It is clear that there are strong linkages between the social, economic and political spheres of conflict, as well as the macro, meso and micro levels. However, linking need not mean conflating. For example, an irrigation project in rural Kyrgyzstan cannot be expected to counteract the postSoviet malaise and decade-old economic collapse of the region. That is why we need to encourage development actors out of thinking only in terms of projects, and thinking more strategically.
Similarly, the peacebuilding field’s preoccupation with the ‘attribution gap’ is symptomatic of the existing confusion between the political and the social. It is also symptomatic of a lack of resources – and perhaps lack of willingness? – to systematically conduct baseline data collection and regular reviews that would enable both peacebuilding and development practitioners to start understanding and overcoming the ‘attribution gap’. At the same time, we need to be realistic about what we are attempting to assess. For example, the impact of a shallow tube well project on large macro-political conflict is bound to be limited. Although it is clearly important to understand the project within the national political framework, there is also a need to acknowledge the limited impact such a project can have on issues well outside its sphere of influence.Acknowledging the clear separation between the national (macro) and grassroots (micro) spheres will also require peacebuilders and development actors alike to rethink how we use the tools at our disposal to affect positive change on the macro/national aspects of conflict. Again, there is a need to link these approaches to the micro/grassroots spheres, but different spheres require different approaches. Nevertheless, as pointed out by the Utstein papers and by Thania Paffenholz, the need still exists to try to assess the local level work in terms of its impact on peace writ large.
You must be logged in in order to leave a comment