The Impact of Development Aid on the Level of Democracy: Case Of

CEU eTD Collection In partial In partial the fulfillment The Impact of Development Aid o Aid Development of The Impact Level o Supervisor: Professor Andrew Cartwright

of the requirements Policy the degreeinPublic for ofMasterArts f Central European University Department ofPublic Policy Democracy: Case of Armenia Case of Democracy: By Budapest, Hungary Liana AghabekyanLiana Submitted to 2014

CEU eTD Collection Date: 09.06.2014 aThis is true copythesis, including ofthe final revisions. English language. orinany other requiremen the of part as accepted been has whichmaterial no contains thesis This made. been hasacknowledgement wheredue except person other any by published previously material no contains thesis this knowledge my of best sole the am I that declare hereby Aghabekyan Liana undersigned the I, Copyright Notice Signature: LianaName: Aghabekyan

s f n ohr cdmc ere r non or degree academic other any of ts

author of this thesis. To the the To thesis. this of author - degree program, in in program, degree CEU eTD Collection 2.2 Armenia 2.2 a as Recipient of Development Aid 2.1. Democratic Situation in Armenia Chapter 2: Ca The1.3. Relationship between DevelopmentAid and Democracy The1.2. Concepts of Democracy and Democratization The1.1. Evolution theof Concepts of Development and Development aid Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework Introduction List Abbrevof List Tablesof List Figuresof Acknowledgements Abstract Contents Table of Reference List Findings and Conclusion The3.4. European Union Institutions 3.3. World BankGroup/International Development Association United3.2. StatesAgency for International Development 3.1. Major A Chapter 3: Comparative Analysis Majorof Donors of Armenia The2.3. Correlation between Development Aid and theLevel of Democracy in Armenia

...... id Donors Armeniaof

......

iations se Study:se Armenia

......

49 45 41 38 35 33 33 29 21 16 16 12 10

iii iv

5 5 1 ii v

CEU eTD Collection targeted development policies could have on the democracy level of Armenia, resulting in no no in resulting Armenia, significant ofdemocracy. ofdevelopment aidonthelevel impact of level democracy the on have could policies development targeted c reflected promotion, democracy aid development combining for approaches different quite had country the of donors major relationship detail The variables. betweenthe significant statistically no observe correlation of results The aid. development into (EU) States U of policies development Secondly, correlation. throughbivariate analyzed is two betweenthe level the on aid development of impact the examines thesis This scholars. among issue debatable a been has country recipient aid of democracy of level the and aid development between relationship The A

oncluded that the absence of consistent policies of major donors undermined the impact that more that impact the undermined donors major of policies consistent of absence the that oncluded bstract

institutions are critically discussed from the perspective of integration of democracy assistancedemocracy of integration of perspective the from discussedcritically are institutions of democracy in Armenia for the time period from 2003 to 2012. Firstly, the relationship relationship the Firstly, 2012. to 2003 from period time the for Armenia in democracy of A ec fr nentoa Dvlpet UAD, ol Bn (WB Bank World (USAID), Development International for gency

ed analysis of USAID, WB and EU institutions reveal that the three the revealthat institutions EU and WBUSAID, of analysis ed

n h icnitny f hi dvlpet oiis Tu, t is it Thus, policies. development their of inconsistency the in i

) n E and uropean U nited

nion and and CEU eTD Collection Department Policy ofPublic their for Corduneanu Cristina to gratitude his for Studies Policy guidance for professional Center the from Cartwright Andrew supervisor my to grateful am I Acknowledgements

hogot the throughout

- Huci from the School of Public Policy and Sara Svensson from the from SvenssonSara and Policy Public of School the from Huci valuable recommendations and recommendations valuable eerh and research ii

rtn poes I process. writing support also .

xrs m sincere my express CEU eTD Collection FigureIDA projects by 9: fromsectors 2003to2012 Figure by 8:USAID projects sectors Figure inthetotal amountofODAfluctuations by 7:Thedonors main Figure 6:Correlation Figureshare inTotal 5:Majordonor’s (Averaged Net 2003 ODA Figure of 2003to2012 major donors from 4:Changes inODA Figure bygroups ODA donors 3:Total Net of Figure for ODA 2003 2:Total Net FigureIVand 1:Polity Freedom House Scores List ofFigures FigureIndic ofNationalareas 10:Priority

between ofdemocracyand level (Scatter net ODA Plot)

- 2012

ative Programs

for Armenia (2003for iii

- 2012) - 2012)

CEU eTD Collection Table 8: IDATable 8: Armenia from 2012 2003to in Projects and Programs sector Governance” and Rights Human “Democracy, USAID 7: Table Table IDA 6:Share ODAEU institutions, of and total USin Table 5: Correlation ofdemocracyand between level net ODA Table 4: Major donors’ share inTotal Net byTable 3: Total Net major donors ODA bilateral andmultilateral byTablegroups donors 2: Total Net of ODA IVTable 1: PolityFreedom andArmenia House for Scores from 2013 2003to List ofTables

projects towards Public Sector Public projects towards

ODA

CEU eTD Collection Organisation forCo Economic Official (ODA) Development Assistance IndicativeNational International Association (IDA) Development Human (HDI) DevelopmentIndex Gross domestic product (GDP) Freedom House (FH) European(EU) Union Development (DAC)Committee Assistance List ofAbbreviations BankWorld (WB) InternationalUnited States Agency for United Nations Program Development (UNDP) InternationalSwedish Agency DevelopmentCooperation (SIDA)

Programs

(NIP) -

operation (OECD) and Development

Development (USAID) Development

CEU eTD Collection thus consider a having power, in stay to them helps and governments corrupt and authoritarian for income of source resource, additional an just is aid development that argue authors Some results. the on research existing The the level ofdemocracy on impact has organizations donor from received aid whetherdevelopment discuss will thesis dev and democracy between relationship the study will I Besides, development. sustainable rights, simply not associated being politics, develop of concept the discussed 2000). Przeworski, 1993; democ of levels growth economic the democracy. on concentrates to leads that development economic level certain achieve to necessary is development. latter of the importance the that underline claiming they institutions, Thus democratic (2012). poverty and stagnation in result ones economic to lead participation political people’s encourage that institutions political and economic inclusive that arguing development, for matter institutions how discuss fail” nations “Why famous their in Robinson and Acemoglu argue scholars development between relationship The Introduction elopment, looking at it from the perspective of development aid. Specifically, the the Specifically, aid. development of perspective the from it at looking elopment, from the perspective of economic growth economic of perspective the from Others

h rltosi between relationship the ht eortc ntttos r necessary are institutions democratic that able negative impact on the level of democracy (Svensson, 2000; Morisson, 2000; (Svensson, democracy of level the on impact negative able look at the relatio the at look ment and discuss how it broadened over time, began to integrate with integrate to began time, over broadened it how discuss and ment of therecipientof country. hs i te ab the in Thus, impact of development aid on democracy reveals contra reveals democracy on aid development of impact with racies and non and racies nship from a different perspective, claiming perspective, different a from nship

and economic growth but also but growth economic eeomn and development v mnind li mentioned ove

democracy 1

growth and prosperity, while the extractive the while prosperity, and growth . This thesis This . - democracies (Przeworski and Limongi, and (Przeworski democracies n eea, r general, In is

t erature democracy

widely o achieving for will look at the evolution of evolution the at look will ,

with development development eaal issue. debatable sac done esearch ,

through through democracy, human democracy, development. comparing comparing s mostly is

that it is it that dicto mostly mostly Some ry CEU eTD Collection analysis post of comparative Particularly, Armenia. beyond go and selected cases of number the increase perio time the discuss will thesis the Particularly possible. as much as factors external of influence the avoid to order in years th Considering establishment and economy market towards steps first ( collapse economic its to contributing largely thus borders open two only with Armenia landlocked Azerbaijan neighboring with War country. the for challenging quite were independence of years first The reforms. fro S independence and sovereignty its regained Armenia Europe. Eastern and Asia Western of juncture the at region, Caucasus Southern the in located is it million, 3.2 around This field. need inthis for case studies more be cons into democracy of Takinglevel the on aid development of impact the that world. noted be can it mentioned, the of parts other for gap the leaving while countries, African of cases the examines mostly research existing the addition, In field. the in study further for necessity the revealing thus world, the of parts all for and periods t all for answer unique a having not debatable, topic the leaves done research the Hence, (2004). time of periods certain across vary can and definite not is democracy of level the on (K ef democratization including impact positive have can and wasted not is aid development that claiming disagree, Others 2007). ve Uin n 91 n oee te pc fr ag setu o eooi ad political and economic of spectrum large for space the opened and 1991 in Union oviet

nack, 2004; Gol 2004; nack, specific for each recipient country and may also differ across time. Therefore, there is a is there Therefore, time. across differ also may and country recipient each for specific

research Iskandaryan

will focus on Armenia. With With Armenia. on focus will e above mentioned situation, this research this situation, mentioned above e - soviet countries soviet countries d smith, 2001). Dunning argues that the positive impact of development aid development of impact positive the that argues Dunning 2001). smith, , 201 , unt 3 il 1994, energy crisis, as well as a transporta a as well as crisis, energy 1994, il ). The country started to recover only since mid 90s, making the making 90s, mid since only recover to started country The ). can d from 2003 to 2012. Further and extended research could research extended and Further 2012. to 2003 from d

contribute to the field.contribute tothe et n eiin countries, recipient on fect

a 2

ertr o 2 80 q m n pplto of population and km sq 800 29 of territory

will concentrate on the recent ten recent the on concentrate will

f eortc oiia regime. political democratic of find drto al h above the all ideration ing tion blockade left the the left blockade tion

vdne o that for evidence m the the m ime can can CEU eTD Collection the and donors aid main the fluctuation at look will I democracy of terms in Armenia of situation my caseof the on focus I will chapter, second Inthe research. for background theoretical provide to order in democracy the on aid development of impact on particularly focusing research the to refer will an I Thirdly, democracy. of IV measures Polity discuss and democratization and democracy of concepts and development of across differences concepts the out pointing the aid, development of evolution the discuss will I Firstly, perspectives. three from literature existing the review critically will I thesis my of part first the In aid undermining donors, major the among inconsistency in resulted don the this development, have aid will I policies country the of donors three major the of analysis of Political Index and Rights received assistance development official net total the between relationship House Freedom and OECD of databases existing combin will I so, do to order In democracy. of level the on impact negative or positive any had received aid development 2003 of period time the For Armenia. of democracy of level relations the at look will I thesis my in Thus, could of have onthelevel argue that though the concept of development and accordingly and development of concept the though that argue . r aotd ifrn plce i policies different adopted ors

broadened over time, forcing the donor agencies to integrate political approach into into approach political integrate to agencies donor the forcing time, over broadened in s

the amount of development assistance received over the ten year period. period. year ten the over received assistance development of amount the FH integration .

eody I il upr te uniaie nlss ih document with analysis quantitative the support will I Secondly, democracy in Armenia. democracy inArmenia. e quantitative and qualitative methods. Firstly, combining the combining Firstly, methods. qualitative and quantitative e was not always associated with democracy. with associated always cmiig eeomn aid development combining n 3 hip between development aid received and the and received aid development between hip

ciial dsusn ter development their discussing critically ,

the (FH)

