International Organizations: Fostering Democracy “at Home”: From Silent Players to Salient Players?

The international dimension of democratisation is a major concern in the study of contemporary political systems. The analysis of domestic political transformations in which International Organisations (IOs) may be salient actors compromises the traditional inward-looking approach of comparative politics that holds democracy to be a domestic affair par excellence. Nevertheless, the maturity of any process of democratisation relies upon the establishment and sustainability of institutions that genuinely reflect the interests and socio-political identity of the citizens of that polity. The role of external influence, whether progressive or abrupt, is clearly limited in constructing and sustaining this process. However, the relevance of international variables in influencing the renaissance or enhancement of democracy has not been overlooked by either scholars or politicians over the past fifteen years. As a number of political systems went through what became known as the third wave of democratization, the role of IOs in breaking down undemocratic strongholds and in neutralising possible reversals began to gain momentum. Contending approaches and controversial case studies alike appear to elicit very different conclusions concerning the legitimacy and the effectiveness of international actors in this field. This analysis addresses the rationale underpinning the deployment of multilateral external actors as agents of democratisation. Drawing on an integrative theoretical approach and a comparative case study involving the democratisation agendas of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN) in Latin America (LA), contrasting international models of deployment are assessed. It is argued that IOs’ democratisation strategies are based on institutional roadmaps leading towards the attainment of targets which vary according to three key ´guidelines’: how democracy is conceptualised, what cooperative strategies are used, and what frameworks for democratisation are adopted.-----La dimensión internacional de la democratización representa un fenómeno importante de los sistemas políticos contemporáneos. El hecho de que la transformación política interna sea incluida bajo el título de organizaciones internacionales (OI) indica un rompimiento con el enfoque tradicional de observación interna de la política comparativa, si se parte de la suposición de que la “democracia” es un asunto interno por excelencia. Hay procesos complejos que limitan la viabilidad de la fortuna democrática en la política interior, los cuales dependen de las estructuras representativas del poder que fluye de la legitimidad nacional y la identidad política. No obstante, los estímulos internacionales que sostienen a los sistemas nacionales de gobierno, estructurados alrededor de la construcción y la consolidación de la democracia, están en el centro de la política comparativa contemporánea. Cuando varios sistemas políticos atravesaban la tercera ola de democratización, las OI asumieron rápidamente una posición significativa como agentes que neutralizaban los miedos a la inversión de políticas, rompiendo lazos con formas antidemocráticas de gobierno y eliminando las normas informales de los juegos democráticos. Las dinámicas mencionadas dan fundamento para abordar el debate sobre los modelos externos de apoyo. Mediante un enfoque teórico integrador y un estudio comparativo de casos de las agendas de democratización de la Organización de Estados Americanos y las Naciones Unidas dirigidas a la problemática democrática latinoamericana, se aclaran modelos internacionales “ocultos” de despliegue. Se argumenta que las estrategias de las OI para democratizar se fundamentan en que los planes de desarrollo institucionales para la democratización lleguen a los objetivos democráticos a través de tres “guías” multilaterales: conceptualización de la democracia, estrategias de cooperación y marcos de referencia especiales para la democratización.

Productivity, demand and the home market effect

The causality between international trade and industrialization is still ambiguous. We consider a model of international trade with the Home Market Effect - with differences in income and productivity between sectors and between countries - in order to identify additional channels for determining the effects of international trade on industrialization. Introducing non-homothetic preferences and differences in productivity aids in the interpretation of any apparent paradoxes within international trade, such as the commercial relations between more populated countries like China and India and large economies such as the U.S. Population size, demand composition and productivity levels constitute the three main channels for determining the effects of international trade. Interactions among these channels define the results obtained in terms of industrialization, while welfare levels are always higher in relation to autarky.