國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 9 4 - | P a g e
6.3 RESEARCH LIMITATION AND FURTHER STUDY
This research is to some extend limited by resource availability. Large part of it would have been much covered while in The Gambia in order to access both archival sources as well as interviews with well-placed individuals. Limited by time and other re-sources, the research was therefore conducted depending on materials accessible on line. This significantly limits the number of sources at hand especially about data such as the amount of aid flow to The Gambia from non-traditional donors (Taiwan and Kuwait). Secondly, the survey conducted was online and as such, the people reached were minimal which may not accurately represent the general country perception.
The research also only focused on EU aid through EDF and did not look at other forms of aid such as fund from the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The number of non-traditional donors was also limited to just two even though there are other donors that could significantly challenge EU aid to The Gambia.
Any further research can therefore look into the more specific EU democracy and human rights aid to The Gambia and a further examination of the rest of Gambia’s non-traditional donors could give insight of how these new donors challenge EU’s dependency on aid conditionalities for the promotion of democracy and human rights.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 9 5 - | P a g e
REFERENCES
Alesina, A. and Dollar, D. (2000). Who give foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1),33-63
Ambrose, B. P. (1995). Democratization and the protection of human rights in Africa:
Problems and prospects. Westport, U.S.A: Praeger Publishers.
Armony C.A. and Schamis, H.E. (2005). Babel in democratization studies. Journal of Democracy vol.16 (4), 113-128
Ausderan, J. (2014). How naming and shaming affects human rights perceptions in shamed country. Journal of Peace Research, 51(1), 81-96.
Babarinde, O. and Gerrit, F. (ed.). (2005). The European Union and developing coun-tries:The Cotonou Agreement. Lieden, Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Balla, E. and Reinhardt, G.Y. (2008) Giving and receiving foreign aid: does conflict count? World Development Vol.36,12, 2566-2585
Bermeo, B. S. (2011). Foreign aid and regime Change: A role for donor intent. World Development, 39, (11), 2021–2031,
Boadi, G .E. (2015). Africa’s waning democratic commitment. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 101-113.
Bomah James (2007). Democracy across ‘from Dêmos to Dêmoi’ .The MIT Press
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 9 6 - | P a g e
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England.
Bountagkidis, G. K., Fragkos, C. K., & Fragos, C. C. (2015). EU development aid towards Sub-Saharan Africa: Exploring the normative principle. Social Science, 4, 85-116.
Brown, S. (2005). Foreign aid and democracy promotion: Lessons from Africa. The European Journal of Development Research, 17(2), 179-198
Brown, W. (2013). Sovereignty matters: Africa, donors and aid relationships. African Affairs, 112(447), 262-282.
Burnside, C. & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid policies and growth. American Economic Re-view, 90(4), 847-869.
Burnell,P. (2000). Democracy assistance: Origin and organizations, in idem (ed.): De-mocracy assistance. International Co-operation for Democratization, London:
Frank Cass, S. 34-64
Carothers, T. (2015). Democracy aid at 25: Time to choose. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 59-73.
Clist, P. (2011). 25 years of aid allocation practice: Whither selectivity? World De-velopment, 39(10), 1724–1734
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 9 7 - | P a g e
Dreher, A., Minasyan, A. & Nunnenkamp, P. (2013). Government ideology in donor and recipient countries: Does political proximity matter for the effectiveness of aid?
Kiel institute for the world economy, Hindenburgufer 66, 24105 Kiel, Germany, Working Paper No. 1870.
Dunning, T. (2004). Conditioning the effects of aid: Cold War politics, donor credibil-ity, and democracy in Africa. International Organization, 58(2), 409-423
Dutta, N., Lesson, P. T.& Willaimson, C. R., (2013). Amplification effects: Foreign aid impacts on political institutions. Kyklos, 66(2), 208-228.
Fareed, Z. (1997). The Rise of illiberal democracy .Foreign Affairs, 76 (6), 22-43 Fisher, J. (2012). Managing donor perceptions: Contextualizing Uganda’s 2007
inter-vention in Somalia. African Affairs, 111 (444), 404- 423.
Fleck, R. K. and Kilby, C. (2010). Changing aid regimes? U.S. foreign aid from the Cold War to the War on Terror, Journal of Development Economics, 91 (2), 185–
197.
Gazibo, M. (2012). Beyond Electoral Democracy: Foreign Aid and the Challenge of Deepening Democracy in Benin. WIDER Working Paper 2012/033. Helsinki:
UNU-WIDER.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 9 8 - | P a g e
Griffiths, M. (ed.) (2007). International relations theory for the 21st Century. New York, U.S.A: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Heckelman,J.C. (2010). Aid and democratization in the transition economies .Kyklos, 63 (4) 558–57
Kaballo, S. (1995). Human rights and democratization in Africa. Political Studies, XLIII, 189-203
Kersting, E. and Kibly, C. (2014) Aid and democracy redux. European Economic Re-view. 67,125-143
Knack, S. (2004). Does foreign aid promotes democracy. International Studies Quar-terly, (48) 251-266.
