Mapping the Security—Development Nexus: Conflict, Complexity, Cacophony, Convergence?

Abstract

It is now beyond doubt that attention to the ‘security—development nexus’ has become commonplace in national and global policymaking. However, how ‘the nexus’ is differently imbued with meaning and ultimately employed remains underexplored. In this article, we suggest a possible framework for mapping the multiple understandings that underlie specific articulations of ‘the nexus’ in order to reveal the ways in which meaning may shift in different (yet seemingly similar) discourses. To this end, we draw upon familiar stories about ‘development’ and ‘security’, and we offer a brief reading of ways in which ‘the nexus’ is articulated in policy texts. Ultimately, this framework may hint at what such articulations may imply for the policy agenda.

Fighting Poverty to Fight Terrorism: Security in DfID's Development Policy During the War on Terror

“…This analysis is congruent with the arguments of Abrahamsen (2004Abrahamsen ( , 2005, Duffield and Waddell (2006) and Stern and Öjendal (2010) that in bringing security into development policy, DfID has prioritised hard security concerns rather than maintaining a firm poverty reduction stance. It is also consistent with the work of Chandler (2008) This research has implications for understanding the relationship between security and development and how state development agencies engage with it.…”

“…Studies on DfID's policy discourse have produced conflicting results, with some commentators arguing that developing countries are seen as a source of insecurity to the West and that development aid is now used as a conflict resolution tool to shape the behaviour of African states so that they conform to liberal values of the free market economy and democracy (Abrahamsen 2004;Duffield and Waddell 2006;Stern and Öjendal 2010). Others claim that DfID's leading principle is that the security of the world's poorest and most vulnerable is of utmost importance and should be prioritised over the security of Western donor countries (Beall et al 2006: 58; Wild and Elhawary 2012).…”

Political Geographies of Piracy

“…Recently there has been a growing acceptance within security and development studies, and within policy arenas, that security and development are inextricably linked (Stewart 2004;Uvin 2006;Hettne 2010;Stern and Ojendal 2010;Reid-Henry 2011). This acceptance stems from political and academic arguments that (1) a more secure world is possible only if poor countries are given the opportunity to develop; and (2) poor and underdeveloped countries provide a breeding ground for insecurity in the form of civil conflict, terrorism, transnational crime, and other threats.…”

Entre O Desenvolvimento E a Segurança: Cooperação Sul-Sul Entre Brasil E Líbia Nos Governos Lula E Dilma

“…Nesse sentido, o atual cenário internacional revela importante relação entre os campos do desenvolvimento e segurança especialmente após os ataques do 11 de setembro que catalisaram um crescente processo de securitização da agenda de desenvolvimento (Stern e Ojendal, 2010). Isso quer dizer que está em curso uma progressiva securitização da segurança internacional e que os esforços na promoção do desenvolvimento se concentram em atender prioritariamente a agenda de segurança.…”

“…As discussões teórico-epistemológicas acerca do security-development nexus foram motivadas pelos desdobramentos do evento de 11 de setembro e da subsequente "Guerra ao Terror". Os principais autores inseridos nesse debate cuja contribuições irão compor o quadro teórico desta dissertação são David Chandler (2007), Maria Stern e Joakim Ojendal (2010), Mark Duffield (2010) e Simon Reid-Henry (2011). Além desses autores serão incluídos trabalhos que buscam analisar o nexo a partir da perspectiva das "potências emergentes" como Adriana Abdenur e Danilo Marcondes (2014).…”