MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002502698 · doi:10.1177/002070200205700202

Deepening Democracy to Fight Poverty

2002· article· en· W2002502698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Sandbrook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyDemocratizationVirtuous circle and vicious circleHuman rightsPoliticsPolitical scienceProsperitySociologyPopulationPovertyDignityPolitical economyLawPublic administrationDevelopment economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto. The most recent of his eight books on Africa is Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa (2000). The author wishes to thank, yet again, Cranford Pratt for a trenchant critique of an earlier draft of this article.DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACY in the Third World usually disappoint their electorates. The 'third wave' of democratization recently surging across the world aroused high expectations of freedom and prosperity. Surely, newly enfranchised citizens might reasonably hope that this wave would usher in a virtuous and self-reinforcing circle of deepening democracy, human-rights observance, and poverty alleviation. After all, where the poor and the socially excluded account for a quarter or more of the population, their demands should sway popularly elected governments.(1) Yet, in practice, these expectations have rarely been fulfilled.This conclusion emerges from a series of regional workshops on 'Making Democracy Work for the Poor,' convened by Sweden's Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in 2000.(2) For example, IDEA's south Asia workshop observed: 'The trappings of democracy have allowed unrepresentative elites to hijack power, promote their own interests, and bypass the poor... For most people elections have become irrelevant.' The workshop on the Commonwealth of Independent States concluded that human rights have deteriorated since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Equal rights before the law is a chimera, it declared; the quality of public education and health care has fallen; no legal right to a job or basic sustenance survives; religious intolerance grows; and political rights are merely formal. Similar complaints surfaced in the Latin America and Africa workshops. Disillusionment, even cynicism, have widely displaced citizens' enthusiasm.However, the delegates did not want to replace, but rather to improve, democratic governance. They therefore posed certain key questions. How can the promise of democracy to give voice and dignity to ordinary people be realized? How, in particular, can representative governments in poor countries be made more responsive to the aspirations of their poor and near-poor majorities? Seeking answers to such questions inevitably raises major controversies in the political economy of development.'Humane internationalists'(3) should engage these controversies. Not only is poverty a growing problem in our own countries, but also solidarity on issues of world poverty and human rights extends beyond borders in this globalizing world. We cannot avoid a role in the struggle: to empower ordinary people will require radical changes in the global economic order, as well as in local and national institutions and practices in developing countries.In defining a strategic response to deepen democracy worldwide, humane internationalists have grounds for scepticism about prominent positions on both the right and the left. A social-democratic perspective may provide the most efficacious guide.Many neoliberals contend that the fundamental role of democracy is to prevent tyranny and improve governance, not to empower the poor to press populist and statist policies on impressionable governments. Indeed, for them, economic or market freedom is as important as political freedom. Eventually, the interests of all will be served if governments liberalize markets and open their economies to international trade and investment. The consequent growth will lift all boats, though admittedly not all to the same level. Neoliberals regard the growing inequalities that attend liberalized markets as either a regrettable necessity or a welcome recognition of the varying individual contributions to expanding productivity. Hence, free markets, along with minimal safety nets and services to forestall a backlash against neoliberalism, responsible macroeconomic policy, and a liberal democracy, constitute for them the winning formula in poor countries. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207