No Development without Security: The Transatlantic Donor Community Needs to Redesign Aid for Fragile...

8/8/2019 No Development without Security: The Transatlantic Donor Community Needs to Redesign Aid for Fragile States

1/28

NO DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SECURITYTHE TRANSATLANTIC DONOR COMMUNITY

NEEDS TO REDESIGN AID FOR FRAGILE STATES

JONATHAN M. WHITE

THE GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED STATES

PAPER SERIES


2/28

2009 Te German Marshall Fund o the United States. All rights reserved.

No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any orm or by any means without permission

in writing rom the German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States

1744 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

1 202 683 2650

F 1 202 265 1662

E [email protected]

Tis publication can be downloaded or ree at http://www.gmus.org/publications/index.cm. Limited print

copies are also available. o request a copy, send an e-mail to [email protected].

GMF Paper Series

Te GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety o transatlantic topics by staf, ellows, and partners o the

German Marshall Fund o the United States. Te views expressed here are those o the author and do not neces-

sarily represent the view o GMF. Comments rom readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by

e-mail to [email protected].

About GMF

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) is a non-partisan American public policy and grant-

making institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America

and Europe.

GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders

to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation canaddress a variety o global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number o initiatives to strengthen

democracies.

Founded in 1972 through a gi rom Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF

maintains a strong presence on both sides o the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC,

GMF has seven o ces in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.

About Brussels Forum

Brussels Forum is an annual high-level meeting o the most inuential American and European political, corpo-

rate, and intellectual leaders to address pressing challenges currently acing both sides o the Atlantic. Partici-

pants include heads o state, senior o cials rom the European Union institutions and the member states, U.S.Cabinet o cials, Congressional representatives, Parliamentarians, academics, and media. For more inormation,

please visit www.brusselsorum.org.


3/28

No Development without Security

The transatlantic donor community needs to redesign aid for fragile states

Brussels Forum Paper Series

March 2009

J M. W*

T G M F U S

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

F F F S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

F Gbz F S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

F P C F S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

R D F S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Ax: F S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

* J M. W G M F U S. H k GMF , , .


4/28

No Development without SecurityThe transatlantic donor community needs to redesign aid for fragile states

3

Throughout the

1990s, despite

aid, diplomatic

initiatives, and

even military

intervention,

these efforts

have largely been

unable to reverse

the cycle of

political instabilit

poor governance

low growth,

severe poverty,

and conflict in

certain states.

, , .

H, b

C W,

q

. T 1,

, ,

, b

b b,

, , ,

. T b

, ,

k . W C, I,

Bz, , b bk

b bz,

b.

I /11, k b

A

z

k b .

F b

U N M

D G (MDG)

U S, E, . Pk

,

b ,

b .

M , H L F A

E A, , NGO,

. F

. H,

, , : W b x ?

T U S E .

Pk z

b b

T k b, b

.

A W Bk, 1

. S

k b

,

W j . A

, k

b . A b

k ,

x b b . T

U S E

b B W

W W II. T U.S. M

P, b - E,

.

T U S E

b ,

85

(ODA) O E C- D

(OECD) b . T U S

E bk

(FDI)

. T

b

W

Bk, I M F,

W T Oz. T

, b

E E EU, j

U.S. P

E P A R (PEPFAR)

6 .1 T

1 ://..

Introduction

1


5/28

The German Marshall Fund of the United States4

Limited policy

focus on and

investments in

fragile states have

compounded

the problem by

narrowing the

scope of practice

and instruments

available to

help them.

T x j b

k: ,

bz,

. I

k

.

I x

b

,

, k ,

b b .N ,

, b

.

T

. I ,

b , ,

, , . T

b

q -,

. A b .

. P C

b

b $1 b. Y,

-,

. I b b ,

k q W

W G D. S

. T

b b

. S x

k . L

b b

b . F

. D

k , b

xb . T b

b bz

k b. A ,

b, ,

b k.

P C, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest CountriesAre Failing and What Can be Done About It, (Ox: OxU P, 7).


6/28


5

Only five countrie

accounted for

more than half

of total ODA to

fragile states

between 2000

and 2007.

Failing to Fund Fragile States

2W , z

b .

T b

k .

A OECD,

k /

b

, ,

.3

N k. B,

k b bk b .

