Hybrid Peace Governance: Its Emergence and Significance

Belloni, Roberto

doi:10.1163/19426720-01801004

Cited by 99 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hybridity is thus ‘a state of affairs in which liberal and illiberal norms, institutions and actors coexist’ (Belloni, : 22; see also Boege et al., ; Mac Ginty, ). It emerges because of a ‘gap’ (Belloni, : 23), or ‘agonism’ (Richmond and Mitchell, : 26) between the agendas of ‘liberal’ international interveners and those of ‘non‐liberal’ target societies.…”

Section: The Limits Of Hybriditymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars often suggest that hybrid outcomes, being more locally legitimate, create greater stability (Belloni, : 35; Boege et al., ; Chopra and Hohe, ; Kumar and De la Haye, ). For some, hybridity is even potentially ‘emancipatory’, though critical scholars doubt that interveners can simply harness local agency towards predictable or desirable ends (Mac Ginty and Richmond, ; Millar, ; Visoka, ).…”

Section: The Limits Of Hybriditymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Hybridity to the Politics of Scale: International Intervention and ‘Local’ Politics

Hameiri¹,

Jones²

2017

Development and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evident failures of international peacebuilding and statebuilding interventions (PSBIs) have recently prompted a focus on the interaction between interventions and target societies and states. Especially popular has been the 'hybridity' approach, which understands forms of peace and governance emerging through the mixing of local and international agendas and institutions. This article argues that hybridity is a highly problematic optic. Despite contrary claims, hybridity scholarship falsely dichotomizes 'local' and 'international' ideal-typical assemblages, and incorrectly presents outcomes as stemming from conflict and accommodation between them. Scholarship in political geography and state theory provides better tools for explaining PSBIs' outcomes as reflecting socio-political contestation over power and resources. We theorize PSBIs as involving a politics of scale, where different social forces promote and resist alternative scales and modes of governance, depending on their interests and agendas. Contestation between these forces, which may be located at different scales and involved in complex, tactical, multi-scalar alliances, explains the uneven outcomes of international intervention. We demonstrate this using a case study of East Timor, focusing on decentralization and land policy.

show abstract

Section: The Limits Of Hybriditymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Limits Of Hybriditymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Hybridity to the Politics of Scale: International Intervention and ‘Local’ Politics

Hameiri¹,

Jones²

2017

Development and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As suggested by recent literature (Belloni, 2012;Groß, 2018), the current research should devote more attention to the dynamic interaction between international agents and networks and local actors. Rather than focusing on the technicalities of liberal peacebuilding or adopting a 'romantic' view of the local actors, we shed light on a potential middle ground for analysis, illustrating how the dialectic political processes within national and regional legislative arenas deserve greater attention to understand post-conflict divided societies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political parties matter: a research agenda on interactions among elites in post-conflict democracies

Cama

Coticchia

2018

Contemporary Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature has devoted considerable attention to the understanding of state institutions and rule of law in the processes of democratization. However, despite the crucial relevance of dynamic and repeated interactions between actors and institutions in non-homogenous post-conflict societies, most research lacks systematic analyses on the role of parliaments, parties and party systems after civil wars. While several studies have examined the effects of electoral systems or veto rights after power-sharing agreements, as well as the transformation of rebel groups into political parties in post-conflict societies, the development of parties within parliaments has been largely ignored. Therefore, by combining conflict studies, institutional design perspectives and peacebuilding approaches, this paper presents a research agenda on the overlooked role played by parliament as a crucial arena for a better analysis, in the long term, of power-sharing mechanisms and state-building, post-war political framing and narratives, ethnic outbidding and party modernization strategies.

show abstract

“…It is best understood as a condition of tension and even antagonism between different actors, 'some of whom (particularly in rural areas) may even wish to subtract themselves from the very idea of governance embodied in the state'. 7 As such, it amounts to the processes of contestation and negotiation of different styles of governance. Advocates of hybridism argue that it encourages scholars and practitioners to look beyond statist perspectives and analyse the full range of activities that comprise a polity.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%