• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Lessons from governance interventions in fragile and conflict-affected states

Lessons from governance interventions in fragile and conflict-affected states

Helpdesk Report
  • Róisín Hinds
March 2015

Question

Please identify key literature and summarise any recent (since 2011) evidence on lessons learned from donor attempts to improve / reform / transform governance in developing countries, particularly in FCAS. We are particularly interested in any evidence generated on lessons learned from “politically-smart, locally-led” approaches.

Summary

Governance programmes include a broad range of issues, from support to parliamentary processes and elections, to state-building and rule of law interventions. The evidence base on governance interventions is fairly broad and rigorous, incorporating a mix of academic, policymaker, and think-tank literature. Details on lessons, however, tend to be limited. Much of the readily available literature provides only a short description of lessons, with few details expanded upon.

Common lessons across different types of governance interventions include:

  • Understand social, historical and political context: The importance of understanding social, historical and political context is highlighted across governance interventions in fragile and conflict-affected states (see for example Brown et al. 2013; Tostensen and Amundsen 2010; Domingo and Denney 2012; UNDP 2012). Social, political and conflict analysis tools can provide useful contextual data (Luchsinger 2010).
  • Get the right staff: The capacity of staff is consistently mentioned throughout the literature as an essential component of good programming. Staff should be experienced and have the appropriate expertise and networks to engage in the specific type of programming (Booth and Unsworth 2014; Brown et al. 2013).
  • Be flexible: Flexibility has been proven to be beneficial. Particularly in FCAS, programmes and staff often need to adapt to changing contexts and new opportunities (Brown et al. 2013; Lucas 2014).
  • Provide long-term engagement: Long-term engagement has yielded better and more sustainable results across a variety of interventions, including in politically smart and locally-led approaches (Brown et al. 2013) and parliament and electoral assistance (Tostensen and Amundsen 2010; Rao 2014b).
  • Adhere to do no harm principles: This is particularly important in FCAS. Do no harm approaches have been crucial in state-building and in support to parliaments and elections (Mcloughlin 2012; OECD DAC 2010).
  • Country ownership and leadership: There is a strong consensus among the literature that capacity building initiatives for government institutions in FCAS should be nationally owned and led (Lucas 2014). Country ownership includes identifying priorities, development policies and programmes, and coalition building (Lucas 2014).

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Doing research in fragile contexts
Literature Review
2019
Social Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States
Helpdesk Report
2019
Approaches to remote monitoring in fragile states
Helpdesk Report
2017
Organised crime, violence and development
Topic Guide
2016
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more