Disentangling aid dynamics in statebuilding and peacebuilding: a causal framework

Abstract

While scholars and practitioners alike argue that the pursuit of sustainable peace in post-conflict developing countries requires international interventions to build state capacity, many debate the precise effects that external assistance has had on building peace in conflict-affected states. This paper seeks to clear conceptual ground by proposing a research agenda that disentangles statebuilding and peacebuilding from each other. Recent scholarship has made the case that the two endeavours are geared towards distinct sets of goals, yet few have subjected the causal mechanism underlying those processes or the relationship between them to sustained theoretical and empirical inquiry. Additionally, despite decades of mixed results from international interventions, we lack knowledge of the mechanisms by which external engagement leads to specific outcomes. To address these gaps, this paper offers a causal framework for understanding the effects of aid dynamics on state coherence and the depth of peace. It specifies the variables in that framework, with a view to establishing a new research agenda to advance our understanding of statebuilding and peacebuilding. Finally, it proposes that public service delivery in post-conflict countries offers fertile empirical ground to hypothesize about and test the relationship between state coherence and sustainable peace.International peacebuilding interventions in post-conflict countries are typically designed as statebuilding efforts that channel high levels of assistance towards building state capacity, which is in turn believed to enhance their prospects for sustainable peace. Yet statebuilding and peacebuilding are distinct processes with different logics that may, in reality, both reinforce and contradict each other in specific circumstances. Indeed, part of the reason why international interventions in post-conflict countries have yielded disappointing results is that their design is predicated on often untested assumptions about how the foundations for sustainable peace are best achieved -and how the different processes for attempting to do so are truly inter-related. This paper seeks to clear conceptual ground by disentangling statebuilding from peacebuilding through a focus on the impacts of international aid on each of these processes. The goal is to establish a theoretically informed

NGOs' least‐played role: Bridging between a divided public administration: The case of Yemen

“…It is important to note that the factors outlined here are not Nevertheless, we propose the exploration of NGOs' potential bridging role for state building post-conflict. Scholars (Barma et al, 2016;Lemay-Hébert, 2019) propose two approaches for rebuilding a state after conflict. The first involves the dismantling of institutions that were instrumental in causing the conflict, as witnessed in instances like Iraq and Afghanistan (Dodge, 2010;Marsden, 2003).…”

Conflict, COVID‐19, and crisis response: shifting from ‘pivoting’ to preparedness

“…However, despite the limitations and some failures of external interventions and aid to build or sustain peace, research has shown that external support for, funding of, and engagement in peacebuilding can and does directly and positively contribute to building peace, especially where that engagement is inclusive, and responsive and adaptive to the local context (Doyle and Sambanis, 2006;Barma, Levy, and Piombo, 2017;de Coning, 2020). This research suggests that the reduction of peacebuilding resources and attention can adversely affect conflict dynamics, including by feeding underlying conflict causal factors, by stalling critical programmes that respond to essential needs, and by enabling the exploitation of a distracted international community by state and non-state actors for their own strategic goals.…”

Autocratisation and Peacebuilding in Mozambique (2012–2019): Towards Illiberal Peace?

“…Liberal peacebuilders try to reshape the nature of the state in post-conflict countries through statebuilding interventions. According to Barma et al (2017, p. 192, emphasis added), ‘The logic connecting statebuilding to peacebuilding seems straightforward: endowing governments with the capacity to perform their basic governance functions, including the unbiased delivery of essential public services and collective public goods, lays a crucial foundation for stable, peaceful societies.’ Nevertheless, in authoritarian peacebuilding, the ruling regimes use the state in eminently biased ways (de Oliveira, 2011; Lewis et al, 2018). Frelimo has managed to use the state to maintain a political order that benefits its interests through the fusion of the party with state institutions, known locally as partidarização do estado .…”