P

qb b b ,

, , ,

. Pb b

-k. T b

k . T

x b

b . A k b

b. L k

. N b

q

. Ub b

z,

b ,

b , k, ,

,

b . Y, x

b

b .

T U S E b b

(C 1). I 7, ODA

$13.5 b, x

3 OECD, Concepts and Dilemmas of State Building in Fragile Situ-ations: From Fragility to Resilience, OECD 8.

$17.1 b 5 $14.4b 6. T 5

b P Cb b ,

b Iq N. T - k

b

, ,

. A b

b , b

6 7, b

q 1

G S 5. I

ODA G N I

(GNI), E 14 . T

b N (.5 ), S (.3 ),

Lxb (.1 ), N

Dk (.81 ),

U N .7 GNI.4

I 7, b ODA

Iq ($ b), b A ($3

b). A L D C

(LDC) b , $3.5

b 7 b

. LDC - ODA. N ODA A $38.7 b

b 18 . H,

x b

b k , ODA

A b 1 . T 38

z b OECD

b

.5 F x b

, b b

. O ODA

4 OECD,Aid Targets Slipping Out of Reach?, OECD 8.5 T 38 : A, A, B,Cb, C, C A R., C, C,C, D. R., C, R., C I, Djb, E,Gb, G, G-B, H, Kb, L, Lb,M, M, N, N, P N G, ST & P, S L, S I, S, S-, Tjk, T-L, T, T, Uzbk, V,Y, Zbb.


7/28


Although there is

a high probability

of an eruption

of violence, thus

imposing costs on

the country itself,

the region and

the world, these

countries gain

little attention.

(C ).

H, N,

A, D Rb C,

S, C

ODA b

7 (C 3). A b

. A ,

b b

- b

. T bk

- ,

.

T . A

bb ,

,

, .

C b

b .

I b

, x

Unite

dSta

tes

Germ

any

Fran

ce

Unite

dKi

ngdom

Japan

Netherla

nds

Spain

Swed

en

Cana

da

Italy

Norw

ay

Austr

alia

Denm

ark

Belgium

Austria

Switzerl

and

Irela

nd

Finla

nd

Greec

e

Portugal

Luxe

mbourg

NewZeal

and

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$21.8

$12.3

$9.9

$9.8

$7.7

$6.2

$5.1

$4.3

$4.1

$4.0

$3.7

$2.7

$2.6

$2.0

$1.8

$1.7

$1.2

$1.0

$0.5

$0.5

$0.4

$0.3

Chart 1: DAC Members Net Official Development Assistance in 2007

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Billions


8/28


7

b b

1. D

(k

). T , C B

D D,

, ,

b.6 A, b

b ,

MDG. T

k

b

.

S

-b b: A

--

6 C B D D, A, P, G,American Economic Review (): 847-68.

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

Constant2006USDB

illions

Chart 2: Net ODA Disbursement from all donors to Fragile States

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Total net ODA

excluding debt relief grants

Total net ODA

Rest ofFragile States

Nigeria

Congo,

Dem. Rep.

Afghanistan

Cameroon

Sudan

Chart 3: Shares of Net ODA toFragile States 20002007 (percentage)

Source: Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development

39%

7%7%

11%

14%

22%


9/28


Fragile states

are largely

underserved and

this represents

a massive

opportunity cost

from failing to lift

millions of people

out of poverty,

raise incomes,

and strengthen

global security.

, .7

Pk . I ,

k b

. H,

,

. H

b

? O

b b

b

.

8

I q b

(), b

(). T

,

b .

I .

T b q

b .

T b

b -

;

. I ,

.

P ,

- ,

7 J G, Conditioning Peace? The scope and limita-tions of Peace Conditionalities in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, TN I I R C,C R U 6; P U Skk Fk-P 7.

8 P C D D,Aid Allocation and PovertyReduction, T W Bk, 1.

A , , x , . H, C b- b .

b .T b

b . I

b . B

,

. F . T

,

, b .

A , 1-,

b , ,

W Bk C P I

A (CPIA) .1 A

43 b

. M

34 b

58

. B ,

j, . N,

b

,

b .11

T -

b b . B

, ,

.

1 V L D D, T F S: AV V D P C(1992-2002), OECD, 5. S DAC L A P D P.

11 Mk MG, A A F S,Bk S L F DE F S, J 13-14, 5.


10/28


9

Risk-aversion,

budget pressures

and a reluctance

to make the

labor-intensive

investments

commensurate

with the challeng

posed by

fragile states,

all discourage

engagement

with them.