Kreutz, J. (2015). Human rights, geostrategy, and EU foreign policy, 1989-2008. In-ternational Organizations, 69, (1)195-217.
Kurki, M.(2012). Democracy and conceptual contestability: reconsidering concepts of democracy in democracy promotion. International Studies Review 12 (3) 362-386 Lebovic, J. H. & Voeten, E. (2009). The cost of shame: International organizations and foreign aid in the punishing of human rights violators. Journal of Peace Research, 46(1): 79–97.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 9 9 - | P a g e
Lipset, M. S. (1969). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
Manners, I. (2008). Creative efforts: Normative power of the European Union.
International Affairs, 84( I), 45-60.
Mingst, K. A. & Arreguin-Toft, I.M. (2011). Essentials of international relations, New York, U.S.A, London, UK, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
McCrudden, C. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights .European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 1-70.
McCormick,J.M. and Mitchell, N.J. (1988).Economic and political explanations of human rights violations. World Politics,Vol.40 (4) 476-498.
Nielson, R. A. (2013). Rewarding human rights? Selective aid sanctions against hu-man rights repressive states. International Studies Quarterly, 57,791-803
Pace M. Dr. (2009). Liberal or social democratic aspects of the EU democracy pro-motion agenda in the Middle East. International Institute for Democracy and
Elec-toral Assistance (IDEA).
Resnick, D. and Van de Walle, N. (2013). Democratic trajectories in Africa: Unrav-eling the impact of foreign aid. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 1 0 0 - | P a g e
Van de Veen, M. A. (2011). Ideas, interest and aid, Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Young, R. (2009). Democracy promotion as external governance? Journal of Europe-an Public Policy, 16(6), 895-915
Wendt A.,(1994).Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review. Vol 88. No.2, 384-396.
Wendt A.(1999).The social theory of international politics. Cambridge university press. The Pitt Building,Trumpington street, Cambridge CB2 IRP.
TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS
European Convention of Human Rights
Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia, 1997 Cotonou Agreement, 2000, Revised edition,2010 Lomè Convention 1975
Lisbon Treaty, 2007
NEWSPAPERS
Hussain Misha, ‘Middle East Fund Gambia as EU Cuts Aid over Human Rights con-cerns,’ Reuters, December 10th, 2014.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 1 0 1 - | P a g e
Ndow Musa, ‘Gambians protest against EU demands ‘Daily Observer Newspaper,
January 14th, 2013.
Touray Suiwaibu, ‘Gambia: Result of 1996 presidential election put Jammeh as win-ner,’ Forayaa Newspaper, October 21st, 1996.
Dialogue or rhetoric: what does The Gambia government wants in its relationship with
EU? Forayaa Newspaper editorial, December 2nd, 2014.
‘Hamat Bah Condemns Indemnity Act Bill, ‘Daily Observer, April 18th, 2001.Retrived
from :( http://allafrica.com/stories/200104180438.html)
‘Banjul is a dictatorship Darboe tells coalition supporters’, The Independent
Newspa-per 24th, May 2005. (http://allafrica.com/stories/200205240432.html) REPORTS AND PRESS RELEASES
European Commission ‘General Report on the Activities of the European Union 2014.
Adopted by the European Commission on 13 February 2015 under reference number COM(2015) 57.
European Union, (2012). Statement by the EU High Representative, Catherine Ashton on the execution in The Gambia. (http://www.eeas.europa.eu)
EU Presidency Statement – United Nations Human Rights Council: Item 3:
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
- 1 0 2 - | P a g e
Promotion and protection of all human rights, including right to development.
retrieved from :(http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_9260_en.htm) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the republic of China (Taiwan) April 29th, 2014,
International Cooperation and Development Report, 2013.
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, (1995). Finding of NDI Assessment mission to The Gambia.
National Authorizing Office, The Gambia Ministry of Finance,(2014)The Gambia-EU Cooperation Annual Cooperation Report.
The Gambia -European Community Cooperation Joint Annual Report 2008.July,2009.
International Bar Association,. ‘Under pressure: A report on the rule of law in The Gambia.August, 2006
‧
Question statements % highly
agree A government that is transparent and
respon-sive to need is a democracy
61.3% 35.5 0 3.2 31
A democratic government respect civil and political rights
60 33.3 3.3 3.3 31
Elected govt that respect human rights is preferable to govt that usurps power and vio-lates human rights
Any govt that provides opportunities and de-velopment is acceptable
16.1 12.9 54.8 16.1 31
Constitutionally restrained government is more preferable to an arbitrary one
58.1 32.3 3.2 6.5 31
A democratic govt is most suitable for deliv-ering a stable progressive society unre-strained by laws can deliver a stable progres-sive society
10 10 66.7 13.3 30
A democratic govt guarantees freedom of be-lief, opinion and association ,separation of powers and a genuine openness and competi-tion of public offices
71 22.6 0 6.5 31