Thomas Carothers, McKenzie Carrier
{
"authors": [
"Thomas Carothers"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Democracy and Governance"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "DCG",
"programs": [
"Democracy, Conflict, and Governance"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
The Elusive Synthesis
Over the past twenty years, democracy promoters and development practitioners have become increasingly interconnected and the distinctions between the two communities have become blurred.
Source: Journal of Democracy

The separation began to narrow in the 1990s. Post–Cold War optimism about the apparent triumph of market economics and liberal democracy, as well as about the complementarity of these two goals, gave rise in Western policy circles to the view that an integrated approach to both political and economic development aid might be valuable as well as possible. This new context, as well as programmatic evolution within both communities, prompted democracy promoters to begin building bridges to the socioeconomic side and developmentalists to do the same toward the political.
Those bridges widened in the most recent decade as developmentalists embraced a general imperative of “taking politics into account,” while democracy promoters accepted the need to “help democracy deliver.” The distinctions between the two practitioner communities blurred, in terms of both organizational boundaries and the activities on the ground. The growing overlap and interconnections between democracy aid and socio- economic aid present an analytic puzzle of considerable practical import: Do the growing ties between the two domains constitute a process of integration or even synthesis? What are the most important areas of common ground and the most significant differences? And what are the effects on this ill-defined relationship of recent changes in the broader international context, such as democracy’s global woes and the heightened visibility of nondemocratic development success stories?
"The Elusive Synthesis" was published as part of a Democracy Support and Development Aid trio in the Journal of Democracy. Please also read the responses, "The Case for Principled Agnosticism" by Brian Levy and "Getting Convergence Right" by Kenneth Wollack and K. Scott Hubli.
This forum grew out of a workshop organized in April 2010 on democracy and development by the Bernard Schwartz Forum on Constructive Capitalism at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
About the Author
Harvey V. Fineberg Chair for Democracy Studies; Director, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, is a leading expert on comparative democratization and international support for democracy.
- When Do Mass Protests Topple Autocrats?Commentary
- The Trump Administration’s Tangled Talk About Democracy AbroadArticle
Thomas Carothers, McKenzie Carrier
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s ExpenseCommentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
- Why Has Kazakhstan Started Deporting Political Activists?Commentary
The current U.S. indifference to human rights means Astana no longer has any incentive to refuse extradition requests from its authoritarian neighbors—including Russia.
Temur Umarov
- Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?Commentary
Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.
Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov
- Georgia’s Fall From U.S. Favor Heralds South Caucasus RealignmentCommentary
With the White House only interested in economic dealmaking, Georgia finds itself eclipsed by what Armenia and Azerbaijan can offer.
Bashir Kitachaev
- What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?Commentary
If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.
Nikita Smagin