Forum for Development Studies [02–08]

Introduction
Security has become an increasingly prominent concern in the development discourse. In the 1960s and 1970s, absence of violent conflict was considered almost a precondition for economic and social development to take place. For many donors this concern informed the geographical distribution of their development assistance, and they shied away from conflict areas. In the early 1990s, security concerns informed the assistance in the opposite direction, increasingly changing its orienting from assistance for economic and social development towards humanitarian assistance and rehabilitation.

The many conflicts of the early 1990s – in the previous Soviet empire, in the Balkans, and in the Horn of Africa, the Sudan, the Great Lakes region and Congo, among others – brought security concerns more strongly into the development debate than ever. Aid policy was involved as well. New conflict patterns emerged. In the past, wars had mostly been between states. Many conflicts that flared up in the late 1980s and early 1990 were intra-state wars – at times transcending state borders and involving regions. It was a matter of conflicts between ‘nations’ of a different kind, based on culture – ethnicity and religion, often in combination – ‘nations’ with a common history and identity of their own. The parties to the conflict were not easily identifiable, although the government of the day was often one of the parties. The major sources of these conflicts were to be found in ‘domestic’ politics and tensions. Many of these conflicts have been framed within an ethnic narrative, particularly conflicts within multi-ethnic state formations. However, cultural differences in themselves do not necessarily provide the full explanation either: a distinction should be made between cultural patterns (‘nationalism’, religion) as a potential source of conflict and actors who exploit such conflict potential in their struggle for power. Nevertheless, tensions based on latent ethnic antagonisms may add fuel to more ‘normal’ conflicts involving distribution of resources, political leadership and tensions created by misgovernment, abuse of power, discrimination against particular minority groups and a policy of social exclusion.

These new conflict patterns challenged the very concept of security.1. Intra-state wars and other forms of violent conflict were increasingly seen as a major threat to development. Indeed, ‘violent conflicts may, in the course of weeks, destroy material resources that have taken generations to build, cause immense human suffering, make millions of innocent people refugees in their own or neighbouring countries, cause states to collapse and wreck societies’ (Stokke, 1997: 203). A ‘security first’ perspective came to the fore. Peace was increasingly seen as a precondition for development: development depended on an enabling environment that included the absence of violent conflict. Up to the late 1980s, the concept of security had been interpreted as security of territory from external aggression, as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security, in the first place from the threat of nuclear holocaust. With the end of the Cold War, other aspects also came increasingly to the fore. Within the United Nations system, the emphasis came increasingly to be placed on an extended security concept, namely that of human security.2. This concept merged security concerns and development concerns.

Although the number of intra-state violent conflicts decreased towards the end of the past century and into the new, conflicts of this kind are still around. The human suffering resulting from the ongoing conflict in Congo reminds us about the extent of disaster that can be involved. The conflict that flared up in Kenya after the 2007 presidential election is another recent example of this kind of conflict. In the first article in this issue, Patricia Kameri-Mbote and Kithure Kindiki look at the role conflicts over land distribution played in triggering the post-election violence in Kenya. The failure of post-colonial governments to craft a cohesive and inclusive national agenda for development resulted in a fragmented populace, they argue, taking the history of land relations in Kenya as their point of departure. The violence experienced was part of a sequence of recurrent displacements stemming from unresolved and politically aggravated land grievances. The context added to it: population growth, poor governance and static socio-economic attitudes reinforced by the absence of alternative policies.

To avoid the recurrence of violence over land, immediate steps should be taken to wean Kenyans off land by making other avenues for wealth creation available, creating a hierarchy of values for land and minimising the returns on speculative landholding, the authors propose. Fiscal policies that impose high taxes on speculatively held land that is not under production would contribute to the releasing of land for production or settlement. They also underline the need to create new nationalities based on imagined or created identities achievable through educational, bureaucratic, cultural and political pilgrimages in Kenya as opposed to the classical ethnic configuration
that currently defines Kenyans’ allegiances.

In the 1980s, the development assistance of major donors – orchestrated by the Bretton Woods institutions – was turned into an instrument to reform the economic policy of recipient governments. The emphasis was placed on creating an enabling environment for economic development. The recommended reforms were in line with the predominant ideology of the day, that of market liberalism. The main instrument was the structural adjustment lending to recipient countries that agreed to reform their economic policy as recommended (first generation aid conditionality). With the end of the Cold War, liberal political values came to the fore. The major
donors placed emphasis on promoting democracy, human rights and good governance through their aid policy. This was to be achieved through so-called positive measures, supporting activities that were assumed to move developments in the direction of these values. But policy reform in this direction was also set as an explicit condition for providing aid (second generation aid conditionality). The donor governments (and multilateral institutions) used aid conditionality as a tool to influence policy change in recipient countries, even opting for change of the prevailing political system.

