Do People Want Democracy Aid? Survey Experimental Evidence from Africa

IF 1.8 1区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Perspectives Pub Date : 2022-07-18 DOI:10.1093/isp/ekac002
John A. Doces, M. Meyer
{"title":"Do People Want Democracy Aid? Survey Experimental Evidence from Africa","authors":"John A. Doces, M. Meyer","doi":"10.1093/isp/ekac002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In Africa, international donors have increasingly promoted democracy and election monitoring. Do Africans want them to do this or would they prefer some other purpose? We argue respondents will least prefer democracy compared to other purposes because (i) there are other possible uses, like healthcare, that are more in need; (ii) aid has a political salience of control that other purposes do not have; and (iii) democracy and monitoring in Africa often yield negative externalities, while other purposes produce positive externalities. To test this claim, we conducted two rounds of survey experiments in Côte d’Ivoire and Uganda, and then again in Côte d’Ivoire with an extension to Senegal. Our surveys employ a conjoint analysis in which respondents compare two possible development projects. Each survey includes several dimensions, including the project’s purpose, which is where we locate democracy and monitoring and alternative purposes such as healthcare or education. Results indicate that democracy and monitoring are the least preferred purposes compared to other purposes. This does not mean that they do not want democracy, nor that they do not want donors to promote democracy, but rather that compared to other possible purposes, democracy is the least preferred use of aid funds.","PeriodicalId":47002,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekac002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In Africa, international donors have increasingly promoted democracy and election monitoring. Do Africans want them to do this or would they prefer some other purpose? We argue respondents will least prefer democracy compared to other purposes because (i) there are other possible uses, like healthcare, that are more in need; (ii) aid has a political salience of control that other purposes do not have; and (iii) democracy and monitoring in Africa often yield negative externalities, while other purposes produce positive externalities. To test this claim, we conducted two rounds of survey experiments in Côte d’Ivoire and Uganda, and then again in Côte d’Ivoire with an extension to Senegal. Our surveys employ a conjoint analysis in which respondents compare two possible development projects. Each survey includes several dimensions, including the project’s purpose, which is where we locate democracy and monitoring and alternative purposes such as healthcare or education. Results indicate that democracy and monitoring are the least preferred purposes compared to other purposes. This does not mean that they do not want democracy, nor that they do not want donors to promote democracy, but rather that compared to other possible purposes, democracy is the least preferred use of aid funds.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人们想要民主援助吗?非洲实验证据调查
在非洲,国际捐助者日益促进民主和选举监督。非洲人是希望他们这样做,还是更喜欢其他目的?我们认为,与其他目的相比,受访者最不喜欢民主,因为(i)还有其他可能的用途,比如医疗保健,更需要;(ii)援助具有其他目的所不具备的政治控制优势;三非洲的民主和监测往往产生负外部性,而其他目的则产生正外部性。为了验证这一说法,我们在科特迪瓦和乌干达进行了两轮调查实验,然后在科特迪瓦再次进行,并扩大到塞内加尔。我们的调查采用了联合分析法,受访者比较了两个可能的开发项目。每项调查都包括几个方面,包括项目的目的,即我们定位民主和监测以及医疗或教育等替代目的的地方。结果表明,与其他目的相比,民主和监督是最不可取的目的。这并不意味着他们不希望民主,也不希望捐助者促进民主,而是与其他可能的目的相比,民主是援助资金最不受欢迎的用途。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Studies Perspectives
International Studies Perspectives INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: International Studies Perspectives (ISP) publishes peer-reviewed articles that bridge the interests of researchers, teachers, and practitioners working within any and all subfields of international studies.
期刊最新文献
Learning Goals in Simulations Carlos Fortin, Jorge Heine and Carlos Ominami (Eds), Latin American Foreign Policies in the New World Order: The Active Non-Alignment Option (New York: Anthem Press, 2023) Re-Imagining Peace Education: Using Critical Pedagogy as a Transformative Tool The Port of Berbera and Geopolitics of the Western Indian Ocean Student-Designed Simulation: Teaching Global Governance in Practice through a Student-Led Role-Play for Practitioners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1