Recent theoretical work employing the concept of`social capital' in the study of democratization remains plagued by conceptual confusion and a curious neglect of politics. This paper critically examines the work of Robert Putnam and other institutional theorists and suggests that a misguided attempt to locate a singular framework to explain both economic and political performance fails to recognize that the conditions underpinning successful capitalist development may not always be congruous with those favouring democratic politics. The work on social capital is coloured by an idealization of the role of the family and of the American political past, in¯uenced by current communitarian thinking. Finally, an uncritical acceptance of the determinist notion of`path dependence' eclipses the role of political action and ideas in the assessment of political outcomes and prospects for democratization. #

No abstract

This article examines the response of the international community to the HIV|AIDS crisis, focusing on efforts to promote a 'multisectoral' approach to fighting the epidemic. It critically assesses the evolution of an 'organizational template', which requires developing country governments to establish stand-alone National AIDS Commissions in order to receive funding for HIV|AIDS programmes. While the World Bank, based on interpretations generated by the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV|AIDS (UNAIDS) and bilateral donors, claims that the model is derived from successful experience, an examination of evidence particularly from Uganda, Senegal and Malawi, suggests that National Commissions have not worked well and may, in fact, have contributed to weakening health sectors attempting to cope with the crisis. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Recent theoretical work employing the concept of`social capital' in the study of democratization remains plagued by conceptual confusion and a curious neglect of politics. This paper critically examines the work of Robert Putnam and other institutional theorists and suggests that a misguided attempt to locate a singular framework to explain both economic and political performance fails to recognize that the conditions underpinning successful capitalist development may not always be congruous with those favouring democratic politics. The work on social capital is coloured by an idealization of the role of the family and of the American political past, in¯uenced by current communitarian thinking. Finally, an uncritical acceptance of the determinist notion of`path dependence' eclipses the role of political action and ideas in the assessment of political outcomes and prospects for democratization. #