Modeling Other-Regarding Preferences and an Experimental Test

Behavior inconsistent with self-interest has beenobserved in many contexts. We argue thatmodels designed to cope with theseanomalies are inadequate to deal with avariety of social values. Our extension ofthe Fehr & Schmidt `inequity aversion'model is applied to results from dictatorexperiments in which the money to bedivided is generated by the efforts ofpaired individuals in either one or tworooms. This production leads to sharingbehavior qualitatively different from thatfound in other dictator experiments. Thepattern of sharing can be explained byentitlements, equity, and the credibilityof the experiment.     

Cosmetic agreements and the cracks beneath: ideological convergences and divergences in US and EU democracy promotion in civil society

This piece examines the substance of EU democracy promotion from a comparative point of view and from a perspective placing under inquiry the meaning of the idea of liberal democracy itself. Instead of assuming that the democratic ideal that the EU promotes (‘liberal democracy’) has a clear, fixed meaning, the article examines in detail what actually constitutes the ‘ideal of democracy’ at the heart of EU democracy promotion, and compares this vision to that which informs the democracy promotion of the US. It argues that interesting differences, and shifts and oscillations, in the models of liberal democracy that the EU and the US promote exist and that these are important to note in order for us to fully appreciate how the substance of EU and US democracy support can be shaped by conceptual and ideological debate on the meaning of democracy. This dynamic is particularly relevant today, in the context of the recent attempts to develop transatlantic dialogue on democracy support. This dialogue, it is suggested, plasters over some subtle but important ideological cracks over what is meant by democracy in EU and US democracy support.     

Human Rights and Democracy Promotion: reflections on the contestation in,and the politico-economic dynamics of,rights promotion

This contribution seeks to engender more nuanced reflection on the role of human rights advocacy and specifically its role in democracy promotion. The two agendas have been seen as conjoined and harmonious by most aid donors; yet, interestingly and perceptively, some commentators have recently criticised the notion that they are agendas that are straightforwardly compatible or coherent. I examine here from a theoretical perspective the plausibility and the consequences of the claim that the two agendas share a more complex and controversial relationship than is often assumed. Specifically, I seek to highlight the importance of paying attention to the possibility that rights themselves are inherently ‘contradictory’ in nature and that therein lies their contribution to the democratisation agenda. Indeed, by drawing on Samuel Bowles's and Herbert Gintis's view of rights claims as ‘clashing’ and ‘politico-economically’ grounded, the aim of this article is to argue for a more politicised and openly contradiction-accepting approach to rights and democracy promotion. I contextualise this (theoretically motivated but practically consequential) argument in the context of the EU's human rights and democracy promotion policies.