T

-b -k.

T M C C (MCC)

b , b

T P

b-

. A b

1, b b

- . I b

k

b - .1

A b

. L, ,

k

k b. T

x b qk

j b

. T G8 G

1 Mk MG, A A F S,Bk S L F DE F S, J 13-14, 5. LH, L.

MDG . D

k x z

j. F b

k , q k

x

bk b k -

b .13

H q

. B, k

. P

; b x

j . T

x

. T

, , k.

Rk-, b ,

k b-

b

, .

13 E B, The World Bank in Fragile State and Conflict-Affected Countries: How, Not How Much, (L: IA, 8).


11/28


While countries

like China, India,

and most other

developing

countries are

converging

with developed

economies,

fragile states

have slipped

off the radar.

T b , , .

S C W,

b

, , FDI, k

b b

b . C

b S b j

E U z ,

,

k. M

k

b b. A A E

x E

E, , ,

. C, I,

A x-

, bk

. M

b

,

W.

T b b

. Ab 7

A. M A

, ,

b. H , b

, k

x

k. B, b

b A. T b bk

k x

x x k Zbb . FDI

$4.7 b 18 $53 b

7.14 M , b A

15 13

14 U N C T D.

6.15

T H Ib P C(HIPC) b

, ,

, . T

bz .

H, b .

O x A A, A, Lb

Mzbq, N S A

-q

x. M -q

FDI x

. W b , j

b b. H

x

,

x. W ,

b x b

z b

b . C

b k

. A ,

. A x

b b b

b , C. A

k b x

6 18 3 7.

Lk OECD 38

4 A

FDI

(C 4 5). F

bz. W k

C, I, ,

. P-

18, b

15 UNCTAD, Economic Development in Africa 2008, UNCTAD,8.

Failing to Globalize Fragile States

3


12/28


11

The new global

divide will not

be between the

West and the res

but between the

extreme poor an

everyone else.

$7,754

$6,017

$180

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

Rest of Developing World

Fragile States

Developed Economies

BillionsUSD

Chart 5: Total Merchandise Trade Exports

Source: World Trade Organization (excludes Somalia and Timor-Leste)

$1,248

$566

$20

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

BillionsUSD

Chart 4: Foreign Direct Investment Inflows

Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Rest of Developing World

Fragile States

Developed Economies


13/28


Fragile states

will not be able

to mimic the

development

strategies that

South Korea,

Singapore, China,

and India chose.

b

x b

.5 . R b

,

. T

b

j . T b

b b W , b

b x .

R

b

- . T

x ,

b. T

U S E .

T j-

x

. F b b

SK, S, C, I .

F b

bz b

b -

x

. C

. C ,

, b ,

. T k,

k .T -

bk

b b b P C:

T , x

k b

,

.

T ,

bj b b,

, ,

.

T ,

k b b

b x

.

T ,

k ( ),

. L k

b

.16

P C

b b $1 b.17

G , bz?

T

z, b

-b. F , A -

1

A.18 D b

A, - b ( b

)

b

16 E J S S R, The Good News Outof Africa: Democracy, Stability, and the Renewal of Growth andDevelopment, C Gb D, Fb 8.

17 P C, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest CountriesAre Failing and What Can be Done About It, (Ox: OxU P, 7).

18 W T Oz.


14/28


13

Aid shocks

in developing

countries

have triggered

disruptions

equivalent to

the magnitude

of the income

shocks endured

by developed

countries during

the two World

Wars, the Great

Depression, and

the Spanish

Civil War.

. S j

. S b

k

b ,

, .

T b

b .

O , b

b 1 1.4 GDP

.1 T

j . O,

z . S,

b

. D k

b

,

, , .

A b b b b,

b b , .

F

. A

k b

b,

b , , G

D P (GDP). A

b ,

x ,

. T

b k

k

. T

k

q

1 Mk MG S F,Aid and Growth in FragileStates, UNU-WIDER, J 8; P C, The BottomBillion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can beDone About It, (Ox: Ox U P, 7). T b - b k b ; W E, P C, J S.

k b W W, G

D, S C W.

L b k

. T

x

D .1 A

b ,

x

. Tx b

b ; , , ;

.

A

j . I

.

Pj . T

b b

, NGO,

. M

b ,

,

. T bk b

k b z . T k

j b

qk x -

-b. A ,

,

,

. I

k k

, j b .

