Donors have developed many diagnostic tools to understand the causes of conflict and fragility. These support donor decisions in sequencing as they help diagnose what peacebuilding and statebuilding activities are urgent and/or important, how reforms in one area might impact on other areas, and how reforms might affect state authority, capacity, and legitimacy. Typically recommended diagnostic tools focus on examining the characteristics of the regime, its capacities and trajectory; the strengths and weaknesses of the state; and the actors, institutions and dynamics that affect instability (DFID, 2009; McLean Hilker, Garrasi & Griffith, 2008).
There are few comprehensive analytical tools that assess peacebuilding and statebuilding responses per se, although most conflict analyses include statebuilding diagnosis questions or can be adapted to include them (Schnell, n.d., p.6). Experts comment that there is often inadequate integration of priorities identified at the initial assessment level in the subsequent strategic plan (CIC, 2011).
Box 12: Locating states on a fragility spectrum
g7+’s New Deal ‘fragility spectrum’ is a self-assessment diagnostic tool. It analyses and describes the nature of fragility, diagnoses context-specific needs and indicators; tracks progress against specific indicators; and increases understanding of the links between different dimensions of fragility. It was developed through ‘bottom up’ consultations in pilot countries.
It is based on five stages of transition (crisis; rebuild and reform; transition; transformation; and resilience), across the five ‘Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goal’ areas. It has a menu of 300 indicators to measure progress. The list of indictors will continue to grow as more fragility assessments are carried out in g7+ member countries.
Source: g7+ (2013)
Despite the many diagnostic tools, there is a limited evidence base evaluating the impacts of these tools on the process of prioritisation and sequencing, and on outcomes in FCAS (Mata & Ziaja, 2009; UNDP, 2012). UNDP (2012, p.16) identifies this as ‘a new area of focus’ that ‘needs more development’.
A few examples of the different types of tools are provided below.
Fragility indexes and typologies
Numerous fragility indexes have been developed by think tanks, donors and academics to help identify, measure and monitor state fragility. These usually cover a combination of state domains: security, political, economic and social (Mata & Ziaja, 2009). Proposed uses include to inform early warning systems, evaluations, policy decisions, public awareness, research, and risk analysis (Mata & Ziaja, 2009).
Political economy analysis
Political economy analysis (PEA) in FCAS focuses on understanding the political and economic drivers of conflict, and the relative power, exclusion and vulnerability of different groups over time. It can highlight competing rules of the game in (and between) formal and informal institutions. It can help identify shifting coalitions that contribute to or prevent state collapse; the nature and sources of state capacity, authority and legitimacy; and how and why rent seeking and patrimonial political systems can either contribute to, or undermine, state stability (Mcloughlin, 2012b).
Whaites (2008) notes that in this context, PEA should use a statebuilding lens to understand the sustainability of the political settlement, its statebuilding agenda, the strength of survival functions and the ability to progress on expected functions (See Box 3). There are many types of PEA; currently popular are sectoral PEA, and problem-driven PEA.
Participatory methods and tools
Social exclusion is a key cause and characteristic of state fragility. Supporting opportunities to improve the rights – and the participation – of excluded groups is therefore viewed by donors as an important aspect of statebuilding and peacebuilding. In addition to informing priorities and sequencing decisions, participatory methods can also be used to manage societal expectations, to build inclusive and participatory processes, to strengthen state-society relations, and to include the views of marginalised groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, young people, elderly, disabled, etc.) (UN, 2012, p.57; CIC, 2011). Despite this, stakeholder engagement often receives insufficient attention (CIC, 2011).
It is widely argued that participatory methods should be country led. UNDP (2012, p.12) argues country led governance assessments should ideally involve a wide range of local actors and stakeholders in all stages – designing the methodology, data collection, analysis, dissemination and use.
Box 13: Examples of participatory methods and tools
Participatory methods and tools typically include: strategic stakeholder engagement approaches; opinion polls; community level consultations; interviews; and perception surveys.
UNDP’s Crisis and Recovery Mapping and Analysis (CRMA)
This project in Sudan and South Sudan builds government capacity to undertake crisis and recovery mapping, conflict analysis and strategic planning. The CRMA includes mapping workshops with community and other groups to help identify perceptions of human security. This information is added to a geo-referenced digital atlas. The data is then used as part of a participatory analysis process with government and civil society organisations. The resulting analysis is published by UNDP (UN, 2012, p.51).
The EU’s People’s Peace-making Perspectives (PPP)
This project was implemented by NGOs Conciliation Resources, Saferworld, and local actors. The methods used varied by country. They included focus discussions; key informant interviews, desk research, perception surveys, and the production of participatory reports (Conciliation Resources, 2012).
Political settlements analysis
A political settlements analytical framework aims to improve understanding of a country’s political settlement. The framework brings together other analytical tools (e.g. actor mapping, conflict audits, and political economy analysis) and includes extra specific questions (Parks & Cole, 2010). The framework focuses on issues including: how settlements are maintained; how they change; their historical evolution; settlements at subnational levels; the contending interests that constrain/facilitate change; and how the state is linked to society (Parks & Cole, 2010; Di John & Putzel, 2009).