Armenia. After discussing politicaldiscussing Armenia.After time. Secondly, I will look at the the at look will I Secondly, time. I il nlz te statistical the analyze will I , - 2012 I will discuss whether the the whether discuss will I 2012

the impact impact the the idea of idea the

with d This is to say that say to is This that FH oiis which politics,

developm development

Indexes as as Indexes

different different ent

CEU eTD Collection level ofdemocracy. in resulted aid development with promotion donor major among inconsistency findings the summarize will section final with The policy promotion. democracy development combining of perspective the from agencies donor mentioned ( USAID, namely Armenia, of donors major three on concentrate will thesis the of chapter third the Finally, democracy. of level and aid will I methods quantitative using Thereafter, IDA )

n E isiuin. Through institutions. EU and

o te onr i trs f nertn democracy integrating of terms in country the of s

ouet nlss wl dsus h plce o the of policies the discuss will I analysis document no significant impact of development aid on the the on aid development of impact significant no analyze the relationship between the amount of amount the between relationship the analyze 4

W B/ nentoa Dvlpet Association Development International ,

con ldn ta the that cluding CEU eTD Collection mainly War Cold components, socio political, combining and research of field interdisciplinary consi 2013). authors Glazunova, and (Bartenev countries underdeveloped to assistance technical States aft spread and and scholars generalIn practitionerstime. over by interpretation different to subject been has development of concept The and types main objectives isimportant its it discussing and aid development on concentrating before Therefore, hand go concepts two the as itself, development of idea the clarify a characteristics the understand to order In 1.1. The the specific democrac of concepts the clarifies part democratization, second The time. over evolution their at looking aid, development and development of concepts the discusses critically one first chapter the democracy, of th level the on aid As development analysis. empirical further for two, background the between relationship the and democracy aid, This Chapter 1:

chapter thoroughly reviews the literature in the field the in literature the reviews thoroughly chapter (US) associated with the with associated

Evolution of theEvolution Concepts of (2013 literature discussing the relationship betweenliteratureand the discussing democracy. developmentaid Harry Truman used the term “development”, when declaring a program of of program a declaring when “development”, term the used Truman Harry this e ti as this der Theoretical Framework r h Scn Wrd a. atclry i 1949, in Particularly, War. World Second the er ). According to Elgstrom and Hyden, in 1950s and 1960s and 1950s in Hyden, and Elgstrom to According ).

briefly discuss briefly paradigm was influenced by development economics with the rise of the the of rise the with economics development by influenced was paradigm

to referevolution ofthe concept tothe ofdevelopment. classical level of modernization (2002). In 1970s In (2002). modernization of level ing ,

it is considered to be a rather new phenomenon, ratherphenomenon, newa be to considered is it the measu the

aaim f eeomn studies. development of paradigm Development and Development and Development nd objectives of development aid it is necessary to to necessary is it aid development of objectives nd

res of democracy. Finally, the third part looks at looksat of democracy.thethirdpart res Finally, 5

s of development and development and development of s is divided into three sections. The sections. three into divided is thesis will study the impact of of impact the study will thesis

in order to provide theoretical theoretical provide to order in the - , in

oiia ad economic and political rsdn o te United the of president development was often often was development

hand with each other. each with hand A

id rgntd s an as Originated development was was development

originated y and and y The

CEU eTD Collection an educated be to life, healthy and wide these of critical most The choices. people's enlarging “ as that statingpeople, to development of focus the changed whichdevelopment, Program Development Nations United 1990, in Particularly, (2013). development of view economic political integrated the by influenced became agencies development 2000s and 1990s in Gramont and Carothers to According approache tothe of perception ( opportunities economic the but growth, economic about Sen for words, other In (1999:3). states” repressive of overactivity or intolerance as well as opportunities economic poor tyranny, as well as poverty unfreedom: (1999) en the on concentrating beyond, important, described 1990s late In criticized by approach, theinstitutionalist concept opening the econom with mainly associated development, of understanding narrow the further influencing capital, i only, development of aspect (2013). poverty fighting on focus (GDP). product domestic gross or identifi . ed with economic growth and accordingly measured by either gross national product national gross either by measured accordingly and growth economic with ed A

ccording to Sen, to achieve development development achieve to Sen, to ccording eeomn as development but

h cnet influencing concept, the these are are these t he xisting economicxisting perspective.

Nobel Nobel only expansion Laureate reos agig ht economic that arguing freedoms, abo 1999).

nstitutionalists brought into attention the concept of human human of concept the attention into brought nstitutionalists h mas o development to means the ut people’s capabilities to achieve something something achieve to capabilities people’s ut s which ds, d to have access to resources needed for a decent standard standard decent a for needed resources to access have to d onig u o h iiain ffcsn n econo on focusing of limitations the on out Pointing According to Bartenev and Glazunova and Bartenev to According

Thus, Sen’ Thus,

Sen of the concept (Bartenev and Glazunova, 2013). Glazunova, and (Bartenev concept the of

t frhr xaso ad nerto o political of integration and expansion further its originated a new approach to development. He He development. to approach new a originated r ilsrtd n h freedom the in illustrated are 6

s (UNDP)

understanding t s eesr t rmv “ore of “sources remove to necessary is it

nrdcd h cnet f human of concept the introduced -

ranging choices are to live a long a live to are choices ranging Sn 1999) (Sen, of development of development rwh idsraiain are industrialization, growth,

of development of ,

development is development . His

ht people that there was a clear clear a was there

ic growth, was was growth, ic for expansion. prah goes approach more a process of process a the changes based on based not only not

Thus, enjoy mic mic

CEU eTD Collection of was development stages the up, sum To understanding ofdevelopment 2005). im into perspective environmental 2013). Glazunova, and (Bartenev three a As development”. “sustainable of idea the introducing concept, the into component sustainability ( SIDA UNDP, as policies development rights which development, of approach based rights the in reflected was development of dimensions political and economic integrating lives their over decisions make to choice ( and power people’s of lack the on focused S indicators, economic politica ( Development and operation instance, app economic in values political of integration is The which (2013). Index values, Development Human political the in include reflected to intention than rather development to indicator an this argueGramontthat self personal and rights guaranteedhuman freedom, political include choices Additional living. of aohr a Carothers portance of continuation of certain development pro development certain of continuation of portance - respect” rmto i ter prah f eeomn ws elce i sc agencies such in reflected was development of approach their in promotion ad socio and l Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co Economic for Organisation the of (DAC) Committee Assistance Development hs sca, oiia, niomna apoce itgae it economic into integrated approaches environmental political, social, Thus, -

od ocp i icue eooi, oil n evrnetl components environmental and social economic, includes it concept fold d rmn, 2013 Gramont, nd roach of development was reflected in the policies of other donor agencies. For agencies. donor other of policies the in reflected was development of roach UD, ua Dvlpet Report,1990: Development Human (UNDP,

concept of development changed considerably over time. While in its early its in While time. over considerably changed development of concept - utrl ervto t te xsig ua dpiain esrd by measured deprivation human existing the to deprivation cultural was just UNDP’s reaction to reduce the focus on economic growth as economicgrowth on focusreducethe to reaction UNDP’s just was eih nentoa Dvlpet oprto Aec (S Agency Cooperation Development International wedish e udrto nrol being narrowly understood ten , nudging developmentagencies toadoptappropriate pol OECD ). On one hand th hand one On development codn t te ae uhr, a authors, same the to According )

requires 2013 eie is eiiin f oet i 20, adding 2001, in poverty of definition its revised ). A recent approach to development included development to approach recent A ). 7

O te te hn, t mhszs the emphasizes it hand, other the On .

aid providers to include international human international include to providers aid is was a step forward towards integration of of integration towards forward step a was is grams, projects results (Gibson et al et (Gibson results projects grams,

dniid ut ih economic with just identified 1 . oee, aohr and Carothers However, ). nother attempt of of attempt nother icies. IDA

a ) - - ,

CEU eTD Collection while governments, the to transferred necessarily is it that is describes, Moyo as aid, systematic of characteristics differentiating or a details, people to organizations charitable by However, 2009). (Moyo, need in organizations distributed is aid based charity situations, charity development and to welfare contributing human reduction, poverty at aimed aid, foreign of types particular as assistance ( no or poverty actually it whether and ones poor the to countries rich from goes aid whether indicate giver the as well as definition broad This (2007). recipient the to donor the from transferred are which skills, grants, financial loans, including resources, of types different of consists aid foreign Riddell, to According f from it differentiate to important is it all of first aid, development to Referring long and sustainability democracy governance. and democratic about ones, political and civil including to capacities about lives, own over decisions is which concept, perspectives expanded it growth, - based aid and sys and aid based te hr tp, aey ytmtc i is aid systematic namely type, third the s no h eooi oe I m tei, wl lo at look will I thesis, my In one. economic the into , idl, 2007 Riddell,

however not only about economic growth, but also about the freedom of making making of freedom the about also but growth, economic about only not s

and the receiver the and n parallel in tematic aid. While humanitarian aid refers to transfers in emergency in transfers to refers aid humanitarian While aid. tematic ,

does not specify the purposes o purposes specifythe not does ).

hrfr, idl trs eeomn ad r development or aid development terms Riddell Therefore,

with (2007) s . In other words, the concept of foreign aid does not does aid foreign of concept the words, other In .

h itgain of integration the h dnr cn e ihr oenet o cert or governments either be can donors the My dsigihs ewe hmntra aid, humanitarian between distinguishes Moyo . 8 achieve something more, about human rights, rights, human about more, something achieve

I will not discuss the above the discuss not will h m the f those transfers, those f oiia, oil environmental social, political, i focus ain development - atn rsls about results, lasting

f hs thesis this of - the mentioned two in two mentioned

impact s a as oreign aid. aid. oreign broader targets of aid, of The . ain

CEU eTD Collection in politics bewill used as refer equalsaid. tothe and systematic of integration of beginning 1 the was decade this Gramont and Particularly Carothers approaches. new for door the opened aid development when ai development of amount neo of rise the of because development and health social projects, development rural and agriculture towards redirected was aid development 1970s large while to railways, roads, directed including mainly projects industrial was aid when industrialization of period as featured are today(Moyo, 20 developmenttill successful aidprograms one most ofthe (Riddell aid development first post the of reconstruction of purpose the with countries European fourteen to 1940s late of assistance government’s US transformations. underwent also aid development of idea the development, conceptof the of evolution the with Inparallel development aid. 2003). terms, Statistical a (using percent 25 least at of element grant a with character in concessional are which and objective, main the as countries development economic the of promotion the with administered “f as (ODA) Assistance Development Official defines OECD of wealth increasing and development assistance, foreign as understood is aid development Generally, government) and atogovernment) multilateral donor organization aid(fromaninstitution, ( institutions

Throughout theterms “aid”, “development“developm the aid” thesis and education, as well as food (2009 food as well as education, 2009 ). Thus the author also differentiates between bilateral (from government to to government (from bilateral between differentiates also author the Thus ).

For further analysis I analysis further For (oo 2009; (Moyo, d

2007). This program, known as Marshall Plan, is regarded as regarded is Plan, Marshall as known program, This 2007). ie 1 pret ae f discount)” of rate percent 10 fixed

developing countries (Bartenev and (Bartenev countries developing - liberal ideas and a considerable reduction in the the in reduction considerable a and ideas liberal ). atnv n Gauoa 2013 Glazunova, and Bartenev Sc 9

will refer to ODA and use it as a measure of of measure a as it use and ODA to refer will h olars consider the consider olars

- war Europe is considered to be the be to considered is Europe war

services with focus on housing, housing, on focus with services lows of official financing financing official of lows n wlae f developing of welfare and next decade next aiming at promotion of of promotion at aiming

(OECD Glossary of of Glossary (OECD 09). 1950s and 60s 09). 1950s

ent assistance”ent Glazunova, 2013). 2013). Glazunova, . t a 1990s was It ). ,

a codn to according lost lost one for one - scale scale 1 .

