From Elite Bargains to (More) Open and (More) Inclusive Politics (original) (raw)

Policy Studies Cumulative influence: the case of political settlements research in British policy

The concept of the political settlement has risen to occupy a central place in British policy toward conflict-affected and fragile states. Yet, at around the turn of the millennium, the term was barely mentioned in official circles and the so-called ‘good governance’ approach held sway as the dominant operational mode. So, how had this transformation in policy approach come about and what was the role of research? In this article, we demonstrate that research played a central role in influencing the rhetoric of policymakers through a process we term ‘cumulative influence’. Indeed, the subject of political settlements represents an excellent case study for understanding the dynamics of research utilisation. It allows us to build on existing models and suggest useful ways forward in this important area of public policy analysis.

Building peaceful states and societies: A critical assessment of the evidence

2015

This paper commissioned by DFID in 2015 reviewed the evidence underpinning the key elements of DFID's "Building Peaceful States and Societies" framework. It systematically examines the evidence landscape, evaluates how it changed over the last 5 years, and identifies some of the implications of this. The paper proceeds in three steps. First, drawing on BSOS and BPSS, it briefly outlines the peace- and statebuilding model, and critically examines some of the key assumptions underpinning the model in light of the current evidence landscape. Second, it identifies and evaluates research evidence published since 2010, which pertains to the four guiding objectives of the BPSS framework: addressing causes and consequences of conflict; inclusive political settlements; development of core state functions; and responsiveness to public expectations. The final section outlines the changes in the evidence landscape for peace- and statebuilding, and their implications for PBSB policy.

Corruption, Patronage, and Illiberal Peace: Forging Political Settlement in Post-conflict Kyrgyzstan

Third World Quarterly, 2019

This article engages critically with recent literature on political settlements through a case study of inter-ethnic conflict in southern Kyrgyzstan. The case study traces how a new political settlement emerged in the aftermath of conflict, despite a rejection of international proposals on conflict resolution. Instead, local elites constructed an exclusionary form of social order, forged through dispossession and violence, maintained by informal institutions of patronage and clientage. The article explains why this new political settlement appeared remarkably resilient, despite its failure to address traditional liberal concerns regarding transitional justice and minority grievances. The case study highlights two major problems with the political settlements literature. First, it contests a widespread conceptualisation of political settlements as indicating a cessation of conflict, instead pointing to how a political settlement can be initiated and maintained through different forms of violence. Second, it questions notions of inclusivity in political settlements, noting that many political settlements combine logics of both inclusion and exclusion. In many cases, they are marked by exclusionary, authoritarian practices that together constitute a form of ‘illiberal peace’. These findings caution against a simplistic use of political settlements theory to inform policies aimed at resolving internal conflicts.

Synthesis Paper: Securing and Sustaining Elite Bargains that Reduce Violent Conflict

2018

This report seeks to inform UK and international policy and practice that has the objective of reducing levels of armed conflict and building sustainable post-war transitions. The report synthesizes the findings of 21 desk-based case studies, commissioned by the Stabilisation Unit and written by country experts. This provides an evidence base for examining the relationship between elite bargaining, the dynamics of armed conflict and the effects of external interventions on these processes. It demonstrates that interventions can be ineffectual, or counter-productive, when interveners fail to analyse and engage effectively with underlying configurations of power and processes of elite bargaining in conflict-affected states. Addressing this concern, the report provides a framework to guide analysts and policymakers in deciphering patterns of elite authority, trajectories of transition, and the effects of external interventions on these dynamics.