欢迎来到联合国，您的世界！
There is a large and growing gap in levels of development between countries that have experienced conflict and those that have not. Conflicts reduce GDP by an average of 2 per cent per year and affected populations are less likely to be educated, have access to basic services and enjoy sustainable livelihoods. The 10 countries with lowest scores for maternal mortality and gender-based exclusion and violence are all conflict-affected2.
The importance of effective public administration in post-conflict environments cannot be overestimated. Weak states drive conflicts through a mixture of alienation, perceived unfairness, corruption, failure to deliver services, exclusion and, frequently, prejudice. States may also be a direct source of conflict through predatory behaviour, control or appropriation of natural resources for illicit gain, and the use of state institutions such as nationalised industries to turn public goods into private benefits.
A fully functioning public administration is necessary for co-ordination of competing priorities and the development of a long-term vision beyond the immediate stabilization of the country and improving the effectiveness of institutions. Building a long-term vision, however, is a political process that can impinge on existing power structures. Considerable power often rests with those who control state institutions and the reconstruction of existing structures may renew the original drivers of conflict and reduce trust in public institutions. Coalition building and inclusion are therefore critical to building institutions ready to pursue long-term strategies to achieve the SDGs.
Without political development, state-building may essentially amount to implanting models of state-building from developed country experiences in developing conflict-affected countries. This approach risks building empty institutions that exist on paper but not in reality. The security sector is a key example where maintenance of institutions can be expensive and vulnerable to retrenchment once international support is withdrawn. The response was to establish small, locally-based police services in communities prone to conflict, which were much less costly, more accessible and enjoyed greater popular legitimacy than a national force, while encouraging ongoing dialogue among affected parties at the community level.
While peacebuilding and state-building are often linked, reconstruction processes and the role of a multitude of actors at different stages of development are often contested. Specifically, the sequencing and prioritization of reforms are recognized as important, but there is no accepted order. In addition, development trajectories are complex and non-linear, and the post-conflict environment adds to these complexities. Conflicts are also different, and so are post-conflict environments. As a result, post-conflict reconstruction is heavily contextual, which is one reason why cookie-cutter solutions do not work well.
Eternal actors from the international community may further complicate efforts. External actors rarely speak with one voice, may have contrasting aims and objectives, and may adopt different approaches to institutional development and support. When a state lacks legitimacy and support, then there is a limit to the effectiveness of external advisers. Most donors lack the financial resources or the political will to implement state-building fully and any donor is usually one among many. This has led to some observers arguing that donors should limit their interventions even though there may be constant pressure on donors to ‘do something’.
A fundamental distinction can be made between bottom-up peacebuilding approaches and top-down institutional approaches to state-building. Peacebuilding approaches focus on conflict prevention, multi-track diplomacy, civil society and community involvement and the creation of local capacities for dialogue. An issue that has been downplayed in these approaches, however, is the need for functioning governance institutions in the transition from conflict to peace.
State-building approaches, by contrast, have focused on the institutions of the central state and on stabilization and security. These approaches have been criticized for being too state-centric and ignoring inclusivity, community and, frequently, areas and population groups outside urban centres, particularly the capital city.
At the same time, there appears to be convergence between the two approaches with state-building recognizing that transformation requires a far more responsive approach to local community needs and a more representative approach to public administration in order to contribute to a society where no one is left behind that, in turn, will contribute to peacebuilding. Peace-building meanwhile recognizes that governance and government are both critical in maintaining peaceful societies in the long-term. Both approaches also recognize that changes in their own activities directly affect the relationships between state and society.
Despite a trend towards a convergence, tensions between peacebuilding and state-building remain. For example, where state-building reproduces the kinds of inequalities and issues that contributed to conflict, a further cycle of conflict may result. Peacebuilding efforts can also create tensions that undermine state-building. For example, peace settlements can contribute to social divisions or fragmentation as a result of power-sharing arrangements. While there may be evident short-term gains in keeping the peace, long-term challenges can arise when social divisions are enshrined in a country’s constitution.
These are some of the issues to be discussed in depth at the upcoming meeting of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA). Follow the CEPA work at: publicadministration.un.org/en/CEPA
1. This blog is based on Chapter II of a paper submitted by the author to the 19th session of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration.
2. World Public Sector Report, 2018, Chapter 7, Realizing the SDGs in post-conflict situations: Challenges for the State, p. 140.
Mr. Paul Jackson, Programme Director, British Academy and Professor, School of Government and Society, University of Birmingham | CEPA Member