FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 21 | 22 || 24 | 25 |   ...   | 62 |

«Development, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The ...»

-- [ Page 23 ] --

Reich, G. 2002. Categorizing Political Regimes: New Data for Old Problems. Democratization 9(4):1-24.

Schaffer, F.C. 1998. Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Schumpeter, J.A. 1942. Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.

Tetlock, P. 2005. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Thomas, M.A. 2007. What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure? Unpublished manuscript, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.

 IMPROVING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE Transparency International. 2007. Corruption Perceptions Index. Available at: http://www.

transparency.org/policy_research/sureys_indices/cpi. Accessed on September 5, 2007.

Treier, S., and Jackman, S. 2003. Democracy as a Latent Variable. Paper presented at the Political Methodology meetings, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul.

USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). 1998. Handbook of Democracy and Goernance Program Indicators. Washington, DC: Center for Democracy and Governance.

Available at: http://www.usaid.go/our_work/democracy_and_goenance/publications/pdfs/ pnacc0.pdf. Accessed on August 1, 2007.

Vanhanen, T. 2000. A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810-1998. Journal of Peace Research 37:251-265.

Vermillion, J. 2006. Problems in the Measurement of Democracy. Democracy at Large 3(1):


Learning from the Past: Using Case Studies of Democratic Transitions to Inform Democracy Assistance


The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) asked the National Research Council (NRC) to recommend methodologies to carry out retrospective analyses of democracy assistance programs. The recommendations were to include “a plan for cross-national case-study research to determine program effectiveness and inform strategic planning.” There is a substantial and growing literature of case studies of democracy assistance programs, many of them commissioned by USAID or other agencies engaged in democracy assistance. The goal of such case studies is to learn what has worked and what has not among the varied democracy and governance (DG) programs in a variety of places.

The vast majority of such studies focus on a particular program in a particular country, such as human rights in Cambodia (Asia Watch 2002), party organization in Uganda (Barya et al 2004), voter education in Ethiopia (McMahon et al 2004), or justice reform in Sierra Leone (Dougherty 2004).

In addition, there have been more ambitious works that looked at multiple countries to try to draw broader lessons about program impacts.

For example, Abbink and Hesseling (2000) bring together several studies of election observation and democratization in Africa; Lippman and Emmert (1997) study legislative assistance in five countries; Blair and Hansen (1994) assess the impact of rule of law programs in six countries;

Kumar (1998) examines the impact of elections in several postconflict conditions; O’Neill (2003) presents lessons from human rights promotion in  00 IMPROVING DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE varied regions; Carter et al (2003) study the overall impact of USAID DG programs in six countries; and de Zeeuw and Kumar (2006) look at media, human rights, and election programs in nine postconflict states.

While these studies have generated valuable insights into how programs were carried out, how they were received, and how participants and donors perceived their effects, they are not ideal either for “determining program effectiveness” or to “inform strategic planning.” This is because such studies focused almost entirely on specific DG projects, rather than on the broader context of democratization in the countries being studied. They did not systematically compare cases of varying levels of DG assistance or compare the effects of DG projects with comparison groups that did not receive assistance.


The basic tool of case study analysis is process tracing (George and Bennett 2005). In this method, researchers track the unfolding of strings of events, testing hypotheses regarding the causal relationships among them by considering multiple hypotheses that could account for the strings of events and searching for confirming and disconfirming evidence. The process is not unlike a detective’s efforts to solve a murder mystery by reconstructing a timeline of events, examining all possible suspects and their alibis, assessing plausible motives and opportunities for the observed actions and events, and building a case in favor of one causal chain as having determined the ultimate outcome rather than others.

Like solving any mystery, process tracing can be painstaking and time-consuming work, and the results often depend on an analyst’s skill in recognizing how specific social conditions, motivations, events, and opportunities link to form a coherent explanatory chain. Also like any criminal case, the persuasiveness of pointing out any one factor or event as causal depends on the analyst’s imagination and skill in identifying and considering alternatie causal pathways and gathering evidence as to how likely or unlikely they were.1 Case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of aid programs thus face the same challenge as formal statistical evaluations—they must try to determine what would have happened in the absence of the aid program, whether by including studies of both groups receiving aid and those not receiving aid in their case studies (a comparative case study design) or by trying to trace and account for historical trends and confounding fac

–  –  –

tors to estimate the likely causal chains that would have unfolded in the absence of the aid program (a long-term historical case study design).

