Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Table of contents -- Abbreviations -- Acknowledgements -- Foreword -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Elucidating the meaning of democracy through narrative -- 3. Toward the 'Ocean of Democracy'? -- 4 Burma after independence -- 5. A liberal narrative -- 6. A benevolence narrative -- 7. An equality narrative -- 8. Exposing the political use of narratives -- 9. Beyond an 'ideal type' -- 10. Playing different games -- Index

There is a growing scholarly focus on the accountability of Northern donors in their work in recipient countries. Yet scholarly work on donor accountability has given limited attention to the complex challenges of accountability when donors are engaged in supporting peace processes. Further, literature on donor accountability often focuses on examination of accountability mechanisms and relationships, whilst the way accountability is understood amongst practitioners has received less attention. Using the example of donor support to peace processes in Myanmar, this article examines the way that accountability is narrated within donor agencies and amongst international and local networks of peace activists and analysts. When attached to simplified stories, accountability takes a variety of meanings and serves to position donors in different ways. Examination of these narratives, and their divergence, reveals that policy negotiation about accountability mechanisms is influenced by political assumptions about the legitimacy of donor agency engagement in peace processes.

Since the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Australian Government has been ambiguous in the way it has communicated the aid budget. On some occasions, it has sought to downplay increases in aid spending, while at other times it has sought to downplay cuts to aid spending. We draw on interviews with federal parliamentarians and key informants to understand these dynamics, in the context of obtaining their views on changes to Australia's post‐COVID‐19 aid policy. We find evidence that a new political consensus is forming around Australian aid. While this 'cautious consensus' countenances aid spending increases, motivated in part by humanitarian concerns but especially by anxiety about increasing Chinese influence in the region, these priorities are tempered by considerable concern about public backlash at a time of significant economic challenges for Australian citizens. Based on this evidence, we define the contours of an emerging 'cautious consensus' by showing how it will differ from the earlier 'golden consensus' era of Australian aid.