This article explores Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) as an operational tool to promote a sustainable future for human security. Both scientific studies and policy documents were analysed to identify theoretical and practical challenges of human security from a PCSD perspective. Comparing those findings with information from expert interviews and literature on PCSD, I argue that the added value of the concept consists in its ability to deal with contradictory political interests at different stages of political decision making. The PCSD concept allows addressing synergies and nonintended effects of policies, which is particularly important in the sensitive context of violence and political transformation. Based on the analysis, my paper develops a new framework for analysing interlinked security and development challenges in fragile regions to overcome persistent shortcomings of both the human security and the PCSD concept.
AcharyaA. (2017). Human security. In BaylisJ.SmithS.OwensP. (Eds.), The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations (p. 7). Oxford University Press.
2.
AmerR.SwainA.ÖjendalJ. (2012). Researching the security-development nexus through a multi-disciplinary approach. In AmerR.SwainA.ÖjendalJ. (Eds.), The security-development nexus: Peace, conflict and development (pp. 1–12). Anthem Press.
3.
AmerR.SwainA.ÖjendalJ. (2013). The security-development nexus: Peace, conflict and development. Anthem Press.
4.
AshoffG. (2010). Policy Coherence: An additional requirement and essential task of effective development policy. In FaustJ.NeubertS. (Eds.), Wirksamere Entwicklungspolitik: Befunde, Reformen, Instrumente (pp. 346–377). Nomos.
5.
BalzacqT. (2010). Understanding securitisation theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. Routledge.
BelowA.BelzileA.-S. (2013). Comparing whole of government approaches to fragile states [BIGS Policy Paper No. 3]. BIGS.
8.
BrooksJ. (2014). Policy coherence and food security: The effects of OECD countries’ agricultural policies. Food Policy, 44, 88–94.
9.
BrückT. (2001). Coping with peace: Post-war household strategies in Northern Mozambique [Doctoral thesis]. University of Oxford.
10.
BuzanB.WæverO.de WildeJ. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
11.
CarboneM. (2008). Mission impossible: The European Union and policy coherence for development. Journal of European Integration, 30(3), 323–342.
12.
CarboneM.KeijzerN. (2016). The European Union and policy coherence for development: Reforms, results, resistance. European Journal of Development Research, 28(1), 30–43.
13.
ChandlerD. (2012). Resilience and human security: The Post-interventionist paradigm. Security Dialogue, 43(3), 213–229.
14.
ChandlerD. (2007). The security-development nexus and the rise of anti-foreign policy. Journal of International Relations & Development, 10, 362–386.
15.
ChandlerD. (2008). Review essay: Human security: The Dog that didn’t barkSecurity Dialogue39(August) 427–438
16.
ChinkinC.KaldorM. (2017). International law and new wars. Cambridge University Press.
17.
CorryO. (2011). Securitisation and ‘Riskification’: Second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40, 235–258.
18.
CulpeperR. (2004). Human security, sustainable and equitable development: Foundations for Canada’s international policy. University of Miami, North/South Center Press.
19.
DuffieldM. (2007). Development, security and unending war governing the world of peoples. Polity Press.
European Commission. (2013). EU 2013 Report on policy coherence for development. Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2013) 456 final. PCD Report. Brussels.
European Commission. (2015, July13). EU Report on policy coherence for development including member states replies. International Cooperation and Development, European Commission.
25.
European Commission. (2018, November16). Member states’ replies to 2019 EU report on PCD. International Cooperation and Development, European Commission.
26.
European Commission. (2019). 2019 EU report on policy coherence for development. Brussels.
European Union. (2017). New European consensus on development: Our world, our dignity, our future. Luxembourg. doi:10.2841/741554.
29.
ForsterJ.StokkeO. (Eds.). (1999). Policy coherence in development co-operation (EADI Book Series 22). Routledge.
30.
FurnessM. (2016). Policy coherence for development and the security-development nexus in EU external relations, briefing by Mark Furness. European Commission.
31.
GasperD. (2005). Securing humanity: Situating ‘human security’ as concept and discourse. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 221–245.
32.
GasperD. (2010). The idea of human security. In O’BrienK.ClairA. L. St.KristoffersenB. (Eds.), Climate change, ethics and human security (pp. 23–46). Cambridge University Press.
33.
GervaisM. (2004). Human security and reconstruction efforts in Rwanda: Impact on the lives of women. Development in Practice, 13(5), 542–550.
34.
GrabelI. (2007). Policy coherence or conformance? The New world bank—international monetary fund—world trade organization rhetoric on trade and investment in developing countries. Review of Radical Political Economics, 39(3), 335–341.
35.
GrimmS.Lemay-HebertN.NayO. (2015). The political invention of fragile states: The power of ideas. Routledge.