In the second article in this issue, Axel Borchgrevink examines the relations between Ethiopia and its donors since 1990, with a focus on how donors have attempted to influence Ethiopian policies. He focuses on four different periods in order to capture both the objectives pursued by donors towards the Ethiopian government over time and the way the Ethiopian government has responded: the early years of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (1990–1998); the war with Eritrea (1998–2000); the post-war years (2000–2005); and after the 2005 elections (2005–2007). While donors have applied very different policies towards Ethiopia over time, it seems that none of them have had much impact in terms of influencing Ethiopian policies, he concludes. The main explanation offered is that the Ethiopian government had a strong commitment to a development model based in self-reliance and Marxism-Leninism – and was unwilling to bow to the wishes of Western donors. On the other hand, the outcome is also attributed to the inability of the donors to consistently follow coherent and coordinated strategies. The donor governments tended to make decisions on aid and conditionality on the basis of their own interests, and these interests were divergent.

Cash transfers have increasingly come to the fore as a development tool, providing effective social protection for vulnerable groups and as an alternative to food aid in humanitarian crises. In the third article in this issue, Espen Villanger provides an up-to-date review of the findings from evaluations of cash transfer programmes for social protection.

The positive effects in Latin America of so-called conditional cash transfer programmes have led to the recommendation that this kind of programmes should be promoted. The transfer of cash to households is made conditional in these programmes: the recipients have to take advantage of public services to benefit the education, nutritional status and health of their children. A positive conclusion may be premature since there is not much knowledge about the critical factors that have led to the positive results, Villanger argues. Areas suffering from humanitarian crisis, insufficient food supply and poor connection to the nearby markets should not be considered for cash transfer programmes. He identifies several policy implications. Firstly, the implications of the conditionality should be carefully assessed before embarking on these types of programmes as they tend to exclude the most vulnerable groups. Secondly, more poverty reduction for money tends to be achieved through broad targeting. Thirdly, gender equality should be a part of the overall design of the programmes. And fourthly, universal cash transfer programmes should be subject to rigorous impact evaluations to explore the alternative to fine-tuned conditionality, he concludes.

In the following article, Tashi Nyima offers us an interesting ‘travel report’ on developments in Tibet. He visited Lhasa, his home town, after 15 years in exile abroad. He met a different city from the one he knew before. The Chinese development drive in Tibet is characterised by rapid urbanisation of Tibet’s small towns, along with an ever-increasing influx of migrants from China’s inland provinces, he observes. Based on the author’s memories and personal experiences of Lhasa, as well as his later field studies in the Tibetan capital, he takes a critical look at the transformation of Lhasa during the past 15 years. Massive government development programmes have transformed Lhasa from a ‘Tibetan town’ into a ‘Chinese city’ in which local Tibetans have to struggle for economic as well as cultural survival, he argues. The new development concept propagated by the top leadership stresses ‘scientific’ development, whereas concepts such as rights-based development, local empowerment and participation are still unknown terms in the current development discourse in Tibet. If this situation persists, it will contribute to further tension in Tibet, he concludes.

In the previous issue of Forum for Development Studies , Devaki Jain and Shubha Chacko discussed the role of the United Nations system in promoting development for women. The article was to a large extent based on the major work of Devaki Jain, a volume in the book series of the UN Intellectual History Project ( Women, Development, and the UN: A Sixty-Year Quest for Equality and Justice ). The main focus was on the role played by outside actors, particularly that of the international women movement. I invited further discussion on the theme, both in my introduction to FDS 1–08 and more directly to a number of actors who have been playing a leading role in these processes. The experiences of key actors within the system, with a focus on the processes involved, were identified as particularly interesting. My efforts resulted in two catches, the following article by Torild Skard, who has served in a variety of relevant capacities, nationally and internationally, and an article in the Debates column by Kristen Timothy, who for years served in leading positions in the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. Hopefully, there will be more contributions on this theme in future issues of the journal.

For years, Torild Skard has worked for the advancement of women in the UN system and at the level of national politics. With a focus on work related to women and development, she describes her experiences as the leader of the Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO, as a delegate to the UNESCO General Conferences, and as the focal point for women in the UNESCO secretariat in Paris. She has also held leading positions in the Norwegian development cooperation administration, providing financial support for and participating in the governing bodies of a number of UN organisations. Finally, she went into the field and worked for UNICEF in West and Central Africa as a regional director.

