectives and how it has transformed since the end of Cold War through the engagement of different actors. By linking this exploration with democracy promotion, the discussion elaborates how contemporary post-conflict reconstruction is used as a means for the promotion of democratisation efforts in war-torn societies. Using a critical approach to the liberal peace agenda, the chapter investigates the nexus of reconstruction and democracy through two main pathways. First, the focus will be on the post-conflict reconstruction as a framework to deal with institutional aspects of democratisation and second, the promotion of democratisation through the implementation of reconstruction projects in a wide range of socio-economic sectors. The discussions will make a particular reference to the issues of legitimacy, ownership and participation.
Edited by Gordon Crawford and Abdul-Gafaru Abdulai
Alina Rocha Menocal
This chapter explores the relationship between democracy and inequality. It argues that inequality has a profoundly corrosive impact on the quality and resilience of democratic governance. Inequality - and the social exclusion it generates - feeds social polarisation and the shrinking of a vital moderate centre. Inequality and exclusion create imbalances in voice, representation, opportunity and access that disenfranchise segments of the population, undermine trust in (and support for) democratic institutions, and increase support for populism, extremism, and/or violent conflict. If democracy is to prove resilient over time, it needs to address - and redress - inequality and exclusion. However, as this Chapter argues, there is nothing about democracy that automatically tackles such inequalities, and in effect many of its built-in features may make it harder to do so. This is why inequality is democracy’s catch-22. Still, in some cases democracies have been able to tackle inequality and exclusion, and this chapter outlines some key factors that have enabled such progress.