Dilemma analysis
Dilemma analysis is a specific statebuilding diagnostic tool that examines donor objectives, contradictions between objectives, competing objectives, and trade-offs in prioritisation and sequencing decisions (Paris & Sisk, 2007). It is recommended in the OECD (2010b) publication ‘Do no Harm’. Questions explored in dilemma analysis include (Paris & Sisk, 2007, p.8):
- How could statebuilding dilemmas affect development activities and objectives?
- What environmental characteristics influence the likelihood that dilemmas will be problematic?
- What are the drivers of dilemmas?
- How could the dilemmas interact?
- Which dilemmas could be most problematic and why?
Strengths and weaknesses
Limitations and challenges in using these diagnostic tools to inform sequencing and prioritisation decisions in FCAS include the following:
- Donor programming often does not adequately integrate the findings from fragility indicator tools, and statebuilding and peacebuilding tools, into coherent strategic plans (CIC, 2011)
- Although PEA is used extensively by donors, not even two of its biggest proponents – DFID and the World Bank – have been able to institutionalise it in programming or management (Yanguas & Hulme, 2014)
- Integrated or joint assessments are needed to reduce the number of assessments suggesting different priorities (OECD, 2008)
- The large number and variability of tools complicates the comparability of findings (g7+, 2013, p.5)
- Data collection difficulties in FCAS (g7+, 2013)
- In urgent situations, there may be a trade-off between quality, completeness and time
- Many fragility indexes use standardised indicators across situations that are not similar, and unrealistic donor targets can ‘set countries up to fail’ (g7+, 2013, p.5)
- Many governance assessments are not explicitly sensitive to, or inclusive of, marginalised groups
- Background concepts and assumptions in the design of assessments may not be clearly articulated – therefore risking misinterpretation
- Data processing decisions (standardisation, aggregation, weighting, and categorisation) influence the outcomes of data collection, but they also may not be clearly articulated (UNDP, 2012; Mata & Ziaja, 2009)
- When trade-offs are unacknowledged and unreported, this can impact on the perceived legitimacy of the process (CIC, 2011).
- For example – g7+ Fragility Spectrum; World Governance Indicators; Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA); Failed States Index; Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP); Global Peace Index; Bertelsmann Transformation Index State Weakness Index; Global Peace Index; etc.
- For further analysis of the comparative strengths of different conflict and fragility diagnostic tools see DFID’s 2010 briefing paper and the UNDP’s 2013 publication.
- See GSDRC’s Topic Guide on political economy analysis.
- See GSDRC’s Topic Guide on political economy analysis.
- For a review of the strengths and limitations of using perception surveys in FCAS, see GSDRC’s Helpdesk Research Report on perception surveys in fragile and conflict-affected states.
- Center on International Cooperation. (2011). Strategic Planning in Fragile and Conflict Contexts. New York: CIC, New York University.
See document online - Conciliation Resources. (2012). From Conflict Analysis to Peacebuilding Impact: Lessons from the People’s Peacemaking Perspectives Project. London: Saferworld.
See document online - DFID (2009). Building the State and Securing the Peace (Emerging Policy Paper). London: DFID
See document online - Di John. J. & Putzel, J. (2009). Political Settlements. Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.
See document online - G7+. (2013). The Fragility Spectrum. Note on the g7+ Fragility Spectrum (Preliminary Release). g7+.
See document online - Mata, J. F. & Ziaja, S. (2009). Users’ Guide on Measuring Fragility. German Development Institute/UNDP.
See document online - McLean Hilker, L., Garrasi, D. & Griffith, L. with Purdekova, A. & Clarke, J. (2008). Scoping a long-term research programme on conflict, state fragility and social cohesion (Report prepared for DFID).
See document online - Mcloughlin, C. (2012b). Political Economy Analysis: Topic Guide. Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.
See document online - OECD. (2008). Concepts and Dilemmas of State Building in Fragile Situations. From Fragility to Resilience. Paris: OECD.
See document online - OECD. (2010b). Do no Harm. International support for statebuilding. Paris: OECD.
See document online - Paris, R. & Sisk, T. (2007). Managing Contradictions: The Inherent Dilemmas of Postwar Statebuilding (Research Partnership on Postwar Statebuilding). New York: International Peace Academy.
See document online - Parks, T. & Cole, W. (2010). Political Settlements: Implications for International Development Policy and Practice (Occasional Paper no. 2). San Fransisco: The Asia Foundation.
See document online - Schnell, S. (n.d.). Recommendations for developing an operational guidance on statebuilding in FCS. World Bank. Unpublished.
- UN. (2012). Peace dividends and beyond: Contributions of administrative and social services to peacebuilding. United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office.
See document online - UNDP. (2012). Governance measurements for conflict and fragility: a comparative inventory. UNDP.
See document online - Whaites, A. (2008). States in development: understanding state-building (DFID Working Paper). London: DFID.
See document online - Yanguas, P., & Hulme, D. (2014). Can aid bureaucracies think politically? The administrative challenges of political economy analysis (PEA) in DFID and the World Bank (ESID Working Paper No. 33). Effective States and Inclusive Development Research Centre, University of Manchester.
See document online