Yet in most case studies of democracy assistance, researchers have not used such designs. They have instead assumed that the information they needed could be found by studying the unfolding of the aid program itself. For a process-type evaluation, where the main questions asked by researchers are “Did the project achieve the goals expected by the donors?” and “Why or why not?” this is reasonable and most case studies of aid assistance have taken this form.

However, if USAID now wishes to use case studies to study the impact of DG programs on policy goals, they are not the most appropriate tool. This is because retrospective case studies can rarely obtain or reconstruct the comparable baseline and outcome information for appropriate comparison groups that is necessary for sound inference of program effects. The committee’s field studies tried to determine if missions had retained such baseline data if collected before DG projects or if they had collected any comparable baseline data for nonassisted groups. The teams had limited success with finding the former and no success in finding the latter. Thus the committee believes that for most DG programs information on project effects would most credibly be obtained by well-designed impact evaluations, rather than retrospective case studies.

However, case studies can provide information to help inform strategic planning. Comparative and historical case studies that examine varied trajectories of democratic change, and trace the relationship of DG activities to other factors and events that influence long-term democracy outcomes, can help generate hypotheses about opportunities and obstacles for DG assistance to support democratic progress.

In addition, sometimes the greatest insights regarding where and when to intervene with certain programs arise from detailed studies of program failures. One can often learn more from tracing the causes of program failure than from studies of successes, especially if such success rests on chance factors that supported a program but are not observed or reported in the study. Yet case studies of DG assistance rarely seek out failures for sustained examination—there are few rewards in the current incentive structure of donors for seeking out failures and investing in their study.2 This chapter develops guidelines for case studies that better explore the roles that democracy assistance programs may play in varied contexts of social change.

2 One exception is the scholarly work of Carothers (1999, 2004, 2006), who has investigated

–  –  –



Under the “transformational diplomacy” plan of the Bush administration and the closer supervision of USAID by the State Department, it was anticipated that USAID’s DG efforts would often be undertaken as part of broader strategies to help achieve desired outcomes in particular states (Rice 2006). Faced with such demands, USAID would like to be

able to respond to policymakers with information such as the following:

“Based on what we know about transitions to democracy in countries with conditions like that, the chances of achieving a successful transition to democracy in X years is fairly low (or high),” or “Based on what we know about the time and volume of assistance it usually takes to build and stabilize democracy in postconflict societies with these characteristics, we can give you some broad parameters regarding the expected time and financial support required to have a realistic chance of attaining that goal in country Y.” For these objectives a clustered set of case studies, tracing the processes through which advances toward democracy were made from various sets of initial conditions, is an appropriate mode of investigation. A sufficient number of case studies would help build a knowledge base to answer questions such as the following: “For most countries we have observed with initial conditions X, Y, and Z, what have been the observed trajectories of political change, and which factors A, B, C (and others) were most prominent in shaping or constraining those trajectories?” Case studies are particularly valuable in this kind of mapping exercise, where instead of trying to identify the average impact of one or more causal factors across a wide range of conditions, the goal of the investigation is to identify diverse patterns or combinations of relationships that are associated with varying pathways of change over time (Goldstone 1998, 2003).

Rather than starting out to design such a study, the committee first noted that a great deal of case study research is already being done by academics who focus on democracy and democratization. The committee decided that its first step should be to investigate that body of scholarship and see how much value it already provided for meeting USAID’s goals. The committee therefore convened a conference of leading academic experts on case study analyses of democracies and democratic transitions to help it assess the “state of the art” on how such knowledge could guide strategies for democracy assistance (see Appendix D for the details of this conference).

This section presents the main findings that emerged during that conference, followed by the committee’s own conclusions and recommendations for future studies. The committee does not present the folLEARNING FROM THE PAST lowing findings as definitive, nor are they endorsed as the results of the committee’s own research. Rather, what follows is a synopsis of the main points expressed by scholars at the conference, with particular attention to findings relevant to either DG assistance planning or research designs for case studies of DG assistance programs.

I. Democracy research conducted by the academic community generally needs considerable translation to be useful for guiding democracy assistance.

One problem that was immediately evident from discussions between the scholars and practitioners who attended the conference is that much of the academic research on democracy and democratic transitions is not developed or presented in ways that offer much practical guidance to policy professionals. This is much more than a simple matter of pure versus applied research. Rather, policymakers dealing with democracy assistance simply have to act in much more constrained circumstances than the typical academic study implies.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 21 | 22 || 24 | 25 |   ...   | 62 |

Similar works:

«C.Rothe 1. Ulmer Pflegemanagementkongress 2015 Ausbildung von Clinical Officers in Africa Gregor Pollach; Assoc. Prof. / Former Head Anaesthesia University of Malawi Africa Malawi Bodensee  Eines der 5 ärmsten Länder der Welt (pro Kopf Einkommen ca. 250 $ / J)  AIDS – 15 % HIV positiv  Müttersterblichkeit ( 100 x BRD )  Lebenserwartung : etwa 45 Jahre  ½ bis 1 Mio Waisen im Land ( 15 Mio Einw )  1 Arzt auf etwa 60.000 Einwohner  Fachärzte Anästhesie 2007: 0 // 2015:...»

