Promoting Democracy in the Western Balkans after the Global Financial Crisis: Good Intentions Badly Executed?
In: Southeastern EuropeSearch for other papers by Adam Fagan in
Current site
Google Scholar
International donors got involved in the Western Balkans during the last two decades, mainly through civil society organisations (CSOs), with the initial aim of providing emergency relief, and then to promote democracy and broadly support the Europeanization agenda. The intention has also been to contribute to the spread of western values and norms, as well as advance notions of ‘good governance’ and state reform. However, most local CSOs in receipt of such assistance have not developed high capacities and remain dependent on donor funding. They are also vulnerable to political pressures and have become detached from their local constituencies. Through a survey of donors that have operated across the region, this article seeks to examine why the long-term provision of aid and attempts to promote democracy via civil society have seemingly not delivered a sufficient dividend. What is examined here is whether donor conceptualization of ‘civil society development’ is the critical variable determining success. If we acknowledge that how donors view civil society and its contribution to democracy and state building is the basis from which aid is provided, projects are supported, and objectives set and measured, then better understanding the donors’ perspective is an important basis for trying to understand limited success. This, combined with poor co-ordination and collaboration amongst donors and between them and local stakeholders, arguably compounds the problem. The article concludes that although it has long been recognised that donor strategies are contentious and determine the impact of assistance, the economic crisis is exerting a significant impact in terms of priorities, exit strategies and co-ordination, the outcome of which is by no means certain.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Bruszt L., and Vedres B.. 23–25 April 2009. “ Fostering Developmental Agency from Without,” Paper presented at EUSA Eleventh Biennial International Conference (Los Angeles).
-
Carothers T.2006. Confronting the Weakest Link: Aiding Political Parties in New Democracies (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
-
Carothers T.2009. “ Democracy Assistance: Political Vs. Developmental?,” Journal of Democracy 20/1: 5–19.
-
Cellarius B. A., and Staddon C.. 2002. “ Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations, Civil Society and Democratization in Bulgaria,” East European Politics and Societies 16/1: 182–222.
-
Crawford G.2003a. “ Promoting Democracy from without - Learning from within (Part I),” Democratization 10/1: 77–98.
-
Crawford G.2003b. “ Promoting Democracy from without - Learning from within (Part II),” Democratization 10/2: 1–20.
-
Crotty J.2003. “ Managing Civil Society: Democratization and the Environmental Movement in a Russian Region,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 36/4: 489–508.
-
Fagan A.2005. “ Taking Stock of Civil-Society Development in Post-Communist Europe: Evidence from the Czech Republic,” Democratization 12/4: 528–547.
-
Fagan A.2008. “ Global-Local Linkage in the Western Balkans: The Politics of Environmental Capacity Building in Bosnia-Herzegovina,” Political Studies 56/3: 629–652.
-
Howard M. M.2003. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
-
Mandel R., 2002. “ Seeding Civil Society,” in Hann C. M. (ed.), Postsocialisms: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia (London: Routledge): 279–296.
-
McMahon P. C.2007. Taming Ethnic Hatred: Ethnic Cooperation and Transnational Networks in Eastern Europe (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press).
-
Mendelson S. E., and Glenn J. K. (eds.). 2002. The Power and Limits of NGOs (New York: Columbia University Press).
-
Ottaway M., and Carothers T.. 2000. (eds.), Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
-
Quigley K. F. F., 2000. “ Lofty Goals, Modest Results: Assisting Civil Society in Eastern Europe,” in Ottaway M., and Carothers T. (eds.), Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace): 191–216.
-
Raiser M., , Haerpfer C., , Nowotny T., and Wallace C.. 2001. Social Capital in Transition: A First Look at the Evidence (London: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development).
-
Rose R.2001. “ How People View Democracy: A Diverging Europe,” Journal of Democracy 12/1: 93–106.
-
Petrova T., and Tarrow S.. 2007. “ Transactional and Participatory Activism in the Emerging European Polity: The Puzzle of East-Central Europe,” Comparative Political Studies 40/1: 74–94.
-
Sampson S., 1996. “ The Social Life of Projects: Importing Civil Society to Albania,” in Hann C., and Dunn E. (eds.), Civil Society: Challenging the Western Models (London: Routledge): 121–142.
-
Sampson S., 2002. “ Beyond Transition: Rethinking Elite Configurations in the Balkans”, in Hann C. M. (ed.), Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Practices in Eurasia (London and New York: Routledge): 297–316.
-
Wedel J. R.2001. Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe, 1989-1998. (New York: Palgrave).
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 271 | 64 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 54 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 43 | 6 | 0 |
Promoting Democracy in the Western Balkans after the Global Financial Crisis: Good Intentions Badly Executed?
In: Southeastern EuropeSearch for other papers by Adam Fagan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
International donors got involved in the Western Balkans during the last two decades, mainly through civil society organisations (CSOs), with the initial aim of providing emergency relief, and then to promote democracy and broadly support the Europeanization agenda. The intention has also been to contribute to the spread of western values and norms, as well as advance notions of ‘good governance’ and state reform. However, most local CSOs in receipt of such assistance have not developed high capacities and remain dependent on donor funding. They are also vulnerable to political pressures and have become detached from their local constituencies. Through a survey of donors that have operated across the region, this article seeks to examine why the long-term provision of aid and attempts to promote democracy via civil society have seemingly not delivered a sufficient dividend. What is examined here is whether donor conceptualization of ‘civil society development’ is the critical variable determining success. If we acknowledge that how donors view civil society and its contribution to democracy and state building is the basis from which aid is provided, projects are supported, and objectives set and measured, then better understanding the donors’ perspective is an important basis for trying to understand limited success. This, combined with poor co-ordination and collaboration amongst donors and between them and local stakeholders, arguably compounds the problem. The article concludes that although it has long been recognised that donor strategies are contentious and determine the impact of assistance, the economic crisis is exerting a significant impact in terms of priorities, exit strategies and co-ordination, the outcome of which is by no means certain.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 271 | 64 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 54 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 43 | 6 | 0 |
