Please note that this is an archived post, kept up for information purposes, and links to tools or resources that may no longer be live. There’s a huge amount of interest in “inclusive” approaches in fragile and conflict-affected settings, but not
Our ambitions to stabilize and reshape fragile states are of very recent origin. Pretty much everything that we’re attempting was unheard of a decade ago, and almost none of it pre-dates the end of the Cold War. As one commentator on Afghanistan has put it, that makes aid in fragile states akin to
For decades, forced displacement has been a key performance indicator for humanitarian agencies. The numbers drive fundraising, fuel political battles, and underpin strategy. And yet — fragile states are not defined solely by violence. They are subject to the same trends of internal migration, and
Software companies do it. So do mathematicians, astronomers and physicists. Even social services bureaucrats are now embracing ‘policy hackathons’ in a range of countries around the world. All this springs from the recognition that open-source evolves much more rapidly, taps a much wider range of expertise,
Little by little, it’s becoming more acceptable in the peacebuilding world to admit that we don’t have the answers. People now talk regularly about “demand-driven” and “people-centred” approaches. Successive high-level reviews have insisted that success flows from good fit to context, rather than abstract technical excellence. Yet the problem remains:
From 26-27 September OP Jindal Global University, just outside of New Delhi, hosted discussions on the intersection of security, economics and service delivery. The focus areas included Manipur, Assam, Kashmir, and Afghanistan.