CEU eTD Collection the election namely only, democracy of This 2000). (Przeworski, elections contested describes democracy of concept The 1.2. session. the democracy, democracy and of aid concepts development between relationship the study will thesis the As becameof it. an inherentpart aid growth, economic turned development As origins. its from considerably changed aid development development, of concept the of evolution the with parallel in up sum To socioeconomic goals. butalsopolitical donor words, other In (2013). projects scale small of instead programs sector financial aiding towards policy of change a also was there addition In recipients. the choosing when careful more became a development and Bartenev institutions (2009). corruption of credible free economies law, of rule the of guarantee a as governance good to attention good to attention argue more Moyo conditionality. and towards governance poverty on focus the from shift the with phenomenon (2013). democracy promoting of purpose the with programs (2013). aid development The Concepts of ConceptsThe of regime

eorc a a eie ye wee hs wo oen r slce through selected are govern who those where type, regime a as democracy ,

where d tpe bein stopped id ,

oenet satd o s dvlpet i fr ecig o only not reaching for aid development use to started governments h mjrt o population of majority the Democracy Democratization and was consequently was

The authors argue tha argue authors The n dmcaiain il e lrfe ad icse i te next the in discussed and clarified be will democratization and s lo nepee dfeety mn te scholars the among differently interpreted also is

cniee as considered g . Acemoglu and Robinson conceptualized democracy as democracy conceptualized Robinson and Acemoglu

converted into more political one and conditionality conditionality and one political more into converted s that during that s definition, however, definition, 10 t 1990s donor agencies launched political aid aid political launched agencies donor 1990s t

and Glazunova argue that during these years these during that argue Glazunova and mean a a reo o epeso and expression of freedom a has s

for eliminating poverty, as donors donors as poverty, eliminating for

19 90s donors started to pay more more pay to started donors 90s Other scholars describe this this describe scholars Other into a broader concept than than concept broader a into

concentrates on concentrates . Przeworski one aspect one the

CEU eTD Collection givesa result, a As value. DEMOC the from value AUTOC the subtracting by derived is POLITY, Including for 2011 to 1800 series, data a is IV Polity C and IV) (Polity Score Polity democracy of measures As liberties, access justice to the represent must turn int their in who authorities, national of elections the in participate as described while constraints have democracy revolution protest will people solution “elite” the of interests the represents preferences these represents government the and that the between “the and power the holds and citize rich is that elite”, “the namely groups, two into society represents government ivil ivil rss f h mjrt. n diin dmcay requires democracy addition, In majority. the of erests if ns”, that are poor and excluded, describing the regime type based on the on based type regime the describing excluded, and poor are that ns”, institutions institutions L selectin in a democracy the majority has the right to vote and express their express and vote to right the has majority the democracy a in

iberties will be will used inthe iberties single regime score that, ranging from +10 to +10 fromranging that, score regime single to this problem, arguing problem, this to

measures for both institutionalized democracy (DEMOC) and autocracy(AU democracy andinstitutionalized (DEMOC) both for measures

, setting , ( of 200 mentioned h rgm wee epe r fe t epes hi opi their express to free are people where regime the g the the

5 ainl edr ad oiis (2002). policies and leaders national that ).

all

power power forcing democratization forcing criteria for democrati for criteria lsrm n Hyden and Elgstrom

needn states independent enable the citizens to citizens the enable two groups and their relative power relative their and groups two expressed

and rule of law which contains which of

xctv governments executive

thesis that if “the elite” do elite” “the if that preferences .

( .

having a population of more more of population a having c regimes. According to them democracies, should should democracies, them to According regimes. c 200 annual information on the level of democracy from democracy of level the on information annual

umrs te above the summarise freely and as “the elite” will concede will elite” “the as and 5 11 . h authors The ).

(2005 express their preferences their express i non in , - ; 10 or 10

) es . inclusive hs t sm up, sum to Thus,

h atos aeoie th categorize authors The FH not redistribute the resources the redistribute not , where +10 is full democracy and full is where+10 ,

(200 Indexes of P of Indexes - basic human rights and civil civil and rights human basic eorce te government the democracies discuss procedures 5 - ). etoe definitions mentioned

They They nions, preferences, to to preferences, nions, eortzto a a as democratization hn 50 than eorc cn be can democracy olitical accordingly prefe

; in order to avoid to order in

institutionali of participation participation of 0,000 people. people. 0,000 rences

relationship Rights e

TOC),

whole whole , poor , freely argue argue

and

zed of it

CEU eTD Collection thu and time over transformation considerable through underwent development of concept the chapter the of part first the in discussed As 1.3. periodtime (2004). government country’s of aspects institutional reflects extent more to IV Polity the population, country’s while However other. each with the Knack to According 2014 2.5), to 1.0 from ranges being country the of status the determines and ratings liberties civil and rights political the of average the represents rating freedom The free. most the is 1 and free least rang can scores These liberties. civil and rights political both rights. individual and autonomy personal and law, of followin the rule rights, of organizational and associational belief, and basis expression of freedom subcategories: the on rated are liberties Civil government. of functioning and participation, and pluralism political process, electoral subcategories: three following broad two to according categories: countries in freedom of decline and progress the annual of an evaluation provides It world. the over all policymakers and scholars among used widely 1972 Since higher 6 than to - 0 s ul autocracy. full is 10

autocracies The Relationship Relationship The between D Developmentand Aid ).

of oiia rgt ad ii lbris Pltcl ihs n hi tr icue the include turn their in rights Political liberties. civil and rights political FH are from ,

200

has conducted and published the “Freedom in the World” survey, which is is which survey, World” the in “Freedom the published and conducted has democracies ( democracies 3 -

2012 In the second ch second the In - 5 to 5 to 5 above p oe pcfcly s specifically, More

will bewill analyzedon PolityIV and based artly r considered are Po described two indicators of democracy are in close agreement agreement close in are democracy of indicators two described fr ee (3.0 to 5.0), or not free (5.5 to 7.0) to (5.5 free not or 5.0), to (3.0 ee lity IVlity Project FH apter of apter

nee ae ie a peetn rgt afre a afforded rights presenting at aimed are indexes anocracies my 12 s did development aid accordingly. Particularly Particularly accordingly. aid development did s oe rnig from ranging cores

, 2002 ,

thesis democratic situation of Armenia for Armenia of situation democratic thesis ).

, ah onr i asge a cr for score a assigned is country Each

and countries and emocracy e from 1 to 7, where 7 is the is 7 where 7, to 1 from e FH

- Indexes. 0 to 10 ih a with ( FH , - score equal or or equal score f

Methodology, correspond 6 ree (the score (the ree g four four g a CEU eTD Collection conditionality as for a more solution effective aid. see scholars some Thus, (2007). assistance the withholding to commit successfully donors case in impact negative the soften can aid of conditionality that possible finds he However, alleviat only can and democratization of chances diminish resources mentioned that reveals Morisson Specifically, power. their maintain to income additional dictators the gives aid development resources f exchange the in policies required adopt to willingness certain have leaders whose countries, the to flows aid perspective their from therefore And power. further their ensure to aid received the of part least at spend who support policy purchase donors aid, giving while that out find Smith and Mesquita reforms. political for go to willingness the have not do governments prefer they and country the in situation existing the political co the bearing perverse avoid to governments recipient helps it that a out pointing impact, having often is aid foreign Goldsmith that to argue According strong libertarians (2000). and the aid conservatives see the they condition problem to donor this the to of solution ability a commitment As poor. the of welfare the improve and poverty alleviate to efforts and motivation governments’ recipient decreases which poor, Particu wasted. Pessimistic results. contradictory flow aid quite the that consider approaches reveals field the in research Existing scholars. democ has aid developmentWhether from poverty developme 1990s since as reduction reduction larly, Svensson argues that foreign aid is distributed based on the needs of the the of needs the on based distributed is aid foreign that argues Svensson larly, e the need for democratization, but aid will never have positive impact. positive have never will aid but democratization, for need the e to nt aid became more political, more became aid nt sustainability,governance, rights, and democracy human ratization effect or no or effectratization or aid (2007). Other scholars argue that like natural natural like that argue scholars Other (2007). aid or ing

from developed countries to the developing ones is ones developing the to countries developed from 13

the

donors started donors t tts u (01. hs recipient Thus (2001). quo status

is rm h rcpet governments, recipient the from a highly debatable issue among among issue debatable highly broadening nsequences of of nsequences

. their

focus

CEU eTD Collection countrie recipient of levels democracy and aid development the on scholars among consensus typical no is there that a shows section this scholars these to according country democratizing specifically, More afterwards. immediately aid foreign more received have democratized have which countries the that evidence finds of process the reward foster to tend country to used been has aid a in time over flows aid changesin that finds not or countries recipient aid of democratization foreign whether on study interesting existing the for evidence is that side, find other the to scholars relationship some Moreover, debatable. topic the leaving aid, development and democracy of level the between relationship the on answer definite post the to limited is case this in and time across varies democracy on aid foreign of effect positive the that argues and study Goldsmith’s reanalyzes Dunning (2001). well govern to ability states’ African t evidence finds he 1997, to 1975 of period a for capacitygovernment as well as capacity state down throw to considered is aid which by means the analyzing Specifically, aid. of impact positive aid of effects other by compensated democracy successful ev find not do recipients of sample large a for 2000 to 1975 from period the over democratization on aid of impact the of analyses Knack’s However 2004). (Knack, etc. education improving the processes, legisl of electoral strengthening on assistance technical through instance for counties, recipient on effect democratization have can potentially aid development that argue scholars Other dne ht i pooe dmcay A te ae ie e etos ht hr are there that mentions he time same the At democracy. promotes aid that idence - - promoting programs, but they are few and consequently their impact is impact their consequently and few are they but programs, promoting od a pro (2004). period War Cold

trs n jdcais pooin f ii scey raiain, by organizations, society civil of promotion judiciaries, and atures receives 50% increase in aid ( aid in increase 50% receives democratization (Alesina and Dollar, 2000). Moreover, this study study this Moreover, 2000). Dollar, and (Alesina democratization by examining the statistical relationship between aid and and aid between relationship statistical the examining , (2004

democracy’s impact on development. development. on impact democracy’s ). Goldsmith is among those who believe in believe who those among is Goldsmith ). 14

Thus the existing research does not give a a give not does research existing the Thus 2000 ).Thus, the literature reviewed in reviewed literature the ).Thus, s. Considering that different different that Considering s. hat foreign aid supports supports aidforeign hat eainhp between relationship Particularly, the a n CEU eTD Collection democratization of Armenia. part ti of period certain a for and country recipient a for specific is democracy and type regime the on aid of impact the that concluded be can it countries different for outcomes o studies s

of of my e tm fn dfeet eut fr eti pros f ie s el s different as well as time of periods certain for results different find time ver thesis will will thesis focus on Armenia and Armenia on focus

15 analyze the impact of development aid on the the on aid development of impact the analyze

me. The next The me. CEU eTD Collection the majority. on parliamentary based by President, the nomination by appointed but citizens, by elected not is Minister Prime power executive The term. year five a for Armenia of citizens the by elected directly is President The authorities. these of functioning regular ensure to one the is country the of President sep is power state The exercising theirthroughand authorities. power local state Armenia and state through as well as referenda, elections, free through power their exercise people where Constitution, 1995 which in adopted was constitution new The system. political and economic new building towards launched were reforms scale Large governance. democratic and economy market independence its gained Armenia in 2.1. Democratic Situation between ofdemocracy thelevel and developmentaid,using correlation bivariate analyzed. data aid development socio general part second the In country. and IV Polity the discuss and situation political country's on information relati This C hapter hapter 2:

oa self local onship between development aid and democracy. The first part will provide background provide will part first The democracy. and aid development between onship hpe o m tei wl fcs n h cs o Amna n re t dsus the discuss to order in Armenia of case the on focus will thesis my of chapter

together with other with together is exercised by the Government, which consists of Prime Minister and Ministers. The The Ministers. and Minister Prime of consists which Government, the by exercised is tplts h cuty s eortc udriig h iprat oe f epe in people of role important the underlining democratic, as country the stipulates

