Alina Rocha Menocal

STATE-BUILDING FOR PEACE - A NEW PARADIGM FOR INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT IN POST-CONFLICT FRAGILE STATES?

Abstract This article is intended to analyse two leading approaches that have guided international efforts to promote peace and development in conflict-afflicted fragile states since the 1990s, namely peace building and state building. In a relatively recent development a growing number of donors has sought to bring these two closer together, based upon the perception that the challenges posed by (post-)conflict fragile states need to be addressed through an approach that combines both—‘state-building for peace’, as the undp has put it. The article thus seeks to explore how the processes of building peace are related to the processes of building more resilient, effective and responsive states in (post-)conflict settings. It provides an overview of the evolution of these two concepts and analyses key complementarities between peace building and state building. It also explores the challenges that arise for both on the basis of these complementarities. The article goes on to examine some of the most significant tensions that arise between the two, and what these tensions may imply for the international assistance community. By way of a conclusion the article offers a few key lessons that emerge from the analysis for improved donor policy and practice in state building for peace efforts.

And if there was no state?: critical reflections on Bates, Polanyi and Evans on the role of the state in promoting development

The 1980s witnessed a paradigmatic shift in the evaluation of the role the state should play in promoting economic growth in the developing world. Against a general sense of fatigue caused by the accumulation of international economic crises and a history of inefficient state intervention in the economy in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe, the state-led approach to development lost the intellectual and political legitimacy it had enjoyed since the 1930s. Emboldened by the perceived bankruptcy of the model, an ascending coalition of reform-minded academics, policy makers, and political elites gained prominence by calling for a return to a market-based economy. The set of neoliberal policies they advocated, which eventually converged in what came to be known as the

Hybrid regimes and the challenges of deepening and sustaining democracy in developing countries1

A wave of democratisation swept across the developing world from the 1980s onwards. However, despite the momentous transformation that this so-called ‘Third Wave’ has brought to formal political structures in regions ranging from Africa to Asia to Latin America, only a limited number of countries have succeeded in establishing consolidated and functioning democratic regimes. Instead, many of these new regimes have become stuck in transition, combining a rhetorical acceptance of liberal democracy with essentially illiberal and/or authoritarian traits. This article analyses the emergence and key characteristics of these ‘hybrid regimes’ and the challenges of democratic deepening. It suggests that, because a broad consensus to uphold democracy as the ‘only game in town’ is lacking, hybrid regimes tend to be unstable, unpredictable, or both. The article concludes by arguing that a deeper understanding of the problems besetting these regimes helps to provide a more realistic assessment of what these incipient and fragile democracies can be expected to achieve.