H K, M C A V, W- C D, Wk P 3, BkI, 8.

1 R G. Rj A Sb, W U- A I G? I M F,Wk P, J 5.


15/28


The ideas of

the post-World

War II reformers,

who had been

influenced by John

Maynard Keynes

and recognized

the central role

of the state in

development,

faded with the rise

of neoliberalism.

T k-- b . F - b k

k b .

S k

z,

. H, j ,

. The Paris Declaration on Aid

Effectiveness

-b

k . I b b

. B,

,

b.

T k

b

. I

k ,

b . U, q

. T, ,

-b

M

P K. A F Fk,

z b

b .

T b b

R T

-,

. T W C

1 ,

F Fk, Nation Building: Beyond Afghanistan andIraq, (B: J Hk U 6).

bz, , z.S j b

b

x

x

b . T

-W W II ,

b b J M K

z

, b.

B ,

, , ,

b z

b , ,

.3 T A

17 b

z R

x

. O,

( E A)

( Sb-S A).

I , b

, ,x- z, b b,

. T k

. A

, k Sb-

S A GDP.

S

,

. T

. D

3 T b -b bNb-z- W Bk S V P- C E, J Sz.


16/28


15

The inability

to think more

broadly in terms

of development

policy across the

entire governmen

spectrum has

severely hindere

the ability of

fragile states to

participate in the

global economy.

k U.S. A G O A(AGOA), U.S.

. T

U.S. .

H, b-

( , )

,

U.S.

U.S. .4 T U.S.

b B

U K,

U

K 1 .5

I 7, U S, E,

$58 b

. S

k

.6 T j

. C

U.S. b q b O P

I C, U S A

I D (USAID),

MCC x FDI .7 R

b

. T b

b ODA k b

b

b .

4 N B, The White House and the World: A GlobalDevelopment Agenda for the Next U.S. President, (W,DC: C Gb D, 8).

5 Ib.

6 OECD,Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries 2008: At aGlance, OECD, J 8.

7 USAID Gb D A b- , b k, , x . N, U.S. b U.S. .

T k k

b . Y,

OECD, 15

ODA .

T b

, ,

. W

b ,

q b -

. S- -z

(SME)

. P b k

b -

,

b

. A

-

b

. N,

.8

8 F , x - Tb A b j .


17/28


Sometimes

aid may foster

economic growth

while undermining

security by

empowering

certain ethnic

groups,

disenfranchising

others, and

disrupting social

relations.

T C W . M

. T

b

, ,

- . A

, ,

z. A

, , ,

, , .

D 1,

x k

b, ,

, ,

,

k, ,

b. K b b,

x

C

W. G

, b q

. S B R,

C C, U N

M D .

N UN, OECD DAC,

b

, ,

, ,

k b .

A

. U k .

R b ,

- HIV/AID-

, -

k -

.

P b - . I

, ,

,

. I ,

k .

A

, b xb k

. F ,

b b .

T UN E S k, A

S, j

b

. F

b k

, b

. S

b

, ,

. S

k k

k .

D b,

x k b

x

b

x . A ,

j

-

. U

, . D

bb

,

S B, , The Paradoxes of Peacebuilding Post 9/11T N S I, (V: UBC P, 8).

Failing to Prevent Conflict

in Fragile States4


18/28


17

Donors have a

long way to go

to formulate

aid policies that

are informed by

in-depth, country

specific research

that incorporates

the variables

associated

with conflict.

,

. A,

.

A -b

b ,

, ,

-,

; ,

- . T W Bk

k CPIA k

, ,

. T W Bk

b

-k .3 T

U.K. D I D

(DFID) b

b

x.

N,

b -,

-

b . A

W Bk ,

b b

k

k .31

3 E B, The World Bank in Fragile State and Conflict-Affected Countries: How, Not How Much, (L: IA, 8).

31 Skk Fk-P Rb P, C P- : J j JICA UNDPA , Bk W PkP k C P DC A, Nb 7.


19/28


Frontier

donors are

recalibrating aid

instruments with

an appreciation

for the central

roles of the

state and good

governance.

D U.S. . T , A

b q

b .3 USAID 5 Fragile

States Strategy z

b .33 I

b ,

, U.S.

. I b

:

Enhance stability ,

, ,

. I , k

b

. S

b

b , b ,

,

. S

jb , ,

b k , , b b.

