|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
Once the United States withdraws most or all of its forces from
Afghanistan, what issues are likely to continue to be of concern to
U.S. policymakers in South Asia? What regional dynamics are likely
to affect their ability to achieve policy priorities there? While
the United States and its coalition partners have focused primarily
on Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past 12 years, the strategic
dynamics most likely to be relevant over the next 12 years will
probably be clustered around relationships linking Pakistan, India,
and China. The authors of this report propose a framework for U.S.
policy in South Asia centered around that cluster rather than the
more common cluster of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The report
includes an analysis of U.S. policy priorities, contingencies, and
regional dynamics in South Asia.
Can the United States prevent or end conflicts and protect its
interests without using military force? Do U.S. civilian
institutions have the right mix of support, funding, and
capabilities to respond to major crises and political transitions?
In July 2013, CSIS raised these questions before more than 200
policymakers and experts, with 22 speakers offering perspectives
from donors, implementers, and recipients. The demand for civilian
power is high. U.S. leaders are under constant pressure to respond
to armed conflicts abroad. Better civilian tools could help avoid
more risky (and costly) military engagements. The past decade has
seen real improvement in civilian stabilization and reconstruction
capabilities. Yet many lessons of the past eight decades remain
unlearned, and public support to civilian agencies remains low.
In development, stabilization, and peace building, donors
increasingly recognize the importance of being sensitive to the
local contexts of their efforts. Yet the use of "blueprints"
remains widespread. Even when standard approaches are modified for
particular aid partners, there often remains a poor fit between
donor efforts and local conditions. When recipients cannot absorb
the aid and attention they are offered, the common response is
"capacity building." While it is true that many aid recipients do
not have adequate capacity for implementation, this report presents
the results of a case study demonstrating that some security and
justice programs are designed and implemented without an adequate
appreciation of local desires, resources, capabilities, and
challenges. Absorptive capacity, in other words, is a byproduct of
the donor-recipient relationship. An earlier study by the authors
introduced a new framework for measuring absorptive capacity. This
volume applies it to security and justice sector programs that did
not meet all of their objectives in Lebanon, Cambodia, and
Colombia.
The CSIS Working Group on Private-Sector Development in Fragile,
Conflict-Affected, and Violent States identifies tools available to
the international business community and the U.S. government to
assist these countries, as well as the gaps in needed resources.
Participants examined cases from Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, and
Liberia to glean examples of successes and failures in
private-sector development, with the goal of identifying potential
roles for host governments and the international private sector.
This report presents the results of those discussions.
When recipients cannot absorb the aid and attention they are
offered, the common response is "capacity building"-as if the
source of the problem is the recipient's implementation capacity.
In this report, Robert D. Lamb and Kathryn Mixon present the
results of their research on the sources of absorptive capacity.
They find that this sort of "blaming the victim" mentality, while
common, is not always justified. While it is true that many aid
recipients do not have adequate capacity for implementation, it is
equally true that many aid programs are designed and implemented
without an adequate appreciation of local desires, resources,
capabilities, and challenges. Absorptive capacity, in other words,
is a byproduct of the donor-recipient relationship. The authors
present a new framework for measuring absorptive capacity. This
framework is intended to supplement existing planning, monitoring,
and evaluation processes, offering a new way to test whether an
existing approach is compatible with local conditions and a method
for improving the fit.
Most violent conflicts since the turn of this century were in
countries that had experienced an earlier violent conflict. How can
we tell when a country is likely to remain stuck in a cycle of
violence? What factors suggest it might be "ripe" for stabilizing
and peace building? The authors studied four cases: Chad is stuck
in a cycle of violence, while El Salvador, Laos, and Mozambique
have had different results in their transitions from violence to
stability to peace. Conflicts without internal cohesion of
combatants or pressure from foreign patrons to stop fighting are
probably not ripe for stabilizing. Where there are subnational or
regional actors committed to violence, post-conflict peace building
is not likely to succeed without enforcement capacity to contain
violence or demonstrated commitments to increasing political
inclusion and making material improvements in the lives of
residents.
|
You may like...
Barbie
Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling
Blu-ray disc
R266
Discovery Miles 2 660
Southpaw
Jake Gyllenhaal, Forest Whitaker, …
DVD
R99
R24
Discovery Miles 240
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|