{"id":1602,"date":"2017-11-28T10:25:41","date_gmt":"2017-11-28T09:25:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.external-democracy-promotion.eu\/de\/?p=1602"},"modified":"2019-10-27T15:17:09","modified_gmt":"2019-10-27T14:17:09","slug":"review-of-external-democracy-promotion-and-diversity-among-international-agencies-evaluating-variances-in-the-impact-of-the-undp-and-the-ec-in-rwanda-by-simone-beetz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.external-democracy-promotion.eu\/de\/review-of-external-democracy-promotion-and-diversity-among-international-agencies-evaluating-variances-in-the-impact-of-the-undp-and-the-ec-in-rwanda-by-simone-beetz\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of \u201cExternal Democracy Promotion and Diversity Among International Agencies – Evaluating Variances in the Impact of the UNDP and the EC in Rwanda\u201d by Simone Beetz"},"content":{"rendered":"

This EDP wire contribution presents a review of Simone Beetz\u2019 2017 empirical analysis on \u201cExternal Democracy Promotion and Diversity Among International Agencies – Evaluating Variances in the Impact of the UNDP and the EC in Rwanda\u201d. Simone Beetz is currently a public relations manager at Goethe University Frankfurt. Her book \u2013 a revised version of her dissertation – was published by Budrich UniPress. For more information please click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

In her book, Beetz analyzes and compares the results of external democracy promotion policy by two international agencies, namely the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the European Commission (EC), in Rwanda since the first parliamentarian and presidential elections in 2003 up to 2013 with a selective outlook until today. Given the fact that there are \u201ccommon democracy promotion policies\u201d (Beetz 2017: 283) and since both organizations \u201cshare a common framework and address a broad range of democratic dimensions\u201d (Beetz 2017: 17), Beetz assumes that these two international agencies should have a similar impact on democratization in Rwanda. Interestingly, she finds results to differ notably, even though both the UNDP and the EC are supposedly promoting \u201csimilar interests and strategies according to the liberal paradigm\u201d (Beetz 2017: 283) and even though the establishment of democracy is said to be a norm in the field of international relations. Analyzing the reasons for the differing policy results and addressing impact variances in relation to theoretical assumptions thus becomes Beetz main research objective.<\/p>\n

In order to analyze the impact of external democracy promotion policies from both the UNDP and the EC, Beetz develops a broad-based analytical evaluation tool. She starts by defining democracy promotion as the main aim of international organizations and describes how democracy influences international agencies. By working her way through different approaches of democracy theory, Beetz points out their differences, similarities and contradictions in order to develop five dimensions of democracy.<\/p>\n

By taking different components of democracy theory and integrating them into a concept for evaluating international agencies\u2019 democracy promotion impact, Beetz is creating a broad-based analytical tool, enabling her to address variances in the impacts on democratization in Rwanda with a connection to theoretical assumptions. Her comparative impact evaluation builds the foundation for the empirical analysis and therefore enables Beetz to identify international agencies\u2019 variances in external democracy promotion.<\/p>\n

The dimensions Beetz is integrating in her tool derive from Beetham\u2019s and Diamond\u2019s 1994 model of the so-called pyramid of democracy, <\/em>which consists of four interrelated areas; these areas are further distinguished into \u201cfree and fair elections, open and accountable government, a democratic society, and civil and political rights\u201d (Beetz 2017: 57) and she also borrows from Diamond and Morlino\u2019s 2005 approaches to democracy. The dimensions consist of the following analytical components: multi-party elections, institutionalization, the rule of law, economic development, civil society and political culture.<\/p>\n

In her comparative case studies, Beetz not only compares the agencies\u2019 approaches to external democracy promotion in Rwanda, but goes further to compare each dimension of democracy in order to define characteristics for their differences. In fact, as some researchers have already assumed in different, rather state-related cases, the impact on democratization of the two organizations isn\u2019t quite similar. Rather, Beetz identifies four major outcomes in her empirical analysis:<\/p>\n

(1) Although both agencies emphasize as their main goal the spread of democracy worldwide, the EC and the UNDP do not share a common view on democracy. Their strategies and implementation of external democracy promotion differ: before the genocide, the \u201c\u2019one size fits all\u2019 approach\u201d implemented by both organizations turned out to have a mainly negative impact on democratization in Rwanda (Beetz 2017: 155), since then, \u201cbroader modifications of the liberal model paradigm\u201d in each organizations\u2019 democratization approach became visible (Beetz 2017: 37).<\/p>\n

(2) The roles of both organizations have changed over time \u201cdue to institutional changes and concept adaptions\u201d (Beetz 2017: 37), and contrary to expectations, there is not much interaction between the UNDP and the EC on the ground or on the strategical level either.<\/p>\n

(3) Beetz finds that the motives of actors influence the impact on democratization and since the democracy promotion concepts are different, the strategies are too, which results in impact variances on the ground. In comparison with the EC for example, the UNDP is pursuing a broad-based approach to democracy and has a stronger impact on civil society or institutionalization. The EC in return has a greater impact on economic development.<\/p>\n

(4) Ultimately, Beetz finds that by categorizing and measuring these variations on the institutional, the state and the grassroots level, a concept of variances can be conceptualized, which includes various dimensions of democracy and which can be applied for various agencies. The concept of variances enables the researcher to distinguish between the following three factors:<\/p>\n