International actors concerned with state-building processes in fragile and conflict-affected situations increasingly acknowledge the leverage of non-state actors in building a legitimate state apparatus. However, the risk-averse nature of the current aid architecture means that aid is usually channelled through large, established INGOs to a narrow range of formally-constituted local NGOs that are accountable to their donors rather than to their beneficiaries. A very wide range of non-state actors – many of which, in the absence of functioning institutions, will have been fulfilling roles typically assumed to be the domain of the state – are left out of the picture.
This paper presents the findings of a literature review on the role and functions of non-state actors in fragile states and an analysis of international policy frameworks that guide their involvement in state-building processes. It presents some of the main challenges for the New Deal on Engagement in Fragile States, and concludes that its success will depend on donors engaging with a full range of non-state actors based on their assets and how their activities are relevant to the overall transitional goal rather than on their formal structure.
The number and range of functions of, and overlaps between, non-state actors, jar with the more rigid boundaries of international aid architecture and donor expectations. The New Deal pilot process has created momentum for simultaneous efforts to improve non-state actor engagement at country level, as well as at the global policy level. In order to collect comparative case-based practices that can be followed through globally, the indicators designed for monitoring progress on implementation of the New Deal should account for the following areas of concern:
- Develop a joint typology of non-state actors. A stronger understanding of the actors involved, and the functions carried out by them, requires open concepts applicable to the civil society landscape in each context. A jointly approved comprehensive typology of non-state actors, networks and authority mechanisms could be helpful. It could focus on non-state actors’ sources of legitimacy and enable an assessment of their role in relation to other segments of society, the state, and state building in general.
- Challenge assumptions about links between INGO and non-state actors. Policy guidance driven by a broader understanding of the relevant actors and their roles and positions within communities would help prevent an ‘INGOisation’ of the support chain, through which only a limited range of non-state functions can be reached.
- Revise risk management strategies. Donors are averse to engaging with local non-state actors that do not have proven organisational capacity, but these are often the only ones with some local ‘state-like’ capacity, authority and leverage in the transitional process. A first step is to understand risk in terms of programme ineffectiveness rather than fiduciary risk.
- Base broader, longer-term engagement with non-state actors on thorough contextual analysis. Aid to fragile contexts is often allocated to non-state actors on the basis of service delivery provision. Broader, longer-term engagement with non-state actors is needed that takes into account a wide range of non-state actor activities. This includes the rethinking of timeframes for and forms of engagement, emphasising thorough contextual analysis as a precursor to engagement, and assessing non-state actors’ incentives for engagement.