«SGMC Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Medizinische Codierung SSCM Société Suisse de Codage Médical SSCM Società Svizzera di Codificazione Medica Codierbeispiele zum Meeting am 01.04.08 in Neuchâtel Fall 1 Patient, männlich, 50 Jahre alt, 4 Tage stationär DX Impingement Schulter PX Akromioplastik Indikation elektiver Eintritt. Patient stürzte vor 11 Monate und zog sich dabei eine starke Kontusion des Schultergelenks zu. Seit dann persistierende Schmerzen in der Schulter. Eine...»

«EFSA Journal 2010; 8(6):1637 GUIDANCE OF EFSA Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making1 EFSA Guidance for those carrying out systematic reviews European Food Safety Authority2, 3 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy ABSTRACT Systematic reviews are commonly used in human health research to provide overviews of existing evidence pertinent to clearly formulated specific questions, using pre-specified and standardised...»

«HealthPartners Care Prepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP) Evidence of Coverage January 1, 2016 This booklet contains important information about your health care services. CON-200.11 PMAP HPCare_93268 Approved 11/25/2015 HPCare 2015 LB HPCare_87629 Approved 01/15/2015 This information is available in other forms to people with disabilities by calling 952-967-7998 (voice) or 1-866-885-8880 (toll free), 952-883-6060 (TTY), 1-800-443-0156 (toll free TTY), 7or through the Minnesota Relay direct...»

«www.FreeRaidRecovery.com Practical issues in DIY RAID Recovery Based on years of technical support experience © 2012 www.FreeRaidRecovery.com Practical issues in DIY RAID recovery First edition © 2012 www.FreeRaidRecovery.com This guide is provided to supplement our ReclaiMe Free RAID Recovery software, available at www.FreeRaidRecovery.com. In this guide, we covered the most typical issues our customers have to deal with, based on several years of technical support experience. Reading this...»

«Aus dem Max von Pettenkofer-Institut für Hygiene und Medizinische Mikrobiologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Lehrstuhl: Bakteriologie Komm. Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Rainer Haas Biochemical Analysis Of Phosphorylation Signalling Through The Legionella pneumophila Quorum Sensing System Dissertation zum Erwerb des Doktorgrades der Naturwissenschaften am Max von Pettenkofer-Institut der Medizinischen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München vorgelegt von Ursula Schell aus...»

«Aus dem Institut für Vegetative Physiologie der Medizinischen Fakultät Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin DISSERTATION Investigation of the therapeutic effect of External Pneumatic Counterpulsation on the myocardial and cerebrovascular arterial circulation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor medicinae (Dr. med.) vorgelegt der Medizinischen Fakultät Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin von Eva Buschmann aus Graz, Österreich Datum der Promotion: 11. Dezember 2015 Contents...»

«ARTICLE ENVIRONMENT AND BEHA 10.1177/0013916503260163 VIOR / May 2004 Staats et al. / PROENVIRONMENT HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AL EFFECTING DURABLE CHANGE A Team Approach to Improve Environmental Behavior in the Household HENK STAATS teaches environmental psychology and research methods at the Department of Social and Organizational Psychology at Leiden University, the Netherlands. He coordinates the activities of the Centre for Energy and Environmental Research. His research interests include...»

«BUMC Proceedings 1999;12:277-284 Caring carefully: Sir William Osler on the issue of competence vs compassion in medicine CHARLES S. BRYAN, MD From the Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina. Presented at grand rounds, Baylor University Medical Center, November 17, 1998. Corresponding author: Charles S. Bryan, MD, Department of Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, 2 Medical Park, Suite 502, Columbia, South Carolina...»

«Aus dem Max von Pettenkofer-Institut für Hygiene und Medizinische Mikrobiologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Dr. J. Heesemann (Lehrstuhl Bakteriologie) Analyse der Yersinia-Interaktion mit Thrombozyten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des YopM Effektorproteins Dissertation zum Erwerb des Doktorgrades der Medizin an der Medizinischen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität zu München vorgelegt von Wiebke Lohmann aus Göttingen Jahr Mit Genehmigung...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.