Building Peaceful States and Societies

This 60-page paper outlines a new, integrated approach to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and elimination of global poverty - one that puts state-building and peace-building at the centre of the United Kingdom (UK) Department for International Development (DFID)'s work in fragile and conflict-affected countries. The approach aims to increase the impact of international assistance, while recognising that state-building and peace-building are primarily internal processes.

DFID stresses that strong state-society relations are critical to building effective, legitimate states and durable, positive peace. However, in most fragile and conflict-affected countries, weak state-society relations based on patronage and lack of accountability are the norm. Strengthening them requires engagement with non-state and informal institutions as well as the state. Thus, the 4 objectives which constitute the core of the approach are not sequential; rather, they form a circle that is envisioned as creating a positive dynamic and strengthening state-society relations. The objectives are:

1. Address the causes and effects of conflict and fragility and build conflict resolution mechanisms - This objective highlights the importance of focusing on prevention, supporting positive capacities for peace (e.g. education systems that promote tolerance), working with both state and non-state conflict resolution mechanisms, and addressing regional dimensions of conflict and fragility.
2. Support inclusive political settlements and processes - This objective is built around the understanding that political settlements define how political and economic power is organised. Supporting inclusive settlements means understanding the incentives of the elites and identifying when and how to empower different actors to push for a broader settlement. Addressing underlying power dynamics is important. Support to democratic and political processes can help promote more inclusive decision-making.
3. Develop core state functions - Security, law and justice, and financial and macroeconomic management are essential. States also need a minimum level of administrative capacity to deliver basic functions. Support for these core functions should involve working with both state and non-state actors, as appropriate. This objective focuses on the importance of accountability within each function to ensure that states become responsive rather than repressive.
4. Respond to public expectations - In working to meet this objective, international actors should be careful not to make assumptions about the expectations of different groups in society, and must recognise that public goods are often delivered in ways that maintain an exclusionary political settlement. Public expectations that are high priority in many fragile contexts include jobs and growth, delivery of basic services (including security and justice), human rights, and democratic processes.

Summarised key operational implications for DFIF (with an emphasis on communication-related implications):

1. Recognise that politics are central to work in conflict-affected and fragile countries - State-building and peace-building are internal, political processes. Effective support requires a high level of political awareness, identification of opportunities to support social and political change, and a good understanding of elite politics and the nature of the political settlement. DFIF stresses that the actions of bilateral and multilateral donor organisations have political ramifications. For example, financial aid through the state can strengthen the position of a regime and shift the balance of power between elites. Political analysis must inform programme design and dialogue with international partners and governments.
2. Build consensus with external partners - This includes building close links with humanitarian and stabilisation approaches where relevant (e.g. in highly insecure contexts). Joint assessments and joint strategies are important. In many contexts, bilateral donors (like DFID) will be supporting a multilateral-led international effort. Working together to improve the performance and coordination of multilaterals (particularly the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), and World Bank) in fragile countries is critical, particularly ensuring there are sufficient levels of high-quality, skilled staff on the ground.
3. Analyse the context using the integrated framework - Various analytical tools are available to help international actors better understand state-building and peace-building processes and dynamics. However, translating analysis into practical decisions and programmes requires working through the implications for international engagement.
4. Be open to different priorities and choices - The framework is an opportunity to re-focus strategy and ensure that DFID remains loyal to the principle "do no harm". For example, in Nepal, an integrated approach to state-building and peace-building has helped to identify the following priorities: (i) supporting the peace process and peace agreement implementation; (ii) working to foster an inclusive political settlement - e.g. by supporting excluded groups to articulate their needs, and by facilitating dialogue on the management of political tensions; (iii) strengthening core functions of the state - e.g. public security, public financial management, and more inclusive central and local state institutions; (iv) strengthening service delivery and supporting growth and job creation to deliver a "peace dividend" and meet public expectations; and (v) producing up-to-date political economy and peace analysis.
5. Engage at the interface between state and society - A "bottom-up" approach that engages with non-state and community-level institutions can provide a bridge between state and society. Practical ways of engaging at the interface include: (i) supporting links between traditional authorities and local governance structures; (ii) strengthening civil society to engage with the state and hold it accountable (particularly as a complement to budget support); and (iii) community-driven development programmes that channel funds to local communities while building local governance capacity (e.g. Yemen Social Fund for Development).
6. Adapt delivery mechanisms:
   • When planning, DFID recommends recognising that transaction costs of working in situations of conflict and fragility are higher, including programme design, coordination, influencing and monitoring and evaluation.
   • DFID notes that aid instruments have the potential to enhance or undermine a state's relations with society. So, donors need to clarify the form of alignment with the state that is appropriate in each context: whether through the state, with the state, or outside the state.
   • Risk management in fragile contexts is essential, particularly given factors such as decisions to align with particular elites (political or reputational risks) or support for measures to counter violent extremism (programme or staff security risks).
   • DFID concludes that its results frameworks also need to be adjusted to include indicators and targets that focus explicitly on state-building and peace-building objectives because the MDGs might not capture medium-term results in fragile states.