Armenia is a sovereign, democratic, social state governed by governed state social democratic, sovereign, a is Armenia - Case Study: Armenia government bodies and public officials (1995). Thus the Constitution Constitution the Thus (1995). officials public and bodies government rtd no eiltv, xctv ad uiil rnhs n the and branches judicial and executive legislative, into arated legal acts laid the framework for those reforms. According to the to According reforms. those for framework the laid acts legal Armenia n h tid at I il nlz te ttsia relationship statistical the analyze will I part, third the In from the Soviet Union in 1991 and started its transition to transition its started and 1991 in Union Soviet the from

h Lgsaie oe i eecsd hog t through exercised is Power Legislative The - cnmc itr wl b bify dis briefly be will picture economic 16

FH the

scores for the the for scores .

rule of law, law, of rule cussed

and he of

CEU eTD Collection these to refers Armenia for report Transit'' in ''Nations House's prisoners political and wounded victims, with up ended and violent however which demonstrations, peaceful and protests by followed were elections ende elections 2008 The (2010). standards international with incompatible as 2003 of elections elec 1998 and 1996 both in irregularities O report country IV election international to according Particularly, contraventions. certain about concerned been candidates, have observers of numbers the consideration into taking competitive However 2013. in reelected and President incumbent The 2008. till governed and won pressure public under 1998 in resigned he 1996, in reelected was he Though president. first the became Petrosyan first The an legislative executive, of branches. role the diminishes sense a in which country, the IV (Polity re 20 in referendum the passed that Constitution, new The branches. judicial and legislative by balanced and checked the General Prosecutor the of office the and courts the by years. five of term a for elections direct electedthrough is 41 and representation proportional Assembly National and semi mained C u wt te itr o Srsa aant h Frt rsdn Ter President First the against Sargsyan of victory the with up d onst tto o 19 gv te rsdn etnie oes wih ee o properly not were which powers, extensive president the gave 1995 of itution rsdnil elections Presidential

Country Report Country - rsdnil ih ut cnrlzd decision centralized quite with presidential ,

rg which consists of 131 deputies, deputies, 131 of consists which In . anization for anization 5 prl adesd h issue the addressed partly 05,

, 2010). Thus main power remains in the hands of the President of of President the of hands the in remains power main Thus 2010). , the

olwn to lcin o 19 ad 03 oet Qocharian Robert 2003 and 1998 of elections two following

after based on majority on based , though all the presidential elections seemed to be be to seemed elections presidential the all though , S ecurity and ecurity independence tions 17 Te ae ore ees o h presidential the to refers source same The .

C o -

operation in Europe Europe in operation ee ed n 91 wee Levon where 1991, in held were

90 of which are elected on the basis of of basis the on elected are which of 90 . According to Polity IV country report report country IV Polity to According . representation

Serzh oee te oenet structure government the however The Judicial Power is Power Judicial The - making power of the President President the of power making

Sargsyan elections as undermined by by undermined as elections . The National Assembly National The . . n addition In

was elected in 2008 2008 in elected was observed significant significant observed - Petrosyan. These These Petrosyan.

administered later later Freedom , judicial d turned turned Polity Polity

Ter -

CEU eTD Collection years.2012, therefore, ofthese contains thetable the information men already As follows. as analyzed and IV Polity in reflected is above of terms in situation political the Generally, ranking of these However (2013). demonstrations peaceful opposition's forbidding of increas especially addition In press. of freedom the hindering issues, major of one as considered is periods election especiallyduring anti to license digital of denial the outlets, broadcast over control informal the to attention focusing T result insubstantialchanges. these leaders, not butdid by protests opposition organized by large the elections followed also were However, (2013). elections fair and free for framework good of provision towards elections parliamentary 2012 in tested was latter The (2013). country the of code electoral new a of adoption the in resulted observers international report the to according Moreover, ( candidate their and party ruling of favor environment, in resources media administrative restricted and biased problems, count vote he ''Nations in Transit'' reports limitations also on the freedom of press, particularly particularly press, of freedom the on also limitations reports Transit'' in ''Nations he

practice - oenetl V hnes ( channels TV governmental political rights in thecountry.political rightsin hv be abandoned been have s ed

after 2008 presidential electio presidential 2008 after this to , the mentioned study reports restrictions on freedom of assembly, assembly, of freedom on restrictions reports study mentioned the ,

numerous negative assessments of those elections by by elections those of assessments negative numerous tioned my thesis will focus on the period of 2003 to to 2003 of period the on focus will thesis my tioned

Indexes, which is summarized in summarized is which Indexes, Iskandaryan, t least at

the 18

level of democracy of the country described described country the of democracy of level formally ns and reflection and ns and was evaluated as a big step forward forward step big a as evaluated was and 03. ilne against Violence 2013). , which which ,

resulted resulted o n government's practice practice government's n s el as well as i i as ntd that noted also is it , Figure Iskandaryan, n h improved the in

1 and will be be will and 1

journalists journalists bs of abuse 2013).

CEU eTD Collection of Index Rights Political at looking partlya When ascountry. free it situates 4 of country'sscore liberties'rating, the civil of components the are which rights, individual and autonomy personal law, of rule rights, be can it Thus, status. free fr of terms partly in that concluded the to corresponds 5 to 3 of range The accordingly. of status the represents 1 where 7, to 1 from range scores thesis, this of chapter first the from known already the at Looking democracies. of group the to close and group this of score highest the with though anocracies - the for stable from been score IV Polity of values the chapter, first have the in discussed already As period. examined country the of scores IV Polity table, the from seen be can As Project House. andFreedom by Created Source: Table 5 to 5 correspond to anocracies. Therefore, according to this measure Ar measure this to according Therefore, anocracies. to correspond 5 to 5

1: Polity IV andFreed 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 N

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Year FH

index of Civil Liberties, the picture is stable again over these years. As As years. these over again stable is picture the Liberties, Civil of index the author the Polity IV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

eedom of expression and belief, associational and organizational and associational belief, and expression of eedom om House Scores for Armenia 2003to2013 Scores from om House for

based on the data provided in the official webpages of Polity of webpages official the in provided data the on based Political Freedom House 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 Rights

eti cags a b ntcd rfetn te political the reflecting noticed, be can changes certain

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Liberties Civil 19

oh ii lbry n pltcl rights political and liberty civil both 4.5 5 5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 Score Average the

most free and 7 to the least free least the to 7 and free most

PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree PartlyFree Freedom Rating menia belongs to belongs menia

CEU eTD Collection 2012. to 2003 from period examined the for country free partly as ranked is Armenia 5, to with Overall, Project House. andFreedom by Created Source: Figure the in decreas reflected is which rights, political of terms in 2012 for noticed is improvement an Nevertheless, countries. free not of group the to belonging thus 6, of score the has Armenia pr large by followed A 2008. till t However the 2004 since Armenia, for 4 was Index Rights Political 2003 and 2002 in if Thus, free. not is country the that mean 5.5 above scores the status, free party to corresponds 5 to 3 from range the While 6. to 4 from range from see can we as all, of First below. presented the in visible more are changes These above. described country the of situation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2003 1 e of the score and regaininge score and ofthe ofthefree partly status. : Polity IV and Freedom House Scores for Armenia (2003Freedom Armenia: Polity IV Scores andHouse for 2004 he country remained in the group the in remained country he dsusd bv 2008 above discussed s an 2005 average the author the 2006 tss n dmntain ad ne voety Fo 20 t 2011 to 2008 From violently. ended and demonstrations and otests

score 2007

of Political Rights and Civil Liberties indexes ranging from 4 4 from ranging indexes Liberties Civil and Rights Political of based on the data provided in the official webpages of Polity of webpages official the in provided data the on based 2008 situation worsened and therefore the score increased to 5. 5. to increased score the therefore and worsened situation 2009 was 2010

h ya o peieta eetos wih were which elections, presidential of year the

20 of partly free countries acc countries free partly of 2011

Table 2012

, onr’ soe fr hs Index this for scores country’s 1,

Score Average Liberties Civil Rights Political Polity IV - 201 2 ) ording to this Index this to ording

Figure 1 , CEU eTD Collection is considerably by supported internationaldonors. WB, 2014 country income middle lower a considered country. the for challenges additional creating areas, rural poor dec on especially considerable has was crisis financial poverty global of impact and negative the Nevertheless, growth economic of level certain achieving 2011 in 35% to 2008 in 27.6% from increased rate poverty the that considering poverty urban and rural on especially remarkable was crisis gl the of impact negative the However, population. poor very including poor, of number the reducing and growth economic in success certain achieve and difficulties the ( economy market a 2014 WB, Overview, created have inflows external as well as workers migrant W to According them. Povert post all almost also but in its regaining After 2.2 means 2005 since score the negative change, the score in increase the While country. the in situation democratic and 2003 period studied the for that concluded be can it Thus, trend. change positive a is there years two last in However rights. political of terms in country the of regress the reflecting increasing, is score the 2005 from starting of score average the representing line From Armenia y, huge socioy, huge a ). Ingeneral,). socio shift towards market economy. The transition period posed serious challenges to challenges serious posed period transition The economy. market towards shift

as a Recipient of Development of Aidas aRecipient - oit onre truhu te 90, n Amna a nt n exception. an not was Armenia and 1990s, the throughout countries Soviet - economic inequalities between different parts of the country were among were country the of parts different between inequalities economic dependence Armenia had to undergo not only drastic political reforms, political drastic only not undergo to had Armenia dependence ). ). B According to the same source same the to According

sustained double digit growth, ambitious reforms, remittances from remittances reforms, ambitious growth, digit double sustained

of 2012 - economic situation in the country is challenging and thecountryeconomic ischallenging in situation represent with 3,351$ GD 3,351$ with s FH

21 certain progress.

indexes in indexes

(

04. hs sne rei scedd in succeeded Armenia since Thus, 2014).

