1. William Easterly on DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY
IN DEVELOPMENT: THE DOUBLE STANDARD
Seminar on Foreign Aid, Democracy and Development
Lyla Latif
Master of Arts in Development and Governance
Winter Semester 2014/2015

2. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed

3. INTRODUCTION
Democratic rights for all?
Development policy discussions give little
emphasis to these rights for the poor.
Hence, the double standard on democracy for
the rich versus democracy for the poor
countries.

4. DOUBLE STANDARDS?
Seen in the language that aid and
development debates use, and in the
action of aid agencies (findings made by
Easterly following the analysis of aid and
development documents)
Seen from the allocation of aid between
autocracies and democracies

5. FINDINGS
RS 1 RS 2 RS 3 RS 4
Maintaining
silence on the
subject
Evading the
democracy issue
with euphemisms
(governance,
anticorruption
participation,
country
ownership,
partnership)
Evading criticism
of autocrats with
euphemisms
(developmental
state, strong
leadership)
Use of the
nonfalsifiable
“transition”
defense
RHETORICAL STRATEGIES (RS) THAT ALLOW THE DOUBLE
STANDARDS TO PERSIST

6. ORIGINS OF THE DOUBLE STANDARDS IN LANGUAGE
Early colonial period – Despotism found to be a legitimate
mode of government in dealing with ‘barbarians’ provided the
end be their improvement (On Liberty John Stuart Mill 1869)
Late colonial period – Development to involve no derogation
from the rights and privileges of local legislatures (Statement
of Policy on Colonial Development and Welfare and on
Colonial Research)
Birth of International Organisations – Showed indifference to
accountability instead focus was on the administrative
structures that were created for the purpose of translating
government planning into economic reality. No distinction
between the types of governments doing this planning was
made

8. ALLOCATION OF FOREIGN AID BY CLASSIFICATION OF
RECIPIENTS – FREEDOM HOUSE

9. TOP AUTOCRATIC RECIPIENTS OF AID (IN BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS)

10. DONOR AGENCIES’ SHARE OF DEMOCRATIC RECIPIENTS
VERSUS SHARE OF LOW INCOME NATIONS

11. WHY DOUBLE STANDARDS PERSIST?

12. CHALLENGES AND FUTURE HOPES?
Problems of aid
Evasion of accountability
Ignoring autocracy as an issue in development
Important for the Free World to have a developing country
on its side irrespective of whether it was Free or not.
Emphasis on the principles of individual rights and liberties

13. THE END
.