Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Ivica Petrikova
(Royal Holloway, University of London)
Melita Lazell (University of Portsmouth)
Send message to Convenors
- Location:
- N3 (Richmond building)
- Start time:
- 7 September, 2017 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
This panel explores whether and how donor interventions reflecting securitization of development encourage or undermine sustainable societies and social justice. The panel also enquires to what extent aid programs may be directed towards strengthening donor security at the expense of sustainable development.
Long Abstract:
Western donors have over the past two decades increasingly linked global development with their own national security (Duffield, 2002). This discursive trend has been shown to affect donors’ aid distribution patterns; donors have increased aid for conflict and security activities at the expense of programmes addressing the root causes of conflict and instability (Petrikova and Lazell, 2016; Spears, 2016).
The aim of this panel is to examine whether and how donor interventions in developing countries that reflect the securitization of development encourage or undermine sustainable societies and social justice. Whilst the Sustainable Development Goals recognise that “there can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development”, the evidence suggests that when donor interventions prioritise short-term security goals, the sustainability of development outcomes may be undermined.
This panel seeks contributions that explore the tension between donors’ short-term security interests and recipients’ long-term development needs. We would also be interested in papers that investigate the impact of donors’ securitized aid programming and the impact of the trend toward securitization more broadly on recipients’ sustainable development outcomes, whether theoretically and through empirical studies.
We also welcome studies investigating the policy making processes and institutional mechanisms underlying donors’ decisions to link development programming with national security interests and the integration of security-inspired development decisions and strategies with programmes focused on addressing the Sustainable Development Goals.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper short abstract:
This paper first compares the securitisation of UK aid provision to Ethiopia and the CAR in an effort to uncover reasons underlying the relatively greater securitisation of aid committed to Ethiopia and second reflects on possible consequences of such aid provision.
Paper long abstract:
Since mid-1990s, but particularly following 9/11, the policy discourse of Western donors has grown increasingly securitised; i.e. donors have begun to draw ever greater connections between the lack of development and security in the global South and threats to peace and stability in the global North. The route via which aid was envisaged to help in this matter was through increased investment in the government and civil society sectors of fragile and conflict-affected countries. Petrikova and Lazell (2016) showed, however, that the rhetorical commitments have not actually translated into more aid provided to the government and civil society sectors in general but only to specifically conflict-related activities such as the strengthening of the security sector or disarmament and demobilisation. Aid was hence found not to be 'securitised' per se, but rather 'militarised.'
This article explores the militarisation of British aid in more detail through a comparative case study of Ethiopia and Central African Republic (CAR). The two countries lie close to each other geographically and have both suffered from political instability for decades - yet the UK has invested an increasing amount of resources in the conflict, peace, and security sectors in Ethiopia and virtually none in the CAR. I investigate why this has been the case.
Paper short abstract:
Building on previous research, this project seeks to understand what causes donors to divert from their stated policy when making funding decisions in conflict-afflicted states. This is important as aid commitments that divert from policy may exacerbate conflict, undermining sustainable development.
Paper long abstract:
Building on previous research (Lazell and Petrikova, 2017), this project seeks to understand what causes aid donors to divert from their stated policy when making funding decisions in conflict-afflicted countries. The research aims to optimise future development funding decisions with attendant development and politico-security benefits for the states concerned. This is important as aid commitments that divert from policy may overtime prolong or exacerbate conflict, thus undermining sustainable development. To avoid this, we need to know the rationale for donors' funding decisions in conflict-affected states. We also need a theoretical framework to understand the gap between policy and actual aid commitments. Through a series of interviews with key decision makers at the UK's Department for International Development and the United States Agency for International Development, this research aims to build a picture of how bureaucratic structures, incentives and interests inform donor funding decisions in a way that deviates from longer term development strategies based on conflict resolution through the establishment of democratic, inclusive societies. Further utilising this interview data the project will construct a transferable theoretical framework through which to conceptualise the gaps between donor development policy and actual aid commitments.
Paper short abstract:
This paper begins with the premise that most donors’ development interventions in developing countries are guided by strategic interests. However, its main concern is to what extent donors’ strategic interests undermine sustainable development and if strategic interests can ever be compatible with local needs.
Paper long abstract:
Development intervention has not, since the end of World War Two and the post Cold War period, been without controversy. Both interveners (mostly Western donors) and aid recipients share mutual suspicion. From the intervener’s perspective, developing countries seek to transfer development responsibility to the West, while most in the global south perceive development intervention to be a continuation of imperialist agenda. For instance, development is seen as “central to the new or culturally coded racism that emerged with decolonisation” (Duffied 2007). By implication, interveners are driven less by the need to alleviate the sufferings of the recipient, but more by the need to protect their strategic interests.
However, since 9/11 and the increasing global and domestic terrorism, development intervention is now more visibly seen as part of a comprehensive response to global (in) security. This is clearly illustrated by the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals which followed the relatively low achievement rate of the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015). Evidently, Western nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States have now synced their development aids with their defence and diplomacy in an effort to achieve a single comprehensive national security framework.
In response to the insurgency in Nigeria, donors, particularly the US and the UK have designed and implemented development programmes that produce serious ramifications for sustainable development and security. This paper considers those development programmes including their prospects and limitations towards sustainable development.