2004 were the best years in terms of of terms in years best the were 2004 , country managed to overcome most of most overcome to managed country , P per capita ( capita per P Figure 1 Figure

s f 2012 of As it is it

ie considerably. lined Armenia Overview, Overview, Armenia easy to notice, that notice, to easy obal financial obal , rei is Armenia Armeni a CEU eTD Collection until stable are measures democracy 2008, Since Score. Rights Political in increase another 50 around of decrease the However, period. mentioned the for measures democracy in noticed is change no while 2007, in USD mln 350 ODA the 2006 From country. the of democracy of the 2005 chapter,in As 2005. in decreasing while USD, mln 253 around been has ODA T ( by Created Source: Figure Figure 53 to 170 about from ranges donors multilateral and bilateral from assistance development official 2012 to 2003 from statistics, aid OECD to According assistance, analysis including T OECD.StatExtracts he de of terms in country the in situation the discuss will thesis my of part his 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 0.0 Figure

2, presented below, shows the changes of total net ODA for the examined ten years.total netODA showsthechanges2, presented below, forexamined ten of the 2: Total NetODA2: Total for2003 253.8 2003

2, as well as data presented in Table 2 Table in presented data as well as 2, 253.4 TOTALNET ODA (Million USD) 2004 ) 170.3 FH

2005

h ato based author the Index for Political Rights increase Rights Political for Index 215.5 2006

of major international donors 350.0 - 2012 2007

302.6 2008

526.0 mln USD from 2007 to 2008 is associated with associated is 2008 to 2007 from USD mln development on data statistical OECD on 22

2009 begins

show 342.8 2010 d s

to increase again reaching around around reaching again increase to

for the period from 2003to2012. for from theperiod , indicating a decrease in the level the in decrease a indicating , that 400.1 2011 0 million US million 0

for 2003 and 2004 the total the 2004 and 2003 for 2012 272.8 hw erir in earlier shown

ollar (USD) ollar velopment . The The . this this

CEU eTD Collection Sweden, Switzerla The EU,France, Finland, Germany, Greece, 2 Source: Created by 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Year ODA(Million NET USD) TOTAL Net 2: ODATable by Total donors groupsof donors, Non includingcountries, DAC T examined period. the for highest the is ODA when USD), mln (223.3 2009 in is increase noticeable most the USD), mln while (127.3 USD)mln and 2012 (183.2 noticed are in2010 total amountofODA incr and decreases then 2009, in years ten of period the for USD) mln (526.0 level highest its reaches ODA while 2012,

DAC Countries include Australia, Austria, able 2 and 2 able Netherlands

272.8 400.1 342.8 526.0 302.6 350.0 215.5 170.3 253.4 253.8 donors All Figure 3 Figure

, New Zealand,, NewPortugal, Norway, Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Slovak Spain,

nd, United Kingdom,nd, United US the author

, presented below reflect the structure of total net ODA by groups of of groups by ODA net total of structure the reflect below presented , 108.4 185.0 207.1 235.9 210.1 231.5 135.8 127.0 133.6 127.7 countries DAC

eases every year since 2010. The most dramatic decreases in decreases dramatic most The 2010. since year every eases based on 2

2.2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 countries Non 8.4 6.8 - DAC countries and multilateral donors. DAC and countries multilateral donors.

I OECD.StatExtracts celand, - DAC

Belgium, Belgium, 23

Ireland,Luxembourg,Italy, Korea, Japan, Multilateral 155.9 208.3 133.5 288.6 91.3 117.3 78.6 43.1 119.5 125.8 Donors Canada, Denmark, Czech Republic,

CEU eTD Collection bilateral and includes below, those Armenia. 3presented table The ofdonors multilateral and bilateral major look at also veryto important is it donors,groups of major the at looking as well as ODA of amount net total in fluctuations the analyzing After Source: Created by Figure mentioned graph. clear are 2009 of increase dramatic the especially and 2011 2007, 2006, in increases the as well as 2012 and 2010 2008, 2005, in decreasesThe donors. multilateral with gr the on based details more in examined be can above discussed ODA, of amounts total in changes non while donors, multilateral and countries the from all, of First 1000.0 1200.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 0.0 aph. Particularly, it can be concluded from here that major fluctuations are associated are fluctuations major that here from concluded be can it Particularly, aph.

3: Total NetODA3: Total by donors groupsof 2003 2004

the author 2005 Figure 2006

3 it is easy to notice that significant part of ODA belongs to DAC DAC belongsto ODA of part significant that notice easyto is it 3

based on 2007 2008 OECD.StatExtracts 2009 - DAC countries have a minor share. Besides, the the Besides, share. minor a have countries DAC 24

2010

2011 2012

multilateral donors, whose whose multilateral donors, All donors countries DAC countries Non-DAC Donors Multilateral ly reflected in the the in reflected ly

CEU eTD Collection 3 Source: Created by Net 3: ODATable donors by Total multilateral and majorbilateral USD. with 26.32mln with (34.14) institutions The USD). mln (62.56 IDA donor multilateral by followed year, per USD mln 75.64 averaged with donor biggest the been has US years ten examined the for Thus donors. multilateral as institutions EU and WB of part Ge and Japan US, namely differentiated, obviously are 5 donors 15 mentioned 11 of Out here. principle examined are donors this multilateral 4 and on donors bilateral Based USD. mln 1 exceeds assistance of amount averaged year 10

Only donors with 10 yearsOnly averaged donors are with10 amount exceeding USD 1.00 million included. the author

a io dfeec. n te at ao dnrhs en Germany been has donor major last the And difference. minor

based on 3rd OECD.StatExtracts

and 25

4 th are accordingly Japan (35.16) and EU EU and (35.16) Japan accordingly are th rmany as bilateral donors and IDA as IDA and donors bilateral as rmany

CEU eTD Collection Source: Created by Table year.for thelast examined 0.1% in resulting 2012, and 2011 in decrease huge by followed 20%, around to raised share its 2010 to 2007 From 3.6%). (maximum 2006 till share significant a have not did country drastic by considerable, not are ODA in changes the a 2006, out Till tendency. point to difficult is it US, the for As 2010. to 2009 from change drastic with 2012, contra In 16.4%. to 5.5% from share its increasing years, two last in especially strengthened been has donor a as role Germany's Similarly, 15.9%. to 6.5% from ODA total in share its raising thus 20 to 2003 from considerably increased institutions EU of ODA of amount the general in thatout pointed Ityearbe canperiod.the over10 fluctuations the assistanceand development and 4 Table

4: Major donors’ share in Total Net4: Major ODA share donors’ inTotal st , the IDA assistance has decreased noticeably noticeably decreased has assistance IDA the , fluctuations Figure

the author 4 represent the shares of above of shares the represent 4

every year after. Finally, w Finally, after. year every

based on OECD.StatExtracts 26

- hat is interesting about Japan is that the that is Japan about interesting is hat mentioned 5 donors in total net official net total in donors 5 mentioned from

however thereafter however 30.5 i 20 t 1.% in 17.2% to 2003 in %

followed followed 12,

CEU eTD Collection be should it However, accordingly). 11.1% and (11.4% share considerable equal almost have Japan and institutions EU change. positive towards is 2012 and 2011 for tendency the 2010, Though 20%. around of share a has group, Bank World the representing IDA, period. of this during spite years in certain (24.5%), for increases donor and major decreases the been has US obviously Thus, years. 10 of period d each reflects chart the Secondly, ODA. net total the of all 2003 to2012.First of Finally, Source: Created by Figure 2006, 2009,2010. 2005, in aidIDA's in especially and 2012 2011, 2009, in assistance EU in changes drastic the donors. multilateral on based heavily are assistance from concluded already As 1000.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 0.0

4: Changes in ODA of major donors from 2003to2012 donorsfrom ofmajor 4: Changes inODA Figure 5 Figure 2003

visualizes the average share of the above the of share average the visualizes

2004 the author 2005 one can notice Figure

based on 2006

3 and mentioned above, the fluctuations in development in fluctuations the above, mentioned and 3 2007

that these that these OECD.Sta 2008 27

five

tExtracts 2009 D' assac dcesd rsial in drastically decreased assistance IDA's Figure

donors together represent around 75 % represent donors around together 75 2010 - onor's role for the overall the for role onor's mentioned mentioned

4 well visualizes this, reflecting this, visualizes well 4

2011 five 2012 major donors from donors major IDA US Germany Japan TOTAL inst EU studied

CEU eTD Collection in my thesis them EU) and of (WB) IDA US, (namely three only that showed Germany) and Japan US, IDA, Further (EU, details. five the more of in analysis discussed and separated were fifteen of out five country the of don main the at looking When ones. biggest the as EU and IDA with particularly donors, multilateral with associated changeswere major that revealedaboveanalysis dataThe period. can To sumup,it Source: Created by Figure 5 years 2011and only, namely 2012. 2005, of period overall the for However share. average 8% around had has Germany least the not but Last 2012. contra in EU, minor. is 2012 and 2011 for share signifi had has Japan that noted 11.4 : Major donor’s share in Total Net ODA (Averagedshare inTotal : Major donor’s 2003 , which bethe 3 will critically discussed in 8.5 24.2 be concluded that the total net ODA varied considerably during the ten year ten considerablyODA the varied during total net thatconcluded the be icse 1 yas emn' sae a be getr hn 0 fr three for 10% than greater been has share Germany's years 10 discussed the author

based on cant share for four years only (from 2007 to 2010) and its and 2010) to 2007 (from only years four for share cant had significant share in ODA for all 10 year 10 all for ODA in share significant had OECD.StatExtracts

11.1 28

24.5 st hs nrae ntcal fo 20 to 2003 from noticeably increased has , rd

chapter

20.3 .

- 2012)

US IDA Institutions EU Others Japan Germany

peri od studied od

ors

CEU eTD Collection being countries, recipient of welfare and development economic the promoting agencies, includes chapter, O net total aid development Formeasuring a higher freedom. score of isanindicator limited earlie chapter this in earlier Index Rights Political Therefore, Index. Rights Political in noticed are years 10 of Index Liberties Civil years. 10 all for 5 is score the as Armenia, for 2012 to 2003 from period the for changes any reflect not do scores IV Polity the chapter this of section first the in discussed and shown As and IV Polity from collected accordingly are used data The democracy. of measures as Liberties Civil and Rights Political of Indexes and scores IV Polity considers thesis this sections previous in mentioned already As out the relationshipaid andleve between theamount ofdevelopment Therefore 2000). Dollar, and Alesina instance (for cau be might there that reject whether not do discusses I not, mainly or democracy thesis of level the the affects aid while development that note, to important is It them. between to put will This section separately. aid development of amount the in fluctuations the as well as democracy of terms in country the of situation political the discussed chapter this of parts two first The 2.3. The development aid, using bivariate correlation. and democracy of level the between relationship statistical the analyze will section next The sal effect to the other direction, considering the findings of the literature the of findings the considering direction, other the to effect sal r

range from 1 to 7, where a lower score corresponds to a higher level of freedom while freedom of level higher a to corresponds score lower a where 7, to 1 from range Correlation the f the gether the data on the two variables discussed and analyze the relationship the analyze and discussed variables two the on data the gether

b will be used for the data analysis in this part. this in analysis data the for used be will lows to developing countries and multilateral institutions from official official from institutions multilateral and countries developing to lows etween etween FH

also De does not reflect any changes. However, fluctuations over the over fluctuations However, changes. anyreflect not does velopment FH DA is used, which, as mentioned earliermentioned as which, is used, DA

A databases, avail databases, id and and id

bivariate correlation will be used to find to used be will correlation bivariate the L evel of able on their official websites. official their on able D l ofdemocracy. FH emocracy

scores as scores discussed above above discussed

in Armenia in , discussed discussed , mentioned mentioned in the first the in

CEU eTD Collection and presented data, discussed earlier inthechapter ODA and Rights Political on based author the by Created Source: Table5 T between correlation H0: There level the democracy net isno ODA. and of beasAccordingly, will follows: the null hypothesis H1: Therebetween level isacorrelation the net ODA and ofdemocracy bivariate correlation, 2003 of period year 10 the for Armenia in democracy of level the whether out find to order in Thus, ( 2003 ( element grant 25% minimum having and concessional OECD.StatExtracts he results . The ). : Correlation between: Correlation net democracy level of ODA and - 02i soitdwt h oa e muto D eevdo o, I not, or received ODA of amount net total the with associated is 2012 Correlations ODA USD) (Million (Political Rights) Democracy of the analysis aa n D i cletd rm h OECD the from collected is ODA on data

) . using SPSS. SPSS. using

are 5 presented intheTable

For that purpose, IFor that suggest purpose, thefollowi Sig. (2 Pearson Correlation N Sig. (2 Pearson Correlation N