36.
HoebinkP. (2004). Evaluating Maastricht’s Triple C: The ‘C’ of coherence. In HoebinkP. (Ed.), The Treaty of Maastricht and Europe s development co-operation (pp. 183–218). Aksant Academic Publishers.
HydénG. (1999). The Shifting grounds of policy coherence in development co-operation. In ForsterJ.StokkeO. (Eds.), EADI Book Series 22: Policy coherence in development co-operation (pp. 58–77). Routledge.
39.
IhneH.WilhelmJ. (2006). The foundations of Development Policy (Eds.), In: Introduction to Development Policy. (pp. 1–40). LIT Verlag Münster.
40.
KaldorM. (2007). Human security. Polity.
41.
KaldorM.MartinM.SelchowS. (2007). Human security: A new strategic narrative for Europe. International Affairs, 83(2), 273–288.
42.
KeijzerN.OppewalJ. (2012). Learn to walk before you run? A review of methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation [Discussion Paper 132]. ECDPM.
43.
KevenhörsterP. (2006). Durch Migration zur Entwicklung? Die Kohärenz von Entwicklungs- und Migrationspolitik im internationalen Vergleich. In BaringhorstS.HollifieldJ. F.HungerU. (Eds.), Development through migration? The coherence of development and migration policy in international comparison, In: The Challenge of Migration - Comparative Political Science Perspectives (pp. 375–395). Literatur Verlag.
44.
KlingbielS.MahnT.NegreM. (Eds.). (2016). The fragmentation of aid: Concepts, measurements and implications for development cooperation. Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
KnightW. A.EgertonF. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of the responsibility to protect. Routledge.
46.
LavenexS.KunzR. (2008). The migration–development nexus in EU external relations. Journal of European Integration, 30(3), 439–457.
47.
MackieJ.RoncerayM.SpieringsE. (2017). Policy coherence and the 2030 Agenda: Building on the PCD experience [Discussion Paper 210]. ECDPM.
48.
MendozaR. (2007). What one hand gives, the other takes: Industrial countries’ policy coherence for development. Challenge, 50, 28–56.
NaikA.KoehlerJ.LaczkoF. (2008). Migration and development: Achieving policy coherence. International Organization for Migration.
51.
NayO. (2014). International organisations and the production of hegemonic knowledge: How the World Bank and the OECD helped invent the Fragile State concept. Third World Quarterly, 35(2), 210–231.
52.
NielsenR. A.FindleyM. G.DavisZ. S.CandlandT.NielsonD. L. (2011). Foreign aid shocks as a cause of violent armed conflict. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 219–232.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development & Worldbank. (Ed.). (2006). Integrating human rights into development (2nd ed.). OECD Publishing.
59.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/DAC. (2012). Think global, act global: Confronting global factors that influence conflict and fragility. OECD Publishing.
60.
PattisonJ. (2010). Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect: Who should intervene?Oxford University Press.
61.
PicciottoR. (2005). The evaluation of policy coherence for development. Evaluation, 11(3), 311–330.
62.
PorterD.IsserD.BergL.-A. (2013). The justice-security-development nexus: Theory and practice in fragile and conflict-affected states. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 5(2), 310–328.
StewartP.BrownK. (2007). Greater than the sum of its parts? Assessing “whole of government” approaches to fragile states. International Peace Academy.
69.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2013). Armaments, disarmament and international security SIPRI yearbook 2013. Oxford University Press.
70.
TadjbakhshS.ChenoyA. (2007). Human security: Concepts and implications. Routledge.
71.
ThedeN. (2013). Policy coherence for development and securitisation: Competing paradigms or stabilising North–South hierarchies?Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 784–799.
72.
TwomeyP. (2007). Human rights-based approaches to development: Towards accountability. In BaderinM.McCorquodaleR. (Eds.), Economic, social, and cultural rights in action pp. (45–70). Oxford University Press.
73.
UK Department for International Development. (2010). Building peaceful states and societies. A DFID Practice Paper. UKAid.
74.
United Nations Development Programme. (2017). 2016 Human development report—human development for everyone. United Nations Publication.
75.
WeissS.SpangerH.-J.van MeursW. P. (2009). Diplomacy, development and defense: A paradigm for policy coherence: A comparative analysis of international strategies. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
76.
WoodwardS. L. (2017). The ideology of failed states. Cambridge University Press.
77.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future [UN Document A/42/427]. Oxford University Press.
78.
WunderlichD. (2013). Towards coherence of EU external migration policy? Implementing a complex policy. International Migration, 51(6), 26–40.
79.
ZeigermannU. (2014). Responsible business conduct: From good intentions to sustainable development [Coherence for Development Report 3]. OECD.
