William Easterly on DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN DEVELOPMENT: THE DOUBLE STANDARD

Seminar on Foreign Aid, Democracy and Development

Lyla Latif

Master of Arts in Development and Governance Winter Semester 2014/2015

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

INTRODUCTION

Democratic rights for all? Development policy discussions give little

emphasis to these rights for the poor.

Hence, the double standard on democracy for the rich versus democracy for the poor countries.

DOUBLE STANDARDS?

Seen in the language that aid and development debates use, and in the action of aid agencies (findings made by Easterly following the analysis of aid and development documents)

Seen from the allocation of aid between autocracies and democracies

FINDINGS

RS 1 RS 2 RS 3 RS 4

Maintaining silence on the subject

Evading the democracy issue with euphemisms (governance, anticorruption participation, country ownership, partnership)

Evading criticism of autocrats with euphemisms (developmental state, strong leadership)

Use of the nonfalsifiable “transition” defense

RHETORICAL STRATEGIES (RS) THAT ALLOW THE DOUBLE STANDARDS TO PERSIST

ORIGINS OF THE DOUBLE STANDARDS IN LANGUAGE

Early colonial period – Despotism found to be a legitimate mode of government in dealing with ‘barbarians’ provided the end be their improvement (On Liberty John Stuart Mill 1869)

Late colonial period – Development to involve no derogation from the rights and privileges of local legislatures (Statement of Policy on Colonial Development and Welfare and on Colonial Research)

Birth of International Organisations – Showed indifference to accountability instead focus was on the administrative structures that were created for the purpose of translating government planning into economic reality. No distinction between the types of governments doing this planning was made

ALLOCATION OF FOREIGN AID BY CLASSIFICATION OF RECIPIENTS – FREEDOM HOUSE

TOP AUTOCRATIC RECIPIENTS OF AID (IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

DONOR AGENCIES’ SHARE OF DEMOCRATIC RECIPIENTS VERSUS SHARE OF LOW INCOME NATIONS

WHY DOUBLE STANDARDS PERSIST?

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE HOPES?

Problems of aid Evasion of accountability Ignoring autocracy as an issue in development Important for the Free World to have a developing country

on its side irrespective of whether it was Free or not.

Emphasis on the principles of individual rights and liberties

THE END

.