| |
Contributions from
the Column
Studies and reports
AIDS drugs could soon be a lot cheaper in Africa
NGOs concerned about automony of development policy
Working together to protect the rainforest
Failing states: in search of a development policy concept
A new international financial architecture not in sight
1/2004 |
|
[ Development research workshop ]
Failing states: in search of a development policy concept
What can development policy do in failed or disintegrating states? The notion of “human security” developed by the United Nations development programme UNDP offers guidance. Unlike concepts such as “national” or “extended security”, it focuses on the individual’s need for protection from physical and psychic violence. As Tobias Debiel of the Centre for Development Research (ZEF) said at a joint workshop of the ZEF and the German Development Institute (GDI) on November 20-21 in Bonn, “human security” is a potential yardstick for appraising (development) policy action. To enable it to fulfil that role, however, the concept needed to be more precisely defined. And, as Debiel pointed out, it has a drawback: “human security” says nothing about the balance of power in a country, so it gives little indication of the state and societal structures on which policy geared to development could build.
This is where “structural stability” comes in – a concept developed by the EU and the OECD and embraced by the authors of the German “Africa Memorandum” published in October 2000. Structural stability is a measure of a society’s ability to manage change without resorting to violence. Elements of it include sustainable economic growth, environmental security, social justice, rule of law and a democratic system. During the debate in Bonn, however, sceptics queried the usefulness of this OECD development model in the context of failing states. For it is not the long-term goals of structural stability that are contentious; it is the way countries go about achieving them. This is why the ZEF ‘State building and violent conflicts’ research group also looks at informal institutions and quasi-governmental structures. Representatives of the group in Bonn presented a governance model which seeks to identify starting-points for conflict management and development cooperation by focusing on relations between power institutions and society.
The importance of taking both formal (governmental) and informal actors into consideration is underlined by case studies. Despite major shortcomings, the government of Ethiopia was certified in Bonn as showing interest – albeit half-hearted and at times tactically motivated – in reform, which has led to progress with regard to the rule of law and freedom of expression. It certainly makes sense to support good governance initiatives, the workshop heard, but it must not mean glossing over less appealing parts of a government’s patchy performance. In Afghanistan – Conrad Schetter (ZEF) told the conference – it is now clear that giving priority to the creation of efficient state structures is not, on its own, enough to improve the medium-term security situation. No one contested the fact that warlordism in Afghanistan needed to be repressed, he said, but it had to be acknowledged that some local chieftains guaranteed a modicum of security and stability and could thus claim a certain political legitimacy.
What sparked heated debate was the study on North Korea. Tatjana Chahoud (GDI) spoke out emphatically against a policy of exclusion, calling instead for cautious support of reformist elements. Within the elites, she said, efforts are being made – as they are in China – to steer the country gradually towards a market economy and the rule of law. More sceptical participants asked whether such support is not more likely to help stabilise bad governance than to promote transition.
The workshop was part of a series of events designed to provide opportunities for the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin and the German Overseas Institute (DUI) in Hamburg to get together with the ZEF and GDI to compare research on failing states, governance and international security. Stephan Klingebiel (GDI) suggested coordinating research projects and results in order to lend them more weight and ensure more international attention. The short-term aim, he said, is to develop expertise for advising on policy; the long-term goal is to hone skills for analysing endangered states and forecasting disintegration processes. Ulf Terlinden, Astrid Grub
|
