Are local conflict and development projects in Indonesia part of the problem or part of the solution? This World Bank working paper argues that development projects are capable of stimulating as well as reducing conflicts. Those projects that have explicit and accessible procedures for managing disputes arising from the development process are much less likely to cause conflict.
The paper focuses on how the Government of Indonesia’s (World Bank financed) Kecamatan Development Project (KDP), which is present in 40 per cent of villages across Indonesia, interacted with local contexts and conflict dynamics, and how it influenced participants’ capacity to respond to them. Gaining an insight into local dynamics can illuminate the two-way process of how states in transition shape local environments and how local people can constrain, interpret and realise these changes. This can provide vital insights into how development actors can support the creation of legitimate and effective institutions to manage the intertwined processes of conflict and development.
There are multiple ways in which development projects cause or trigger new conflicts, and/or interact with existing tensions. There are also different ways in which they can be used (directly and indirectly) to reduce the likelihood of conflicts turning violent:
- Development programmes can cause conflict when they entail an element of competition within and between villages. Lack of information is also a problem: where the aims and/or decision-making mechanisms for development projects are not clear, individuals or groups will not see the project processes or outcomes as being ‘fair’.
- Programmes can also interact with pre-existing local tensions, power structures or disputes, triggering conflict escalation and, in some cases, violence.
- KDP is not an effective mechanism for working directly on wider, non-project conflict. However, there is scope for modifying the programme to allow it to more effectively manage local conflict. On those (infrequent) occasions when non-project conflicts are addressed through the programme, they tend to be successfully resolved.
- The programme has considerable (and positive) indirect impacts on the local institutional environment in which it operates. Across a range of different identity cleavages, KDP had helped to contribute improvements in inter-group relations.
- KDP also appears to be effectively renegotiating the relationship between citizens and the state at local level. The evidence shows that KDP is successfully helping to democratise village life.
It is clear that the processes of development and conflict are intrinsically linked. The challenge ahead is to discern how best to respond to these twin realities.
- A central part of the answer lies in crafting legitimate, inclusive and accountable processes of contested deliberation, in and through which context-specific institutions may be politically and incrementally forged.
- A primary mechanism for doing so is through stimulating demand for institutional reforms and ‘good governance’ at the local level through the direct involvement of beneficiaries in this process. Projects such as KDP, when implemented well, can play a significant role.
- Not all projects should become arenas for conflict resolution, but they should build in mechanisms to manage the tensions they will inevitably generate. Support can be provided for interim institutions through providing spaces, training, and funds to accommodate the initiatives of local peoples to deal with problems as they arise.
