What is the relationship between the concepts of statebuilding and peacebuilding? This briefing paper addresses the prevailing conceptual confusion by arguing that the two concepts represent different perspectives on a similar underlying problem: fragile social peace and the destruction of political order. The concepts share a positive vision and guiding principles, and imply similar forms of engagement. The two agendas should be combined into an overarching framework of ‘moving from fragility to resilience’.
This paper uses OECD/DAC documents to assess current thinking on statebuilding and peacebuilding. It compares statebuilding and peacebuilding in relation to four main categories: the perspective on certain end goals; the type of ‘positive visions’ they refer to; principles that underpin engagement; and intersections and differences with regard to areas of engagement.
In contrast to much of the existing literature, this paper argues that the two concepts are fairly similar in terms of their goals, visions, action-guiding principles and in terms of the activities they recommend. The main difference between the two concepts is the overarching perspective they adopt. Peacebuilding is an end goal in itself, while statebuilding is best seen as an instrument for goals such as peace, human security and socio-economic development. The two concepts share basic principles including the general recognition that external influence will always be limited and the understanding that engagement should be long-term and sensitive to context. They differ in one guiding principle: peacebuilding tends to be guided by liberal democracy, while statebuilding recognises different forms of institutional blue-print to generate legitimacy.
Where there is no explicit overlap between the statebuilding and peacebuilding, they are more likely to complement one another. The high degree of congruence may arise from learning and knowledge transfer processes generated in recent statebuilding debates, which have clearly informed recent OECD/DAC documents.
- Most of the tensions between the two concepts can be explained by the varied historical and political contexts in which they emerged. Peacebuilding emerged in the 1990s while statebuilding gained prominence after US military interventions in response to the attacks of September 11th 2001.
- Both concepts have expanded to encompass a broader range of activities. Peacebuilding and statebuilding may both involve socio-economic recovery, security sector reform, strengthening civil society and good governance measures.
- Some activities such as decentralisation, taxation and corruption feature more prominently on the statebuilding agenda.
- Disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR), gender issues and emergency relief play a more significant role in peacebuilding.
The dilemmas associated with the concepts of statebuilding and peacebuilding are not the result of conceptual tensions. Instead, these tensions should be seen as the inevitable consequence of the societal processes that exist in contexts where peacebuilding and statebuilding are pursued. Donors’ success in supporting these processes will not simply depend on their choice of a statebuilding or peacebuilding perspective, but will largely be determined by negotiations with local actors.