- - tailed) tailed) 30

and Figure 6

10 .057 .617 10 1 Rights) (Political Democracy OECD Glossary of Statistical terms, Statistical of Glossary OECD

statistical

aaae n development on database below. 10 1 10 .057 .617 USD) (Million ODA ng hypothesis:ng

calculated

CEU eTD Collection discussed earlier inthechapter b author the by Created Source: Figure development assistance. less with democracy of level higher or aid of amount greater with associated is democracy of This negative. as interpreted be can relationship this rights, political in increase the that ne is It democracy. of amount the in of increase the that means level relationship positive the that the mention to important representing Ranking, Freedom the in changes the with which strong, chang quite that means is relationship The 2012. to 2003 from period time the in for assistance Armenia development net and democracy of level the between relationship positive a Thus, t ODA is associated with the increase in Freedom Rating score. Taking into consideration into Taking score. Rating Freedom in increase the with associated is ODA t 6 ccording to ccording : Correlation between: Correlation andnet level ODA democracy of es in the total net amount of official development assistance are correlated are assistance development official of amount net total the in es Table5 FH

scores corresponds to certain decrease in terms of civil liberties and and liberties civil of terms in decrease certain to corresponds scores

, Pearson Correlation equals to 0.617 which means that there is a a is there that means which 0.617 to equals Correlation Pearson ,

sd n oiia Rgt ad D dt, rsne and presented data, ODA and Rights Political on ased 31

(Scatter Plot)

is to say that lower level level lower that say to is

CEU eTD Collection perspective the ofaid relationship anddemocracy. of W USAID, of policies development compare and discuss critically will I country. the of donors major three on focus will thesis th of chapter third the Armenia, in democracy and aid development between relationship the analyzing in deeper go and section this in done analysis the compliment to order in However, democracy of level the between correlation no is there that show analyses quantitative the up, sum To official net development the 2003to2012. periodfor assistance from and democracy of level the between correlation significant statistically no is the used, datasets the to according that conclude and hypothesis null the accept I Therefore, democracy. of level the and received aid development of amount the between relationship n suggested the representedin value P Moreover, scattered. still are some relationship, positive the reflecting linear, the along the at looking when However, n te mut f eeomn assac fr h studie the for assistance development of amount the and ull hypothesis, it can be noted that there is no statistically significant significant statistically no is there that noted be can it hypothesis, ull Table 5 Table

is equal to 0.057. Considering 0.05 as a significant level to reject to levelsignificant a 0.057.Considering as to 0.05 equal is

F igure igure B

and EU institutions for the period of ten years from the the yearsfrom ten of period the for institutions EU and 6 w cn e ta tog sm pit ae grouped are points some though that see can we , 32

period of time. time. of period re re e - CEU eTD Collection basedSource: on Createdtheauthor by 6 Table mentioned the exceeded share their average, reachingof70.7% highest point in2004. its 10 if out years 6 in Moreover, donors. three these recei Armenia that ODA net total of 55.8% years, 10 of average in figure, three the of share the as well as 6 Table of part a (as IDA and institutions EU US, thesis, my of part second the in discussed already As 3.1. their priorities and withdevelopment democracy therefore,combine aid. support in governance democratic and democracy include they whether out find to order in democracy particularly will I with support. aid development of integration of perspective the from them at looking T Chapter 3: his chapter will critically discuss the policies of the main donor organizations of A of organizations donor main the of policies the discuss critically will chapter his the Major WB : Share of EU institutions, IDA: Share andUS intotal ofEUinstitutions, ODA

below, reflects the share of each of the mentioned donors in total net ODA received, received, ODA net total in donors mentioned the of each of share the reflects below,

group Aid Donors of Armeniof Donors Aid Comparative Analysis ofMajor D ) have been the main donors of Armenia for the period from 2003 to 2012. to 2003 from period the for Armenia of donors main the been have )

look at development policies of USAID, WB and and WB USAID, of policies development at look donors a

in total. As one can notice from the last column of the of column last the from notice can one As total. in O ECD.StatExtracts 33

onors

Armenia

e cm from came ved EU institutions EU

rmenia,

CEU eTD Collection basedSource: on Createdtheauthor by Figure as multilateralinstitutions, donors. EU main through examined be will policy development EU and group Bank World of part will IDA USAID; through studied be will policy development US obvious. becomes policies development their studying critically of importance the donors, three these of role considerable on reflecting mentioned, above the consideration into taking Therefore, The fluctuations. variationsdonors’ each in the of these shape considerably EU) and (IDA donors multilateral especially chapter, second the in discussed already as Besides, donors. these of impact the reflecting of amount the in fluctuations the to parallel are aid of amount total in years 10 the over fluctuations the that show lines dashed two the all, Figure 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 0.0 7 7 : The fluctuations in the total amountofODA thetotal in : Thefluctuations by maindonors 2003 visualizes the fluctuations in the total net ODA received from these donors. First of First donors. these from received ODA net total the in fluctuations the visualizes 2004 2005 2006 2007

aid intheFigure arealso reflected 2008

2009 OECD 2010 34 .StatExtracts

2011

aid received by the three examined donors, examined three the by received aid 2012

(3 (3 donors) Total US IDA institutions EU (all donors) TOTAL 7 .

be discussed as a as discussed be

CEU eTD Collection so democratic promoting and poverty ending that underline they while societies democratic resilient, ( prosperity'' and promote security our advancing to and poverty extreme end to ''partner the of mission the to according Particularly USAID. of policy current in noticed aid also are politics and governmentdevelopment integrating strongly of motives These US programs. in incorporated and other development each to that tied be clarified will assistance democracy organization the Thus democracy. supporting at explicitly they support'', aim will sector the from irrespective USAID, ''indirectof programs development the all that underline an this for calling rights While human goals. and development democracy achieving of role the highlighted USAID statement, this With to assistance direct support democratic provide(USAID, institutions 1991:12). that projects specific than significant more be may support programs. development its of range full the and sectors all across governance lawful and rights human basic for respect practices, and values democratic stated: agency this governance, and democracy its in 1991, in Yet 2013). Gramont, and (Carothers 1990s early in so doing goal, a as democracy include to agencies aid governmental first the among been has USAID 3.2. development EUUSAID, Bank i World and policies of The governance. on mainly concentrated others governance, democratic and democracy towards policies explicit adopted donors the of some While approach. political more towards ne donors the itself, development of understanding broader the to alleviation poverty solely from focus the shifting While 1990s. since began politics and development of integration the thesis this of chapter first the in discussed already As U nited

S tates A gency for for gency I nternational Mission, Vision and Values, and Vision Mission, 35 D

evelopment “ USAID can encourage the establishment of establishment the encourage can USAID

nstitutions arenstitutions discussed below.

Over the long term, this indirect indirect this term, long the Over dd o dut hi policies their adjust to eded cieties are inseparable and and inseparable are cieties USAID, 2014). Thus, Thus, 2014). USAID,

organization they they organization policy paper on paper policy aid and and aid

CEU eTD Collection (USAID, groups vulnerable and minorities of involvement institutions democratic and democracy to s on focus governance and rights human democracy, are all) projects 38 of out 13 above, chart the from noticeeasily can one As Source: Created by Figure US aidprojects.sectors, benefiting from years ten studied 2012. to 2003 from Armenia in implemented projects, USAID at look will I reality, in reflected are democracysupport with developmentintegrating on statements these how analyze to order In success and the stabilizing for also but poverty, ending for only not required are governments effective another. for necessary is one 3 6 According to the official website of of website official the to According 8 : USAID projects by sectors: USAID projects 2 upporting legitimate, inclusive and effective governments effective and inclusive legitimate, upporting ac 1 1 h ieving 2

UAD Itrcie a, 2014) Map, Interactive (USAID, the

1 sustainable developmentsustainable author based onUSAIDauthor data 9 Hence

re n paeu sceis ht ae eiiae and legitimate have that societies peaceful and free

13 encouraging ; USAID 36 .

Global Health Global empowerment women's and equality Gender change climate global and Environment Education trade and growth Economic governance and rights Human Democracy, ones , there ,

Te figure The . (InteractiveMa Te projects The . have been have nlsv development inclusive

neatv Map, Interactive 8 ; promoting the promoting ; and programsand p) below reflects the main main the reflects below

38 projects 38 /programs

2014). The The 2014). particularly particularly (or 34% of 34% (or during the the during transition

through CEU eTD Collection Source: Projects Armenia 2003to2012 in from 7 Table more in sector details.Below ofall theamount the list programs is oftotalobligation. with andprojects Governance” and Rights Human “Democracy, in programs and projects larg third the are projects health for necessary considered is chapter encourages projects of group e infrastructure improving governments, ones 9 with trade and growth economic is group biggest second ncouraging local channels of financing (USAI financing of channels local ncouraging

mainly aim at promoting promoting at aim mainly Created by the author based onUSAID theauthor Created data by : USAID USAID : “Democracy,

nlsv eooy wih as which economy, inclusive epes ces o markets, to access people’s Human Rights and Governance” sector sector Governance” and Rights Human s gop ih 5 o te whole. the of 15% with group est development

( od, rde, ae supply water bridges, roads, 37 D, D,

Interactive Map,Interactive (Acemoglu and Robinson, and (Acemoglu

(InteractiveMap) projects

asn te fiiny f the of efficiency the raising earlier

/programs 2014)

icse i te first the in discussed wl dsus h 13 the discuss will I n eetia grids) electrical and

. In other word other In .

(23.7%). These These (23.7%). rgas and Programs 2012 ). Global ).

this this , CEU eTD Collection the of growth income the fostering byprosperity shared promote and 3% than more no to day e “to ambi two combines group WB the of mission the Particularly, IDA. and of WB missions the reflectedin is (2013). This politics in engagementdirect from themselves refraining thus governance, to one “democratic” the including prefix, political any attaching on focusing neutral, more and Carothers be As democracy. to than rather considered governance is Bank World policies, and mission its governancewhichInwith USAID,explicitly democracy embraced contrastin democratic and 3.3. 2003 to2012. their major make and together them tie they poverty, ending for conditions necessary as rights human and democracy Considering mission. its in stated governance, T importance andgovernance democratic ofdemocracy agency. supportfor the election media, development, community and government local society, fostering and concluded activism and advocacy (USAID, autonomy fiscal local and decentralization civic promoting development, community tim USD. mln 12 with Program” Support Government Local and Society “Civil is obligation total of amount biggest the with program the Interestingly, electi to the from noticed be can As sm up sum o eline World Bank Group/I Bank World nd extreme poverty by decreasing the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 a a $1.25 than less on living people of percentage the decreasing by poverty extreme nd ons, civil society, rule of law, local government and media amongst others. others. amongst media and government local law, of rule society, civil ons, from

that prioriti ,

SI has USAID

etme, 00 till 2010 September, around around es which is es which 4 o al rjcs n porm o UAD ocnrt o concentrate USAID of programs and projects all of 34% nternational

Table 7, Table a

reflected in the example of Armenia at least for the period from from period for the at least example ofArmenia the in reflected la objective clear

USAID projects and programs pay significant attention significant pay programs and projects USAID etme 21 wt te ups o encouraging of purpose the with 2014 September D evelopment Association 38

in in support Interactive Map, Interactive Gramont put it, WB group avoided avoided group WB it, put Gramont This is an ongoing program for a for program ongoing an is This ing

democracy and democratic democratic and democracy these

2014). 2014). programs and and programs tious goals, namely, namely, goals, tious s

