Category Archives: Peacebuilding Effectiveness

How do Businesses Strategize Peace? Emerging Issues from Colombia

– While the importance of the private sector for war-to-peace transitions is clear, little has been said about the specific strategies adopted by companies in transition periods. How do companies prepare for peace? What choices do they face? And what unique strategies do firms take to adapt to political change? Here, Jason Miklian and Angelika Rettberg identify four types of business strategies for peace (operational, political, philanthropic, public relations) used by firms operating in Colombia to expose key knowledge gaps and promote new research strands that can better integrate strategy and risk calculations into testable study of business-peace relationships.

Continue reading

Samantha Lee/Business Insider

Are social norms an important missing link in anti-corruption programming?

In this post Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church and Russell Hathaway begin their deep dive into the world of social norms and its potential applicability to anti-corruption programming. They invite you to help further develop this line of inquiry.

The Corruption, Justice and Legitimacy (CJL) program is developing a process to generate more effective anti-corruption programming through the creation of a systems-based analytic process.  Through our work to date, CJL has come to believe that social norms are a critical omission in the vast majority of corruption analysis in fragile states.  Critical, we argue, because social norms help explain how seemingly negative behaviors, such as corruption, are sustained over time.   This gap in understanding the context undermines the effectiveness of much anti-corruption programming.

Our question is: Can experience in social norm change on other issues – such as preventing addictions, diminishing campus binge drinking or stopping littering – inform theories of change within anti-corruption programming?

Continue reading

The Idea of Business and Peace: “Assuming the Can Opener”

– In this post, Ben Miller, an expert on corporate social impacts in fragile and conflict-affected states, argues that current discussions of private sector peacebuilding overlook almost entirely the practical problems that companies frequently experience as they try to avoid adverse social impacts. As negative impacts commonly generate or fuel conflict, their absence from the discussion raises fundamental questions about that discussion’s practical utility for companies and policy makers seeking to establish a role for companies in peace efforts. –

Continue reading

Your Donor is Not Evil

This week, Alex Snider, a Foreign Affairs Officer covering West Africa at the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), discusses how, against all odds, donors and implementers can navigate flexibility, risk, and creativity to develop effective anticorruption programs. These actors balance one another’s constraints, offer complementary perspectives, and hold each other to high standards, he argues. This post continues our conversation about the donor-implementer relationship, and how both play a unique role in the development of anti-corruption programming.-

It would be bizarre if implementers looked kindly upon their donors. Yes, no one mourns winning a grant but the gauntlet of requirements it comes with can take a toll. Donor work plans are rigid but priorities and circumstances on the ground can change daily. Funding cycles are slow but demands for results are immediate. Continue reading

Who is Leading the Fight Against Corruption? A Review of European Bilateral Donors

-In this post of the corruption in fragile states blog series, Hank Nelson reviews which European Bilateral Donors have prioritized anti-corruption initiatives, and how they are fighting corruption. Finally, he reminds donors not to neglect funding the research that will ensure that their anti-corruption programs are effective. Next week’s post will supplement this review by offering tips on how implementers can best work with donors on the innovative approaches fighting corruption requires.- Continue reading

1.39 Cheers for Quantitative Analysis

We thank Matthew Stephenson for his sincere response to Michael Johnston’s post “Breaking Out of the Methodological Cage”, in “The Level-of-Aggregation Question in Corruption Measurement” on the Global Anticorruption Blog. Professor Johnston keeps the conversation going with his response below.

There is a lot to like in Matthew Stephenson’s blog post: the more we debate the issue of measuring and comparing corruption the better off we all are. And I’m not even sure that our disagreements run very deep.

In fact, toward the end of his critique he summarizes my fundamental position quite well: “…for the research questions we do or should care about regarding the causes and consequences of corruption, identifying correlates of these summary measures is not useful.” That’s a major aspect of that methodological “cage” I hoped to highlight and criticize. Continue reading

Workshop in Nepal

Reflecting on Peace Practice – Simple but not Simplistic

In this blog post, development aid practitioner specialising in conflict transformation and peacebuilding work, Bjoern Eser looks back at his six years of work in Nepal and shares the key questions that guided him. Eser argues that the Reflecting on Peace Practice Matrix helped efforts to make local initiatives more strategic, in particular when many international efforts were focused on Nepal’s constitution-building process. Continue reading