There has been a proliferation of statebuilding and peacebuilding toolkits. These (usually theoretical models) aim to shape thinking about the overarching approach donors should take when enacting statebuilding and peacebuilding reforms, and about how the types of reforms will affect dimensions of the state. These toolkits guide strategic decisions over which state functions to prioritise, and can guide thinking on how to sequence them. These toolkits tend to: integrate statebuilding and peacebuilding objectives (if they have been formerly separated); refer to the types of diagnostic tools necessary to apply the toolkit; and tend to refer to survival and expected state functions (see Prioritising state functions). The frameworks reflect the characteristics of the authoring agency, such as its worldview, interests, and comparative role. Examples of two donor toolkits are provided below.
DFID’s integrated statebuilding and peacebuilding toolkit
DFID’s (2010a, p.6) integrated statebuilding and peacebuilding model aims to strengthen state-society relations, and brings together four interrelated objectives:
- ‘Address the causes and effects of conflict and fragility, and build conflict resolution mechanisms
- Support inclusive political settlements and processes
- Develop core state functions
- Respond to public expectations’.
Figure 1: DFID’s integrated statebuilding and peacebuilding toolkit
Source: DFID, 2010a, p.17
Figure 1 depicts DFID’s toolkit as an overlapping and ‘virtuous circle’ of objectives, which are not sequential (DFID, 2010a, p.17). DFID explains that the objective placed at the centre – ‘address causes of conflict and build resolution mechanisms’ – provides a lens to understand the context, and prioritise activities, related to the other objective areas (ibid). DFID’s Capable, Accountable and Responsive states model (CAR) provides the basis for this framework (DFID, 2006, p.20; DFID, 2007, pp.15-17).
The authority, legitimacy and capacity framework (ALC)
The authority, legitimacy and capacity model (also known as ‘ALC’) stems from the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP) project. It brings together three overarching areas: conflict (measured through indicators of authority); security (legitimacy); and development (capacity) (Carment et al., 2013, p.129). The World Bank has developed a multi-level diagnostic framework, based on the ALC model, which comparatively analyses the following issues (Teskey et al., 2012; World Bank, 2012a):
- The three state dimensions: authority, legitimacy and capacity;
- The three state domains: the political settlement; survival functions (focusing on security and political functions); and expected functions (focusing on economic functions and service delivery) (see Box 3); and
- The institutions and organisations that determine outcomes in each area.
See the table providing ‘Questions for assessing state authority, legitimacy and capacity performance by domain‘ on p.22 of World Bank, 2012a.
- Of the many toolkits, these two examples have been selected because they are authored by key donors operating in FCAS, provide different perspectives, and are referenced in the wider literature.
- Carment, D., Samy, Y., & Landry, J. (2013). Transitioning Fragile States: A Sequencing Approach. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 37(2), 125-151.
See document online - DFID. (2006). Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor (White Paper). London: DFID
See document online - DFID. (2007). Governance, Development and Democratic Politics: DFID’s work in building more effective states. London: DFID.
See document online - DFID. (2010a). Building Peaceful States and Societies: A DFID Practice Paper. London: DFID
See document online - Teskey, G., Schnell, S., & Poole, A.. (2012). Beyond capacity – addressing authority and legitimacy in fragile states. Washington, DC: World Bank.
See document online - World Bank. (2012a). Guidance for Supporting Statebuilding in Fragile and Conflict- Affected States: A Tool-Kit. Washington, DC: World Bank.
See document online