Improve security ,

, b

b

bk .

Encourage reform

k - b.

W

, b q

3 U.S. N S S.

33 Vb b q b - q. C b b k b k .

A b , bz ,

,

x

. I 5, OECD DAC

P G I E

F S z

,

,

b, (

bx). M

b k

Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

M , H L F A

E A, , NGO,

. F

. T

q

b b,

j

,

, b , , -, b

. M

b.

USAID, MCC, DFID, W Bk

k .

T b

.

U B , U

S , , ,

. T N S

S U S

, , k

Redesigning Development

for Fragile States5


20/28


19

The Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile Statesrecognize that:

F k ,

, , , ,

.

A b x b

b .

A b ,

xz z .

T -

b , , . P q j

z. T P, ,

z :

E

F -b bj

P

R k b, , , bj

P - b b

A x

A b

A , b

A k x ( )

S: O E C- D


21/28


Elections can be

a vital tool for

enhancing the

legitimacy of a

new government,

but they can

be hollow in

the absence

of capable

civil servants

both nationally

and locally.

, .

Develop the capacity of institutions

. B

k

, ,

b,

. Vb

.34

T USAID

, z

. A

b

U.S. .

A x

,

, . T q -

-

. A,

.

USAID A

, b

b. I,

A.

P A

. S

A . E b

,

b b b b

b .

B b

A N D

34 USAID, Fragile States Strategy, USAID (W, DC:USAID, 5).

S (ANDS).35

T- b A .36

H, b

b . USAID k

J

C M B (JCMB)37

A

.38

USAID A

. I

,

, k

. R b

U.S. S S H C

Ob

b A

z. A

b k

b b ,

, -

. T

, Pk I, -

b , b

. U j b Tb

Q Pk

,

b A .

35 T 8 P M S A- A Sb 8 - x k A N D S. W

z, k z b .

36 M W, Falling Short: Aid Effectiveness in Afghanistan.ACBAR A S, Ox (Ox I, 8).

37 JCMB U N , I FI, , , NGO A.

38 C Rk D C F, USAID A- H F, Kb, A A 1, 8.


22/28


21

A meaningful

consultative

process

recognizes the

importance of

local checks and

balances and

ensures that

MCC programs

strengthen local

institutions and

civil society, and

doing so mitigate

the risk of conflic

T MCC bj, b

(k MCC ),3

,

, .

T MCC b

(.., MCC ).

T MCC C

, ,

. T k b

b ,

C , . MCC bj

B A ,

xb .4 I

k b- b b k

- ,

b .

W MCC

, MCC z

. T MCC

T P

MCC .C, MCC T

Lb, M, N,

S T P, T-L, U,

Y.41 T

MCC

q MCC C. Lk

3 C , , , b b 17 .

4 A OECD/DAC b OECD b- . P , , b b . A , .

41 T z b : OECD, LICUS, D P- C, T F P F S Ix.

MCC C, T P A

. Eb b

MCC

b . A

C, b

b .

K MCC :

T MCC k

b

C

. T , ,

,

x

b. D ,

b

MCC C.

C

q, ,

, b .

C b

,

b, ,

.4

MCC b

, b, b,

k

b. T MCC z

-

, xb k .

4 M C C,MCC and the Long TermGoal of Deepening Democracy, Nb 7.


23/28


A b b b

z

q . T

, z

b

.43 A

z

k b MCC

, k .

O A,

. T

DFID 17 k j bk

b Cb- S

D. DFID bj

U.K.

b I D

A . DFID

,

j, , ,

.44 A /11, U.K.

k . T M F DFID

. M , DFID

b 35 x .

DFID -

b -

- .45 I

k

k .H, x

43 M C C,MCC and the Long TermGoal of Deepening Democracy, Nb 7.

44 DFID (17).

45 OECD/DAC (6).

k U.K. b ; k

b ,

.46 T , DFID

,

b

,

k

x .47 DFID

b k

b

b z x . I

b q

.

DFID z b

b b b

.

F

. Wk

k. A

. A

,

. A

D ,

b,

,

k.48

I Nb 1, W Bk

- LICUS

46 U.K. I D A .

47 O B, R D A: L U.K. Ex, C Gb D.Wk P, Ob 5.

48 DFID, Why we need to work more effectively in fragile states. U.K.D I D (L: DFID 5).

DFID has been

developing a

deep knowledge

around engaging

fragile states and

has been refining

a number of

analytical tools

to strength the

organizations

expertise in

this area.


