Paper short abstract:

This paper uses the experience of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to identify two trade-offs that democracy promoters confront. It examines where and when different trade-offs are worth making, exposing tensions between risk management, innovation and attempts to adapt to political context.

Paper long abstract:

This papers examines how those who provide aid to political institutions - in particular, to parliaments and political parties - minimize risk and maximize rewards in delivering that aid. As is the case for other development practitioners, democracy promoters face increasing pressure to work in more politically-savvy, context sensitive ways. Political economy analysis has become standard. Yet translating that analysis into practice has proved difficult; prominent academics describe an 'almost revolution' in which development aid has confronted, but not fully come to terms with, politics.

This paper helps to explain why that revolution remains partial. It breaks new ground, drawing on the body of practice accumulated by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. This is made concrete through internal programme documents (proposals, reports and evaluations) and interviews with key members of staff. On the basis of that material, this paper identifies two trade-offs that democracy promoters must confront and proposes an analytical framework that can be used to identify where, and when, different trade-offs are worth making. In presenting that framework this paper explores tensions between the management systems of donors, which seek to minimise risk, and their exhortations to democracy promoters to adopt more innovative and context-sensitive methods.

This paper contributes to current academic efforts to understand the internal dynamics of international development actors. It also provides concrete evidence of the gains that can be made when those who undertake democracy promotion - traditionally an area of development where transparency has been lacking - make their experience public knowledge.