Heather Dande
Professor Ruget
POL 379: Final Exam
Section 1
1. Elections & democracy reduce the risk of violence (chap. 1)
Answer: True and False
Explanation: Collier found that the effect of elections and democracy on violence in poor and rich countries had radically different outcomes (Collier, 20). On one hand, this is true because the data collected confirmed that in middle-income level countries, democracy reduced the risk of political violence. On the other hand, this is false because in low-income countries democracy increases societal dangers (Collier, 20-21).” The key principle is this: democracy “enhances” rich countries’ safer conditions while it “amplifies severe dangers” in poorer countries (Collier, 21). Since the bottom billion per capita per year is much lower than $2,700 (the threshold where democracy has no net effect on violence), democracy makes the society more prone to violence (Collier, 21). With no checks and balances for accountability, poorer countries are harmed by democracy. In addition, elections increase violence since poorer countries’ elections would operate on ethnic-based parties.
2. Elections promote reforms and good policies (chap. 1)
Answer: True and False
Explanation: This statement is false because in lower income countries with a highly divided society, elections do not promote reforms or good policies; on …show more content…
He reasons that “aid that is ostensibly earmarked for some particular expenditure…releases the money that governments would otherwise have had to use for that expenditure (Collier, 111).” He writes that donors who disapprove of the governments’ military spending, would have to persuade governments to spend it on a different expenditure. However, governments themselves determine where their money should go. Collier writes that this makes it “easier for governments to use part of the aid flow for military spending (Collier,
Professor Ruget
POL 379: Final Exam
Section 1
1. Elections & democracy reduce the risk of violence (chap. 1)
Answer: True and False
Explanation: Collier found that the effect of elections and democracy on violence in poor and rich countries had radically different outcomes (Collier, 20). On one hand, this is true because the data collected confirmed that in middle-income level countries, democracy reduced the risk of political violence. On the other hand, this is false because in low-income countries democracy increases societal dangers (Collier, 20-21).” The key principle is this: democracy “enhances” rich countries’ safer conditions while it “amplifies severe dangers” in poorer countries (Collier, 21). Since the bottom billion per capita per year is much lower than $2,700 (the threshold where democracy has no net effect on violence), democracy makes the society more prone to violence (Collier, 21). With no checks and balances for accountability, poorer countries are harmed by democracy. In addition, elections increase violence since poorer countries’ elections would operate on ethnic-based parties.
2. Elections promote reforms and good policies (chap. 1)
Answer: True and False
Explanation: This statement is false because in lower income countries with a highly divided society, elections do not promote reforms or good policies; on …show more content…
He reasons that “aid that is ostensibly earmarked for some particular expenditure…releases the money that governments would otherwise have had to use for that expenditure (Collier, 111).” He writes that donors who disapprove of the governments’ military spending, would have to persuade governments to spend it on a different expenditure. However, governments themselves determine where their money should go. Collier writes that this makes it “easier for governments to use part of the aid flow for military spending (Collier,