Conflict, Security and Development

Apr 13, 2011 Editorial

On Monday, the World Bank (WB) released its latest World Development Report under the theme “Conflict, Security and Development”. Over the years, the report has taken an interdisciplinary approach in focusing on specific threats and opportunities that confront poorer countries in their quest to pull themselves onto the virtuous path of development. We hope that our politicians would peruse this particular report rather carefully because “conflict, security and development” (or its lack) will certainly loom large on the agendas of the average Guyanese voter this year.
In summary, the 2011 Report, “examines the changing nature of violence in the 21st century, and underlines the negative impact of repeated cycles of violence on a country or region’s development prospects.” It concludes that, “The risk of major violence is greatest when high levels of stress, political, security or economic, combine with weak and illegitimate institutions.” And advises, “Preventing violence and building peaceful states that respond to the aspirations of their citizens requires strong leadership and concerted national and international efforts.”
We will be revisiting the report in the coming months and simply present its “key messages” identified by Robert Zoellick, president of the WB: “First, institutional legitimacy is the key to stability. When state institutions do not adequately protect citizens, guard against corruption, or provide access to justice; when markets do not provide job opportunities; or when communities have lost social cohesion—the likelihood of violent conflict increases. At the earliest stages, countries often need to restore public confidence in basic collective action even before rudimentary institutions can be transformed. Early wins—actions that can generate quick, tangible results—are critical.
Second, investing in citizen security, justice, and jobs is essential to reducing violence. But there are major structural gaps in our collective capabilities to support these areas. There are places where fragile states can seek help to build an army, but we do not yet have similar resources for building police forces or corrections systems. We need to put greater emphasis on early projects to create jobs, especially through the private sector. The Report provides insight into the importance of the involvement of women in political coalitions, security and justice reform, and economic empowerment.
Third, confronting this challenge effectively means that institutions need to change. International agencies and partners from other countries must adapt procedures so they can respond with agility and speed, a longer-term perspective, and greater staying power. Assistance needs to be integrated and coordinated; multi-donor trust funds have proven useful in accomplishing these aims while lessening the burdens of new governments with thin capacity. We need a better handoff between humanitarian and development agencies. And we need to accept a higher level of risk: If legislatures and inspectors expect only the upside, and just pillory the failures, institutions will steer away from the most difficult problems and strangle themselves with procedures and committees to avoid responsibility.
Fourth, we need to adopt a layered approach. Some problems can be addressed at the country
level, but others need to be addressed at a regional level, such as developing markets that integrate insecure areas and pooling resources for building capacity. Some actions are needed at a global level, such as building new capacities to support justice reform and the creation of jobs; forging partnerships between producer and consumer countries to stem illegal trafficking; and acting to reduce the stresses caused by food price volatility.
Fifth, in adopting these approaches, we need to be aware that the global landscape is changing.
Regional institutions and middle income countries are playing a larger role. This means we should pay more attention to south-south and south-north exchanges, and to the recent transition experiences of middle income countries. The stakes are high. A civil conflict costs the average developing country roughly 30 years of GDP growth, and countries in protracted crisis can fall over 20 percentage points behind in overcoming poverty.”

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News