This Chapter analyses some of the core linkages between democracy and development, including whether development is a pre-requisite for democracy and whether regime type matters for development. It finds that, while economic development per se is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the emergence of democracy, development, and in particular how prosperity is shared across the population and whether development can deliver on citizen expectations and priorities, has a considerable impact on the quality and resilience of democracy. The Chapter also argues that existing literature seeking to establish a causal relationship between regime type and developmental performance remains inconclusive, and the debate is far from settled. By way of conclusion, the chapter posits that, given that most countries in the world today are considered formal democracies, the relevant question and ensuing challenge may no longer be whether democracies or authoritarian systems are better suited to promote development, but rather how democracy can deliver on development needs and expectations more effectively.

This chapter explores the relationship between democracy and inequality. It argues that inequality has a profoundly corrosive impact on the quality and resilience of democratic governance. Inequality - and the social exclusion it generates - feeds social polarisation and the shrinking of a vital moderate centre. Inequality and exclusion create imbalances in voice, representation, opportunity and access that disenfranchise segments of the population, undermine trust in (and support for) democratic institutions, and increase support for populism, extremism, and/or violent conflict. If democracy is to prove resilient over time, it needs to address - and redress - inequality and exclusion. However, as this Chapter argues, there is nothing about democracy that automatically tackles such inequalities, and in effect many of its built-in features may make it harder to do so. This is why inequality is democracy’s catch-22. Still, in some cases democracies have been able to tackle inequality and exclusion, and this chapter outlines some key factors that have enabled such progress.

Political settlements are now at the centre of international development efforts to promote more peaceful and inclusive states and societies. This special issue brings together a collection of theoretical and empirical contributions that engage critically with the political settlement concept and the question of how to navigate inclusion, with a focus on underlying politics, power and institutional dynamics, and how these influence trajectories of change. Three insights, in particular, emerge from the analysis in this issue. Firstly, the relationship between inclusion, stability, violence and resilience is complex and non-linear. Secondly, peace processes on their own are not sufficient to alter political settlements and tend to yield formalised political unsettlement instead. Lastly, processes of institutional transformation often involve trade-offs and dilemmas. Therefore, efforts to engage with political settlements need to adopt a long-term framework that overcomes idealist models of change. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article analyses how political settlements can help deepen our understanding of how underlying rules of the game and power relations shape patterns of inclusion and exclusion, and prospects for political, social and economic transformation. Drawing on insights from a growing body of research in the area of the politics of development, the paper explores what kinds of factors have helped to foster more inclusive institutions across the developing world. By way of conclusion, it offers reflections on how a political settlement approach can enable donors to engage more effectively in efforts to foster progressive change. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

5

Evidence tells us that domestic political factors are usually much more important in determining developmental impact than the scale of aid funding or the technical quality of programming. Although international development organisations have made extensive efforts to improve the technical quality of programs, in many cases, these improvements have not led to greater impact during implementation. Successful implementation usually happens when programs are aligned with a domestic support base that is influential enough to generate reform momentum, and overcome the resistance of those benefitting from the status quo. Too many times over the past few decades, we have seen projects fail because they demand changes that are not politically feasible.

Do people actually care about governance? Alina Rocha Menocal, Laura Rodriguez Takeuchi and Gina Bergh look for answers in global surveys.

Parliaments and parliamentarians are the fulcrum of democratic political systems. They sit at the centre of a web of domestic accountability that links them to the executive and other branches of government, to constituents and the wider public, and to political parties. Expectations about what parliaments should deliver have increased tremendously over the past two decades. Yet in many countries parliaments are weak and ineffective and remain among the least trusted and legitimate institutions in the eyes of the population. As such, parliaments are both a cause of poor democratic governance – and an integral element in improving it. How to help parliaments become more effective and responsive is therefore a crucial question for international development actors who are committed to democratic strengthening.

This article is intended to analyse two leading approaches that have guided international efforts to promote peace and development in conflict-afflicted fragile states since the 1990s, namely peace building and state building. In a relatively recent development a growing number of donors has sought to bring these two closer together, based upon the perception that the challenges posed by (post-) conflict fragile states need to be addressed through an approach that combines both-'state-building for peace', as the UNDP has put it. The article thus seeks to explore how the processes of building peace are related to the processes of building more resilient, effective and responsive states in (post-) conflict settings. It provides an overview of the evolution of these two concepts and analyses key complementarities between peace building and state building. It also explores the challenges that arise for both on the basis of these complementarities. The article goes on to examine some of the most significant tensions that arise between the two, and what these tensions may imply for the international assistance community. By way of a conclusion the article offers a few key lessons that emerge from the analysis for improved donor policy and practice in state building for peace efforts.