Paper short abstract:

Local ownership has become one of the main mantras in post-conflict peacebuilding operations. Nevertheless, an analysis of Sierra Leone and Liberia shows that is a polysemic concept since it is interpreted in different ways by the different actors (both internal and external) that interplay in these contexts.

Paper long abstract:

Local ownership has become one of the main mantras in post-conflict peacebuilding operations. Nevertheless, the absence of a normative definition of what the notion should be and how it should be implemented has led to multiple interpretations that include visions or conceptions from maximalist points of view (total control of the reforms by local actors) to the more minimalist views (local ownership is understood as a desired goal and ultimate horizon).

An analysis of Sierra Leone and Liberia, two of the most recent post-conflict peacebuilding cases, shows that this flexibility highlights a variable degree of satisfaction among the different actors about what local ownership should be. While some see it as something desirable and transferable in the long term (especially for international actors), others claim more local control to implement this principle (local government actors, but especially civil society organizations).

Using patterns of analysis developed by authors such as Ole Jacob Sending and focusing in the implementation of certain post-conflict peacebuilding reforms (decentralization process, SSR and transitional justice), the paper tries to shed some light on a concept that shows both the "good will" of international actors and the intention of controlling the direction of the post-conflict peacebuilding reforms.