From these rich experiences she analyses the efforts to make the UN institutions change in a woman-friendly way: which strategies were used, where support and resistance came from, what progress was achieved and what setbacks were experienced. And most importantly, she asks what were the main lessons learned regarding strategies to strengthen the position of women? She finds the task more complex than is often realised. The processes of change require sustained, long-term action by numerous actors, among which the women’s movement, governments of member states and the top-level leaders of the UN organisations play key roles. Progress depends on the commitment both of women and men, and on special knowledge and competence as well as resources, she concludes.

In the Debates column, the discussion on the theme first raised by Jain and Chacko continues. Kristen Timothy responds to their assertion that the relationship between the global women’s movement and the United Nations is at a critical juncture. She agrees with the authors that the global women’s movement worldwide needs to address its own diversity and build a new consensus to strengthen its effectiveness at the UN. She also argues that new synergies and approaches are needed, as well as vastly increased financial commitments and political will by member states at the UN, if the world organisation is to continue to be a force for women’s human rights and women’s empowerment worldwide.

The column contains a contribution on yet another theme discussed in the previous issue of Forum for Development Studies and on which further discussion was invited – the future of development research. Henrik Secher Marcussen finds that although Denmark shares a number of similarities with Norway on this issue, a number of differences between the two countries persist. For instance, Denmark has been subject to a process of fusion and mergers, both at university and departmental levels, where entirely new, but rather big units have been created – a process which Norway so far seems to have avoided. According to prevailing management-oriented wisdom, such bigger units are assumed better able to respond to the challenges of globalisation and to improve Denmark’s position in the global knowledge economy. The process of fusion and mergers has been implemented at a great cost, by shifting focus and budgets from research to administration and management. However, contrary to expectations, the creation of the new Department of Society and Globalisation at Roskilde University has also facilitated an effort in redefining both the area of globalisation and that of development studies/research. While this is still very much work in progress, some optimism reigns as to both being sustained with a more sharpened focus, but also complementing each other, he concludes.

The third contribution to the Debates column was also invited. Else Øyen recently retired after coordinating for many years the international Comparative Research Programme on Poverty (CROP) associated with the University of Bergen. What was more natural than inviting her to share with us the challenges associated with research on poverty and lessons learned from years of research on this theme? Funding this research has all along been part of the challenge. Else Øyen finds relevant and reliable knowledge based on research indispensable if extreme poverty is to be combated. It is a paradox that three of the most significant paradigms in poverty research fail to focus directly on extreme poverty, she points out. This failure is due not only to the complexity of extreme poverty, but also to the structure of the paradigms, their built-in limitations and the fact that research on extreme poverty is an investment with few academic rewards. However, in spite of all the obstacles, the research community is a vital part of the answer to a world problem, she concludes.

In the Books column, emphasis in this issue is given to the history of Denmark’s development cooperation that is just out. In an extensive review of this volume, Lennart Wohlgemuth finds that this work, covering the period 1945–2005, gives an impressive review of the history of Danish development cooperation. It is very rich and makes highly interesting reading for anyone with an interest in contemporary history. The relations are explored from many perspectives, with references made to discussions within the government, in parliament, in society at large and in the media. The study mainly deals with the political economy of development cooperation and less with detailed analyses of the nuts and bolts of development cooperation. It still makes an important input on the challenges and possibilities of development cooperation during a period of extreme change and many ups and downs, Wohlgemuth concludes.

O.S.

Notes

1. Dieter Senghaas distinguished between a traditional and a modern peace concept, related to two entirely different types of societies, ‘the one politicized/elitist, the other broadly politicized on a mass basis’. The main challenge ‘is to find and institutionalize lasting forms of constructive and nonviolent conflict management’ – to design mechanisms for securing internal peace in the face of an always imminent civil war (Senghaas, 1995:307, 316).

2. As defined in the Human Development Report 1994, the concept has two aspects, namely safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, and protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pattern of daily life. Such security allows people to exercise their expanded choices and develop their capabilities, while the absence of such security undermines the processes of development and may lead to social disintegration and humanitarian catastrophe. The threats to human security, as identified, relate to economic security (unemployment, job insecurity, inequality and poverty), food security (inadequate availability of food and access by all people), health security (communicable diseases and pollution-related illnesses, drug abuse), environmental security (degradation of air, water, soil, forests), personal security (conflict, terrorism, violence against women and children), community security (ethnic clashes) and political security (violations of human rights) (UNDP, 1994).