Abstract:This article compares the democratization process in Benin and Niger in the decade from 1989 to 1999 and emphasizes the influence of external donors with regard to their economic support of democratization. The task is twofold. First, I try to understand why, though these two aid-dependent countries share many initial similarities, the former received more external financial assistance than the latter. I build upon New Institutionalist concepts such as timing, sequence, and path dependency to demonstrate that the probability and continuity of foreign aid depend both on the timing and on sequences of the transition—a combination that may or may not produce a path-dependent phenomenon with regard to the donors. Second, I argue that the capacity of foreign aid to foster democratization depends largely on its timing, particularly in critical moments of the democratic process.
In the 1990s, analysts were almost unanimous in considering Benin to be one of the most important aid recipients among the newly democratizing African countries. After more than two decades of democratic practice, the country has clearly completed the phase of democratic transition. In this study, I argue that the main present-day political challenges in Benin are related both to the quality or deepening of democracy and to poverty reduction. Foreign aid has changed as donors have reoriented their assistance in order to target specific issues like the strengthening of civil society, accountability and the rule of law. Thanks to donors, success has been achieved in some sectors but it is far from certain that these positive experiences are enough to prevent political tensions between incumbents and opposition parties around issues of governance. Moreover, when it comes to more substantial aspects of democracy, such as enhancing accountability and fighting corruption, Benin still has a long way to go.
China’s rise became evident at the turn of the century in a context of American unilateralism under the command of George W. Bush. This context explains, to a large extent, Chinese strategies to avoid isolation and defend its interests. As such, China has chosen to act through multilateralism, previously viewed with suspicion, but now sought as an essential element to its diplomatic strategy, especially at the regional level. In this context, FOCAC can be understood as an imperfect multilateral undertaking knowing that bilateral relations are at the core of the relations between China and African countries both within and outside the institution. Is FOCAC an organization similar to the Commonwealth or the International Organization of La Francophonie? Are African countries true actors in this institution or do they orbit around China while it defines the rules and principles to be enacted and profits from them alone? Given all that was stated above, this paper has two main objectives. First, we seek to demonstrate in which ways FOCAC is part of an alliance building strategy to allow China to better resist American unilateralism and the risks of being stopped by its Western rivals. Then, we will show that, as an institution, FOCAC is a place of socialization, that is, a place where standards, practices and patterns of behavior are set and disseminated. As such, far from being a mere instrument manipulated by China, it is both a framework and a tool with shared impacts. In order to achieve both our goals, at first we will outline the theoretical and conceptual background to guide our work – constructivist theory – resorting to the concepts of soft balancing and socialization. After that, a thorough explanation of FOCAC’s history will be presented, highlighting institutional characteristics and their impact on China-Africa relations.
Résumé Cet article procède à une revue critique de la contribution du néo-institutionnalisme à l’analyse comparée des processus de démocratisation. Cette perspective a provoqué une réorientation de la recherche en introduisant une variable institutionnelle renouvelée dans ce domaine où prévalaient des explications en termes de valeurs, de culture ou de pré-requis. L’article part de l’idée que 1) le néo-institutionnalisme comporte trois variantes qui fournissent chacune une perspective théorique relativement spécifique et 2) que la démocratisation se découpe en phases analytiques dont la compréhension fait appel à des outils différents. L’article expose alors la manière dont les modèles théoriques proposés par les trois néo-institutionnalismes sont appliqués à l’analyse de ces phases et discute de leur pertinence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.