, reflecting the the reflecting , Thus, it can be be can it Thus, projects civil n CEU eTD Collection sectors. main by projects WB of structure the reflects below chart The projects. modernization sector social and infrastructure, health, education, agriculture, protection and development rural social investment, irrigation, and management wastewater water, reduction, poverty include operated WB the where sectors, main The 2014). Operations, and Projects 2003 of period the for Armenia in implemented been have that projects mentioning 30 overall worth is it IDA, by financed projects WB particularly at looking When Management, 2014). pro the strengthen and corruption, decrease accountability, public promote to society civil and sector private with as recipient with cooperates organization the management”, sector public su and inclusive promote that institutions support to important is it goals, their meet Bank to order World in that However, recognizes governance. democratic or democracy about anything mention th notice, can one As 2014). (IDA, conditions living people’s improve as well as inequalities, reduce growth, economic advance to intend that programs funding through poverty reducing at aims poorest, the for bank group’s WB 2014 Do”, We “What (WB, country” every for 40% bottom

vision of basic public services (WB, Governance and Public Sector Sector Public and Governance (WB, services public basic of vision

tial got. aln ti “ this Calling growth. stainable 39

msin o tee raiain d not do organizations these of missions e ). Similarly, Similarly, ). governments, as well as governments, strong, accountable accountable strong, IDA, which is the the is which IDA, Governance and and Governance - 02 (WB, 2012 and public public and

CEU eTD Collection Source: Createdthe by 4 3 2 1 Sector 8: Public Table IDA projects towards year The period. ofthese thecommitmentamount ispresented list projectswith below. thesis this for interest most of are which projects, Sector ener renewable heating, irrigation, management, water including projects, infrastructure are (26.7%) 30 of out 8 and education and health including services, social As World based(ProjectsSource:author on CreatedtheOperations) Data by Bank and Figure 9: IDA bysectors projects 2012 from2003to

can be noticed from the Figure 9, nine out of 30 projects (30%) are social investments and and investments social are (30%) projects 30 of out nine 9, Figure the from noticed be can Public SectorPublic Modernization Project ReformJudicial Project 2 Modernization Administration Project Tax Name of Structural Credit5 Adjustment 5 8

the project author based on WB based on (Projectsauthor Operations) data and 4

4 9

40,000,000 10,150,000 22,500,000 12,000,000 Commitment Amount (USD) Infrustructure Reduction Poverty Development Rural Sector Public services social and Investments Social

have been only four during the ten ten the during four only been have

gy projects. Public Public projects. gy

CEU eTD Collection 2014) Policies, the including development, sustainable of the of achievement context the in poverty of eradication the is Commiss puts vision vision common a for agreed Commission European the and Development, on Consensus European to According 3.4. the without governance goalexplicit ofdemocracygovernanceand assistance. democratic efficient more transparency, including side, administrative the project sector public few The projects. improvement infrastructure and political explicitly implementing services social development, rural reduction, poverty on not more concentrating while programs, are IDA accordingly and WB that confirms This of the WB arenothave concentrated ongovernanceand co democracy do support above The (2014). implementation policy was Project” Modernization “ of and purpose main the Finally, reliability country. the in services efficiency, judicial of transparency the improving at aimed Project” Reform “Judicial Similarly, “ The 2014). Pr Modernization Operations, and Projects (WB, reforms sector social through reforms, the of sustainability ensure resources; existing of efficiency the raise and s facilitate to Government Armenian supported website official WB to according which Credit”, Adjustment “Structural on As The The e can notice from the Table 8, t 8, Table the from notice can e E ion states that “As the primary and overarching objective of EU development policydevelopment EU of objective overarching andprimary the “As that states ion uropean uropean

development . As one can notice, this objective of EU development policy does not include not policydoes development EU of objective this notice, canone As . oject” is generally aimed at increasing the efficiency of tax administration. tax of efficiency the increasing at aimed generally is oject” U Millennium Development Goals” Development Millennium nion

sanbe rwh n pvry euto; teghn governance strengthen reduction; poverty and growth ustainable Institutions mn pirte o E’ etra policy. external EU’s of priorities among

mrvn tasaec i gvrmn decision government in transparency improving he project with the biggest commitment amount is the is amount commitment biggest the with project he

- discussed show that the few public sector projects projects sector public few the that show discussed 41

the European Parliament, the Council, Council, the Parliament, European the (European Commission, Development Commission, (European

f eeomn (200 development of

s particularly focus on on focus particularly s a Administration Tax

h European The Public Sec Public - making and and making mponents. 6 . This ). tor tor

CEU eTD Collection in the caseArmenia. of a more towards policy development EU of shift the whether see to order in programs these compare will I cooperation. of areas priority the as well as 2007 for accordingly T Partnership. Eastern the in Armenia including “ through held mainly Agreement Cooperation was Armenia to assistance EU democracy, and goodgovernance. humanrights from policy development EU the in shift policy a was there Thus (2011). development with intertwined are mentioned above the that claiming security, and governance good rights, human democracy, on more t support and funding targeted more T 4). 2011: Change, for Agenda policy Commission, (European development” human for development growth sustainable and inclusive its of impact the “h on increase concentrating to calling policy, development EU on discussion a launched Commission the 2011 in However, development. sustainable about governa democratic and democracy mn ihs dem rights, uman - 10 and 2011 and 10

” since 1999. In 2004 European Neighborhood Policy was launched, was Policy Neighborhood European 2004 In 1999. since ” e Aed fr hne ws nrdcd n aotd I amd at aimed It adopted. and introduced was change” for “Agenda he

oe ocnrto o pvry euto t is obnto with combination its to reduction poverty on concentration sole

- 13 generally defined the amount of funding to the country, country, the to funding of amount the generallydefined 13 owards poverty reduction. The new agenda concentrated concentrated agenda new The reduction. poverty owards c i te otx o dvlpet wie mentioning while development, of context the in nce cay n ohr e eeet o go governance; good of elements key other and ocracy 42

ainl niaie P Indicative National ttention to democracy is reflected reflected is democracy to ttention EU - rei Prnrhp and Partnership Armenia rograms

(NIPs) (NIPs) CEU eTD Collection integr had EU shift policy discussed above the before even Thus, governance. good the and structure of democratic prioritized both programs promotion, NIP Armenia democracy include not did and elimination poverty on focused developm EU though that concluded be can it Thus, one. previous the in included not was which institutions, democratic on focus the is program 2013 2011 in noted be can that addition only The society. civil and freedoms fundamental rights, administratio public judiciary, for reform law, of rule included priority sub the Moreover, programs. the of both in priority first the are governance” good and Structures “Democratic 10, Figure the from noticed easily be can As basedSource: onNIP 2007 Createdtheauthor by Figure 10:Indicative areas Priority National of Programs 2007 - 2010 • • • Governanceand Good DemocraticStructures Reduction Efforts Support for Poverty CapacityBuilding Administrative Reform and Support for Regulatory Strengtheningof people contacts civilsociety, people fundamental freedoms, Human rights, reform, Public administration the judiciary Rule of law and reformof - to - 43

- 2010 andNIP 2011 2011 td h cmoet o democracy, of components the ated

- ent policy until 2011 until policy ent 2013 - priorities of the mentioned mentioned the of priorities and reform regulatoryalignment Tradeand investment, • • the judiciary rule of law and reformof Democratic institutions, and goodgovernance Democraticstructures development and sustainable Socio - 2013 2013 civilsociety development fundamental freedoms, Human rightsand reform Public administration rfrs human reforms, n - economicreform

was mainly mainly was -

CEU eTD Collection in resulted which promotion, democracy inconsistencythe perspective policies from of democracy intheir development assistance. and aid development integrating d had Armenia towards of donors major the of each that concluded be can it governance good rights, result a governance.As good of elementsas rights human anddemocracy at lookingtogether, human democracy, combines EU donors, two other the unlike obser interesting an Additionally, Armenia. with programs cooperation the in included were they 2011, till policy development EU of goals major the among not were governance democratic and democracy though institutions, EU for As “governance”. of label under projects neutral and administrative mainly including politics from itself refrained WB aid, development with promotion democracy combine to donors first the among was donors. different of democracy policies the in specifically differently quite reflected was politics, aid development with of promotion, integration the aid, development and development it up, sum To above the to according countries principle. democratizing to aid more give to tends latter the as EU, of case the in aid development determines extent some to democracy that relationshi the of direction other to concerns actually This 2014). rights Commission, (European human assistance and more receive democracy reforms in advancing countries the which to according principle, to is important it Furthermore,separately. them at looking of instead governance, good and democracy combines EU WB, and USAID with contrast in that note to interesting also is It policy. development its into rights human

Thus, referring to the examples discussed above, it can be noted that while USAID USAID while that noted be can it above, discussed examples the to referring Thus,

can be concluded that in parallel with the expansion of the concept of of concept the of expansion the with parallel in that concluded be can

p between democracy and development aid. This is to say, to is This aid. development and democracy between p

mention that EU has the so calledso the has EU that mention 44

feet approaches ifferent “more for more” for “more ain s that, is vation - mentioned mentioned

the the

CEU eTD Collection in democracy of level the Armenia. in fluctuations and received aid development of amount the analysis democracy. of level the and received aid development of amount the that assistance development net and democracy of level the between relationship positive a showed 0.617 of Correlation Pearson is variables donors, major and received aid development A amountrelationship ofdevelopment betweenandlevel aid ofdemocracy. the development into politics agencies, donor of policies the in reflected be to had this Apparentl democracy. and rights human sustainability, also but growth, economic only not means, its of instead development of ends the on field. the into perspective political more bringing expanded, aid development of idea the therefore, and development of concept the 1990s since that revealed literature relevant the of review The discussed Armenia of case the on of perspective the from topic the approached thesis this democracy, and development between relationship the on issue debatable highly the Given Findings fter discussing the general situation in Armenia in terms of democracy as well as as well as democracy of terms in Armenia in situation general the discussing fter P any - value , I conclude that for the time period of 2003 of period time the for that conclude I ,

increase in in increase Particul

for of thetime2003 period

and and Conclusion analyzed, using bivariate correlation. Th correlation. bivariate using analyzed, of

0.05 arly, after Sen’s definition of development as freedom and his concentration his and freedom as development of definition Sen’s after arly, 7 showed that showed FH

scores corresponds to corresponds scores the

o eti extent certain to

impact , which is interpreted as a negative relationship considering relationship negative a as interpreted is which ,

there is no statistically significant relationship between the the between relationship significant statistically no is there -

2012. f eeomn aid development of

45 , the relationship between the mentioned two two mentioned the between relationship the a

hs iig bss o assuming for basis a giving thus

decrease in terms in decrease development started to be associated with associated be to started development e quantitative analyses revealed analyses quantitative e - 2012 there was no correlation between correlation no was there 2012 development aid. Particularly based based Particularly aid. development n h lvl f democr of level the on which

ee ugd o integrate to nudged were of hrfr based Therefore democracy. However democracy.

acy

t n this on hat the hat certain was was y, ,

CEU eTD Collection of priorities the among rights governance human or democratic policyputdemocracy, did not objective EU development of poverty of eradication at o agreed institutions EUthat note to important is It picture. different a revealed institutions, EU namely donor, third the of discussion The development. for necessity moreover and priority a as governance democratic or democracy integrated and mission the neither However, anti to support pay hand, other the On prosperity. shared of promotion and poverty extreme ending on focused being continued organization the of mission the hand one on that neutra more a adopted donors, multilateral biggest the of one as WB, contrast, and In development. sustained stable to lead can two the of combination the only and other each from separated be agency the Moreover, programs. redu poverty that highlighted development all in therefore and objectives main its in rights human practices, and values democratic of promotion the included clearly 1990s, of th among being USAID, Particularly, policies. development their consequently and objectives their in reflected differently is latter the with alleviation poverty donors three the that revealed institutions Armenia, in democracy and aid development I odr to order n

teto t pbi sco mngmn ad o ald “governance”, called so and management sector public to attention , l approach and refrained itself from direct political engagement. This is to say, to is This engagement. political direct from itself refrained and approach l were critically discussed discussed critically were further this this further

