The linkages between democracy assistance and development aid are explored in depth in an article by Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a commentary by Kenneth Wollack and K. Scott Hubli that appear in the new issue of the Journal of Democracy.

In "The Elusive Synthesis," Carothers, vice-president for studies at Carnegie, takes a historical view and looks at some of the reasons the two camps have eyed each other with suspicion.

"Democracy promoters were wary of the developmentalists' attitude toward the role of democracy in developing countries," he wrote, "suspecting (not without cause) that behind the officially apolitical stance of the development community lurked serious doubts about the developmental value of democracy." For their part, developmentalists were wary of democracy supporters, he continued. There was ambivalence in development-aid circles about the value of democracy for development and the widespread belief that democracy should wait until socioeconomic development was substantially accomplished.

Over time, Carothers argues, the two sides have begun to bridge the divide. Development workers have begun to take politics into account and are devoting time and resources to governance programs in the recognition that inefficient or corrupt political establishments will impact socio-economic conditions. And democracy workers have begun to emphasize the need for democracy to deliver socio-economic gains to avoid backslides into authoritarianism. But he concludes by noting that the two approaches remain distinct with further blending elusive.

The second piece, "Getting Convergence Right," by Wollack, president of NDI, and Hubli, NDI director of governance programs, largely agrees with Carothers' assessment, but takes issue with the idea that democracy or development must be a choice. "The desire for improved economic opportunities often coexists with the desire for a stronger political voice. And in today's interdependent world, citizens will not indefinitely postpone the latter for the former, regardless of academic debates about whether and how to 'sequence' the two." Rather, they argue, by rejecting the outdated either/or democracy and development stereotypes, the two goals can be pursued in tandem. But the two communities need to retain their own particular advantages, making mutual reinforcement rather than integration the best framework for going forward.

Related:

• "The Elusive Synthesis"»
• "Getting Convergence Right"»
• HIV/AIDS program helps democracy deliver in Southern Africa»

Pictured above: The Journal of Democracy

Published on October 22, 2010