24/28


23

Among the 80

countries eligible

for World Bank

IDA funds, about

half of them eith

suffer from or ar

prone to conflict.

Tk. T LICUS b

W Bk C P I

A (CPIA) k

x -

b. T

x q

x

. I

b b

b

, x; k

b b

z;

Bk z ( 5,

7 LICUS z

).4

T Bk b

, LICUS

I T F (LICUS TF),

-C F (PCF), M-D T

F (MDTF), b . T WBk I D A

(IDA) b

Db 7,

$41.6 b x

4 .

A 8 b W Bk

IDA , b

. A

q q k

, b

( Bx).

4 T W Bk, Low-Income Countries Under Stress: Update,Db 1, 5.

The World Bank Groups financialsupport going to fragile states:

Bk b

$136

$81 6.

P b-

$13

$67 6, -

- $. b.

P-

$.3 56

( -

b PCF),

(A, B, H,

S, S) 51

.

Sb 7: W Bk b

$3.5 b

15

I D A (IDA).

Db 7: D b

W Bk $41.6

b

.

O , IDA

1

. F b

IDA

-

IDA13 IDA14.

T HIPC M Db R

I (MDRI) J 7

$13.4 b NPV .

S: The World Bank in Fragile Situations:

An Issues Paper.


25/28


The amount of

investments, social

analysis, and

conflict-sensitive

planning currently

committed are not

commensurate

with the obvious

threat fragile

states pose.

Conclusion

6D b , A, E, ,

bz,

. D

.

S

b . B,

, k , b

b . T

b ,

, b b

. T b U S, E,

. T b

MDG. Y, ,

, -

b .

E

,

j b

. F b

b

b . D

x

. O, ;

. A

k k

. T k

b . B -

b b.

Gbz

b W , b b

x . W C

-k ,

x x. A b

( k), ( D

) j- (

). T

bz

,

- . Nb

b . I b

, k k k , ,

bz.

USAID, MCC, DFID, W Bk

z . M

k

P G

I E F S.

T k

x

. DFID USAID

. N,

z k b

, , , .

A b ,

b .

T b. W

b, DFID MCC

b, - .

M z

. F ,


26/28


25

Given the limited

knowledge about

and low level of

investments in

fragile states,

transatlantic

learning will

be vital to

helping improve

development

practice.

F D A (AFD)

xb , q,

b, . I

b

b .5 T b

b

b .

N, .

T z. P

k ,

, ,

. M

. T

, .

O b

k

b

NGO. T

.

G k b

,

b

. F , USAID

A Iq, DFID

W Bk k

. C- -

b . T

5 J-M C F G, Beyond theFragile State: Taking Action to Assist Fragile Actors and Societ-ies, A F D, Nb 5. T b k z, , , b , . T k z .

, b b b

x. S , ,

b -x.

C x b k

b k

. F , 13

A, b q.

S : b

T F (.. E T A),

(.. W Bk

N S P), (..

- j ) j

k. S-

(SWA) b

z

.

S , -

b x.

T

b

, ,

b . T b

, b b

, , ,

, . T

k b

-

. W

,

k k.


27/28


Appendix: Fragile States

7WB LICUS

(2006)Failed States Index

(2008)OECD(2007)

Difcult PartnershipCountries (2002)

A A A A

A B A A

B B B B

Cb C Cb Cb

C A R. C A R. C C

C C C A R. C A R.

C, D. R. C, D. R. C C

C, R. C, R. C C

C I C I C, D. R. C, D. R.

E E C, R. C, R.G G C I G

G-B G-B Djb G-B

H H E H

K () Iq Gb L

L PDR K G Lb

Lb Lb G-B M (B)

M (B) Lb H N

N M Kb N

S I M (B) L P N G

S N Lb S T P

S N M S LT-L N M (B) S I

T N K N S

V Pk N S

W Bk Gz S L P N G Tjk

Zbb S I S T P T

S S L Uzbk

S Lk S I Y

S S Zbb

S S

T-L Tjk

U T-L

Uzbk T

Y T

Zbb Uzbk

V

Y

Zbb


28/28

O F F I C E S

Washington Berlin Bratislava ParisB B A B

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	german-marshall-fund-of-the-united-states
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

No Development without Security: The Transatlantic Donor Community Needs to Redesign Aid for Fragile...

Documents