• 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»The role of security organisations in security sector reform

The role of security organisations in security sector reform

Helpdesk Report
  • Shivit Bakrania
July 2014

Question

What are the themes of current literature on Security System (or Sector) Reform? What are the major areas of contention and debate, and of significant consensus, particularly with relevance to military or other state security organisations (within the donor country and locally)?

Summary

There is consensus that donor approaches to SSR have failed to achieve the ambitious goals and objectives espoused in policy documents. Debates in recent literature centre on the reasons for this ‘policy-practice gap’ (Sedra, 2010; Bakrania, 2014b).

Key themes include:

  • There is agreement in the literature that donor assistance has generally taken an apolitical and technical approach (OECD-DAC, 2007b; Stabilisation Unit, 2014).
  • There is consensus that local ownership is a key political challenge for donors, but a lack of clarity on how donors can support true local ownership (Donais, 2009; Mobekk, 2011).
  • There is debate on how SSR should evolve to close the policy-practice gap. There are differences of opinion over the role of the state: is the state capable of providing security alone, or can hybrid arrangements involving non-state actors deliver more effectively (Sedra, 2010).

The literature questions whether holistic approaches to SSR are feasible.

Key themes include:

  • There is consensus that programmes are more effective when donors take a long-term gradual, pragmatic and problem solving approach to programming (SU, 2014).
  • The literature suggests that linkages should be established where possible, rather than addressing all sectors at once. Evidence suggests that tactical partnerships, rather than strategic partnerships, have more impact (SU, 2014).
  • Experience shows that international assistance is less effective where communication between donors is lacking, and where they have diverging views of the role and reform of different security actors (Born, 2009).

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018
State-society relations and citizenship
Topic Guide
2016
The legitimacy of states and armed non-state actors
Topic Guide
2015
Capacity building in the Ministry of Interior in fragile and post-conflict countries
Helpdesk Report
2015
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022