Competing priorities: a short reflection
Right now, there is a team of us at CEPA working with the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium
(SLRC), a DFID funded research consortium led by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London,
on a six year programme looking at three research themes, namely
1. Legitimacy.
What are people’s perceptions, expectations and experiences of the state and of
local-level governance? How does the way services are delivered and livelihoods
are supported affect people’s views on the legitimacy of the state?
2. Capacity.
How do international actors interact with the state and local-level governance
institutions? How successful are international attempts to build state capacity
to deliver social protection, basic services and support to livelihoods?
3. Livelihood trajectories.
What do livelihood trajectories in conflict-affected situations tell us about
the role of governments, aid agencies, markets and the private sector in
enabling people to make a secure living?
Pondering
on the first of these themes at a time when the Geneva sessions of the
UN Human Rights Council seem to be the major preoccupation of the
Sri Lankan government and the media it seems to me to there is a contradiction. The rationale for this theme derives from the
fact that in the international discourse, there is a focus on state legitimacy, and the donor community's ability to support it, foster it...
for
donors, while the steps they can take to influence state legitimacy are few,
they do have an interest in developing a clearer understanding of the
following: What leads to legitimacy? What, if anything, can they do to
strengthen state–society relations? And what might be the (unintended) positive
and negative impacts of their programming on state legitimacy if they, for
example, route development funding via bodies other than the formal organs of
the state? (excerpt from a SLRC report)
Comments
Post a Comment