- orpin pbi acutblt ad diitaie ie f governance. of side administrative and accountability public corruption, being being while among priority goals of all three donors, the integration of politics of integration the donors, three all of goals priority among nlss n g dee in deeper go and analysis ction and promotion of free and democratic societies should not should societies democratic and free of promotion and ction

EU development policy. However, a a However, policy. development EU discussing it in the context of sustainable development. This This development. sustainable of context the in it discussing have have

betvs f h W the of objectives quite o te eid of period the for ifrn apoce ad polic and approaches different 46 e first donor agencies to react to the challenges the to react to agencies donor first e n a common development policy mainly aimed aimed mainlypolicy development common a n de

velopment policies of USAID, WB and EU EU and WB USAID, of policies velopment observing studies B

group

the organization sta organization the e years ten nr hi po their nor , vital h relationship the policy shift occurred shift policy ies. . while The discussion discussion The

hs d Thus, licies have have licies

inclu between rted to rted espite ding

CEU eTD Collection human rights, inArmenia. law ruleof EU of objectives main befor the policy among development mentioned not was promotion democracy though that say, to is This areas. priority the among law of rule rights, human democracy, includes 2011 and attention. appropriate publicarepaid governance and managementsector organization, the of priority a as promotion democracy having not While noticed. rural reduction, poverty on emphasis include governance. and projects USAID words, confirmed generally are policies mentioned above the that concluded be can it 2012, to 2003 from Armenia in implemented the at looking When with eachandpolicy, otheraccordingly EU at development since both. targeted 2011,is hand in gohand governance democracyand that emphasizing discussed, donors two other the EU that concluded be can it Thus, governance. poverty and rights human democracy, together puts only not EU shift policy mentioned above the with of is It policy. development EU of part inherent an became and rights human policy, development targeted more for need the out pointed agenda new This introduced. was change” for “Agenda the when 2011 in

governance, it it governance, - 2013 NIPs were di were NIPs 2013

rdcto, u rgrs ua rgt ad eorc a eeet o good of elements as democracy and rights human regards but eradication, It

eorc. hs sne 01 eorc ad ua rgt promotion rights human and democracy 2011 since Thus, democracy. is important to notice that though USAID mission and objectives do not do objectives and mission USAID though that notice to important is was in Armenia in rgas and programs te Aed fr hne, U agl pooe democracy, promoted largely EU Change”, for “Agenda the e

reflected in the projects of the organization. In case of the WB, WB, the of case In organization. the of projects the in reflected scussed and compared, revealing that the program of 2007 of program the that revealing compared, and scussed

with the exception of exception the with have been largely t largely been have

development, infrastructure and social services is is services social and infrastructure development, rjcs f USAID of projects trying to trying 47

to some extent some to address that EU’s that address

the case of case the argeted at human rights, democracy democracy rights, human at argeted crucial W ad EU, and WB ,

combines the approaches of of approaches the combines As for the EU, 2007 EU, the for As

EU institutions EU importance to note, that note, to importance increased increased hc were which impact on on impact . In other other In .

- - 2010 2010

CEU eTD Collection level ofdemocracy no in resulting Armenia, of democratization targeted more that impact the undermined donors major of policies consistent of absence the aid, development with together assistance democracy inconsistency obj different quite had Armenia of Therefore, promotion. democracy and democracy challenges to reacted Bank The different. principally is WB democratization, and promotion democracy assistance democracy organization. the of each in extents different is at politics present with development of integration the that say to is This promotion. democracy have EU and that concluded be can it up, sum To of the 1990s the of of quite quite

their .

ifrn apoce twrs obnn dvlpet ass development combining towards approaches different development policies. development

mn ter an roiis n teeoe thei therefore and priorities main their among by focusing attention to governance, but did not get engaged with with engaged get not did but governance, to attention focusing by

ectives and different approaches different and ectives the the three major donors of Armenia, namely USAID, WB WB USAID, namely Armenia, of donors major three This is to say that say to is This 48 sig

iiat mat f eeomn ad on aid development of impact nificant it

can be co be can development Whereas ncluded that ncluded though some donors prioritize prioritize donors some though

SI ad EU and USAID

which speaks about the the about speaks which policies

poet am at aim projects r each of the donors donors the of each

could sac with istance ha include ve on ve

the CEU eTD Collection cesd ue , 2014 9, 9,2014 June June Accessed 2013.” World the in “Freedom 2014. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom House. Freedom Union. http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/european_consensus_2005_en.pdf European the of Journal Official Accessed 2006. Development.” on Consensus “European 9. Cooperation cooperation/armenia/armenia_en.htm and June “Development Accessed 2014. Commission. European for Change.” “Inc 2011. Commission. European Hyden London : Science:Political 24. Routledge, 2002. Goran and Elgström Donor Ole by Edited Politics, / How? War Cold Aid: GöranHyden. and Ole, Elgström, of Effects the “Conditioning Credibility,and Democracy inAfrica.” 2004. Thad. Dunning, 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development Policies.” Policy “Development and Aid “Foreign 2014 http://stats.oecd.org/. 2007. Smith. 2014. Data.” Geographical Aggregate “Development: Alastair and Bueno, Concessions.” Bruce Mesquita, De 9,2014 June 1973 FIW Status, and Ratings “Country http://www.parliament.am/parliament.php?id=constitution&lang=eng# 1995. Armenia Armenia.” of Republic the of “Constitution andDiane Carothers deThomas Gramont 2013. Thomas. Carothers, Moscow: Wor 2013. Glazunova. Elena and Vladimir, Bartenev, 2014. 2014 Overview.” “Armenia Why?” and Whom to Aid Journal ofEconomic Growth Foreign Gives “Who 2000. Dollar. David and Alberto, Alesina, Prosperity andPoverty Daron Acemoglu, Democracy Daron Acemoglu, Reference List http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/armenia/overview Acse Jn 9, June Accessed . . Cambridge University. Cambridge Press.

http://freedomhouse.org/report ld Bank. Journal of Conflict Resolution Journal ofConflict ,

and James A. Robinson. A. James and n Jms . oisn 2005. Robinson. A. James and

. 1st ed.New Publishers. York:. Crown 2014

eeomn Ad ofot Pltc Te lot eouin / Revolution Almost The Politics : Confronts Aid Development

5 (1): 33

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/country Development and Democracy : What Have We Learned and and Learned We Have What Democracy : and Development h Wrd Bank World The reasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: An Agenda An Policy: Development EU Impact of the reasing . uoen Commission European

– 63. International Organization International -

2014 (EXCEL).” 2014. 2014. (EXCEL).” 2014 .

. 2012. 2012. . - types/freedom

- 49 51 (2): 251 world

policies/index_en.htm Why Nati Why nentoa Dvlpet Cooperation Development International - RuldeEP Suis n European in Studies Routledge/ECPR . 2013/methodology#.U5YflHKSyYI cnmc rgn o Dcaosi and Dictatorship of Origins Economic Fbur 1. cesd ue 9, June Accessed 17. February . ainl seby f h Rpbi of Republic the of Assembly National OECD.StatExtracts – 84. - world#.U5YtmXKSyYJ ons Fail: The Origins of Power, of Origins The Fail: ons

Acse Jn 9 2014 9, June Accessed .

Freedon House Freedon 58 (2) - EuropeAid: Armenia.” Armenia.” EuropeAid: . .

: 409 . Accessed June 9, 9, June Accessed . – 23. . Accessed Accessed .

2014 .

- .

CEU eTD Collection U.S. USAID. and 2014.“Mission,Vision Values.” 9,2014 June Accessed D.C.: Washington Governance”. and Democracy InterAgency for Policy: “USAID 1991. USAID. UniversityOxford Press. and 1990. Programme. Dependence Development Nations Aid United Credible? Policy Aid Foreign Is Conditi “When 2000. Jakob. Svensson, 2000. 1999. Kumar. Amartya Sen, Ridd Cambridge:University Press. Cambridge Well Economic and Regimes 2000. Adam. Przeworski, “Political 1993. Limongi. Fernando Growth.” and Adam, 9, Przeworski, June 2014 Accessed 2010. Armenia.” Report Country IV “Polity Terms.” Statistical 9,2014 June Time of Annual IV “Polity “Glossary http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6043 2014. OECD. 2011 Instrument.” Program. Indicative National 2007 Instrument.” Program. Indicative National for Africa Dambisa Moyo, Best A Democratization: and Aid, Resources, Scenario.” “Natural 2007. M. Kevin Morrison, for Systemic Peace. CharacteriRegime Political “POLITY 2014. Jaggers. Kate and Gurr, Ted Robert G., Monty Marshall, Democracy?” Promote Aid Foreign Quarterly “Does 2004. Stephen. Knack, Iskandaryan, Armenia”.2013. “NationsFreedom Alexander. Transit: in House. Africa.”http://www.worldbank.org/ida/what in Statehood and IsIDA. 2014.“InternationalAccesse DevelopmentWhat IDA?” Association, Aid “Foreign 2001. Organization A. Arthur Goldsmith, 2005. ed. Deve C., Clark Gibson, - ell, Roger. 2007. lopment Aid lopment en i te ol, 1950 World, the in Being http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/Armenia2010.pdf onality.” . New York:and Farrar, Giroux. Straus

The Journal of EconomicThe JournalPe of 48 (1): 251 Public Choice

http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html 55 (1): 123 . 2009. . national Development. national Journal ofDevelopment Economics . Oxford: Oxford University Oxford . Oxford: Press.

– Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Foreign ReallyDoes Aid 66. doi:10.1111/j.0020 66. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way Better a Is There How and Working Not Is Aid Why Aid: Dead

–

- 131 (3 48. doi:10.1162/002081801551432. eis 1800 Series, Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material and Institutions Political Development: and Democracy stics and Transitions, 1800 Transitions, and stics eeomn a Fedm Aata Sen Amartya / Freedom as Development - 4): 365 - The Samaritan’s Dilemma: The Political Economy of of Economy Political The Dilemma: Samaritan’s The 1990 - is - - - rspectives 00 “uoen Neighbourhood “European 2010. 03 “Eu 2013. Cmrde tde i te hoy f Democracy. of Theory the in Studies Cambridge . ida.html -

2013.” 2014. 2014. 2013.” –

86. doi:10.1007/s11127 - 50 8833.2004.00299.x. etr o Ssei Peace Systemic for Center .

, no. 3:51.doi:10.2307/2138442. ,

oen Neighbourhood ropean ua Dvlpet Report. Development Human

61 (1): 61

- etr o Ssei Peace Systemic for Center Oxford: Oxford University Oxford Oxford: Press. 2013: Dataset Users’ Manual”. Center Center Manual”. Users’ Dataset 2013: .

– 84. - 006

- 9121 nentoa Studies International . New York : Knopf, Knopf, York : New . .

- TM cesd ue 9, June Accessed And Partnership Partnership And And Partnership Partnership And 1. d June 9, d June

IV PROJECT: IV

International

New York: York: New . Accessed Accessed .

2014 -

2014 Case Case

CEU eTD Collection http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/what Bank.World 2 http://www.worldbank.org/projects/search?lang=en&searchTerm=&countrycode_exact=AM Acce World Map.” K:34480~pagePK:34370~theSitePK:4607,00.html 2014 9, Interactive June Accessedhttp://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20040922~menuP Management.” Sector Public and “Governance 2014. Bank. World “USAID: 2014. http://map.usaid.gov/?l=regional&w=EUROPE%20%26%20EURASIA USAID. http://www.usaid.gov/who

ak 21. Poet ad prtos” cesd ue , 2014 9, June Accessed Operations.” and “Projects 2014. Bank. 014. “WhatDo.” We Accessed 9,2014 June - we - are/mission - we - vision - 51 do

- . values

sd ue , 2014 9, June ssed .