| Summary: | Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a surge in post-war stabilisation, reconstruction and development operations around the world. Externally driven efforts have been shaped by the liberal peace framework, which assumes that a rapid transmission or imposition of neo-liberal norms and values, combined with Western-style governance institutions, would create conditions for lasting peace and prosperity. Only in a few instances countries have attempted internally driven post-war reconstruction and development; in most cases, these efforts were either ignored or suppressed by international analysts, experts, academics and organisations. Despite all the expertise and funding spent since the early 1990s, externally driven operations have not led to lasting peace and stability, establishment of functioning institutions, eradication of poverty, livelihood improvements and economic reconstruction and development in war-torn countries. All too often, programmes, policies and „solutions‟ were designed and imposed by external actors either because they worked elsewhere or because they were influenced by geopolitical, economic and/or security interests of powerful countries. Furthermore, external actors have tended to assume that generic approaches based on the liberal peace framework can work in all places, while ignoring local actors, contexts and knowledge. Focusing on Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Sudan and Somaliland, this exploratory qualitative study critically explores and assesses both externally and internally driven post-war reconstruction and development practices and operations in order to understand the strengths and shortcomings of both approaches and offer recommendations for future improvements. This is important since socio-economic recovery and economic development are crucial for lasting stability and peace in post-war countries.
|
|---|
