There is a growing scholarly focus on the accountability of Northern donors in their work in recipient countries. Yet scholarly work on donor accountability has given limited attention to the complex challenges of accountability when donors are engaged in supporting peace processes. Further, literature on donor accountability often focuses on examination of accountability mechanisms and relationships, whilst the way accountability is understood amongst practitioners has received less attention. Using the example of donor support to peace processes in Myanmar, this article examines the way that accountability is narrated within donor agencies and amongst international and local networks of peace activists and analysts. When attached to simplified stories, accountability takes a variety of meanings and serves to position donors in different ways. Examination of these narratives, and their divergence, reveals that policy negotiation about accountability mechanisms is influenced by political assumptions about the legitimacy of donor agency engagement in peace processes.
BoswellJ. (2013). Why and how narrative matters in deliberative systems. Political Studies, 61, 620–636.
2.
BrownL. D.JagadanandaL. (2007). Civil society legitimacy and accountability: Issues and challenges(Working Paper No. 32). Cambridge, MA: The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations and The John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University.
3.
BrunerJ. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BuffardiA. L. (2017). Mediating multiple accountabilities: Variation in formal and perceived accountability among international and domestic actors in the health sector in Peru. Third World Quarterly, 38, 134–148.
5.
CastillejoC. (2014, March). Promoting inclusion in political settlements: A priority for international actors(NOREF Report). Oslo: Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre.
6.
CohenS. B. (2014). The challenging dynamics of global North-South peacebuilding partnerships: Practitioner stories from the field. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 9, 65–81.
DixonR.McGregorA. (2011). Grassroots development and upwards accountabilities: Tensions in the Reconstruction of Aceh’s fishing industry. Development and Change, 42, 1349–1377.
9.
DonaisT.McCandlessE. (2017). International peace building and the emerging inclusivity norm. Third World Quarterly, 38, 291–310.
10.
DubnickM. (2014). Accountability as a cultural keyword. In BovensM.GoodinR. E.SchillemansT. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook public accountability (pp. 23–28). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
11.
EbrahimA. (2003). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14, 191–212.
12.
EdwardsM.HulmeD. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24, 961–973.
13.
EybenR. (2008). Power, mutual accountability and responsibility in the practice of international aid: A relational approach (IDS Working Paper No. 305). Brighton, England: Institute of Development Studies.
14.
FuertesA. (2016). Karen refugees describe peace within the context of displacement. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33, 297–312.
15.
GibsonC. C. (2005). The Samaritan’s dilemma: The political economy of development aid. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press on Demand.
16.
GrovesL.HintonR. (Eds.). (2013). Inclusive aid: Changing power and relationships in international development. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
KyedH. M.GraversM. (2014). Non-state armed groups in the Myanmar peace process: What are the future options? (Working Paper No. 7). Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for International Studies.
McCandlessE.TschirgiN. (2010). Strategic frameworks that embrace mutual accountability for peacebuilding: Emerging lessons in PBC and non-PBC countries. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 5, 20−46.
Myanmar Peace Support Initiative. (2014). Lessons learned from MPSI’s work supporting the peace process in Myanmar March 2012 to March 2014. Yangon, Myanmar: Author.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008). Paris declaration on aid effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Retrieved October 15, 2017, fromhttp://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
31.
PironL. H. (2005). Human rights and poverty reduction: The role of human rights in promoting donor accountability. London, England: Overseas Development Institute.
32.
ReisenH. (2010). The multilateral donor non-system: towards accountability and efficient role assignment. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 4, 5.
33.
SchedlerA.DiamondL.PlattnerM. F. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
34.
SouthA. (2012). Prospects for peace in Myanmar: Opportunities and threats. Oslo, Norway: Peace Research Institute.
