"Different actors, different tools? Approaching EU and US democracy promotion in the Mediterranean and the Newly Independent States"
Andreas Stahn, Vera van Hüllen
Abstract
Open-access reader
Andreas Stahn, Vera van Hüllen
Abstract
Open-access reader
This paper contributes to the research agenda on external democracy promotion by attempting a systematic comparison between the democracy promotion endeavors of two major international actors, the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US). It first outlines an analytical framework that is then tested for its heuristical value, applying it to EU and US democracy promotion efforts on a global and a regional scale, thus comparing different actors as well as across regions. It concludes by highlighting the differences in design and flexibility of their approaches and relates them to a specificity of EU external relations. While both actors can draw on seemingly similar tool boxes for democracy promotion, the EU tends to limit its own scope of action to a rather cooperative approach due to the emphasis it puts on the standardization and (reciprocal) formalization of relations with third countries, including provisions for democracy promotion.
OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This paper contributes to the research agenda on external democracy promotion by attempting a systematic comparison between the democracy promotion endeavors of two major international actors, the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US). It first outlines an analytical framework that is then tested for its heuristical value, applying it to EU and US democracy promotion efforts on a global and a regional scale, thus comparing different actors as well as across regions. It concludes by highlighting the differences in design and flexibility of their approaches and relates them to a specificity of EU external relations. While both actors can draw on seemingly similar tool boxes for democracy promotion, the EU tends to limit its own scope of action to a rather cooperative approach due to the emphasis it puts on the standardization and (reciprocal) formalization of relations with third countries, including provisions for democracy promotion.
Key concepts: Democracy promotion, Democracy, Political science, Promotion (chess), Scope (computer science), Standardization, European union, Flexibility (engineering)