Journal of Peacebuilding & Development

This article provides a brief introduction to selected policy and cooperation frameworks that were adopted by the international community to bring a more strategic and coherent approach to peacebuilding in the last decade.¹ It begins by highlighting some core general characteristics of the various tools (e.g. integrated peacebuilding strategies, compacts, country assistance frameworks and standards implementation plans) in terms of their institutional origins, objectives, scope and thematic focus. The article then describes how these instruments differ in terms of policy emphasis and how they are applied in practice. Based on the shared yet sometimes divergent goals, design elements and practice with these different strategic policy frameworks, some general lessons are extracted about their varied utility in terms of contributing to the advancement of strategic approaches to peacebuilding.

This article examines the use of strategic frameworks in four countries emerging from conflict with a view to understanding the extent to which they have served to contribute to more effective peacebuilding outcomes. Two of the cases examined (Sierra Leone and Burundi) are currently on the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission's agenda, and two (Liberia and Afghanistan) are not, although they both host a United Nations peace mission. Core elements suggested as necessary for strategic frameworks to contribute to better peacebuilding include giving attention to: 1) addressing sources of conflict; 2) strengthening national capacities; 3) promoting coherence, coordination and integration among various actors; and 3) establishing mutual accountability of national and international actors. Comparative findings illustrate the need for more sustained attention to these issues within strategic frameworks in the collective search for sustained peace in conflict-affected countries.

This article assesses the seven-year application of the poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) in post-conflict Sierra Leone. While recognising its modest achievements, the article argues that the PRSP has had limited impact in Sierra Leone for three main reasons: 1) it has been increasingly argued that it is a tool for peacebuilding while the participatory poverty assessment that informed the priority setting leaned heavily towards poverty and were weak on conflict and peace analysis; 2) participation – the core theory of change for PRSPs – was not problematised within the Sierra Leone context; and 3) PRSP implementation was based on false assumptions about the required capacity for its implementation. These findings have direct implications for Sierra Leone's new PRSP, the ‘Agenda for Change’, as well as the role of PRSPs in other post-conflict contexts. The article calls on PRSP architects to make capacity development and participation part of the central objectives to ensure sustainable peacebuilding and pro-poor development in Sierra Leone.

A challenge in contemporary efforts to prevent conflict and build peace is how to fulfil universalist aspirations – for security, stability and development – in culturally diverse communities. In considering this challenge, this article proposes, as others have recognised, that peacebuilding is ultimately manifest as set of situated practices in a particular socio-cultural context. Because the form and meaning of social practices vary across (and in turn define) socio-cultural contexts, it follows that situated action in support of peacebuilding requires situated theories about what practices will work if they are to have the desired result. If these two propositions are accepted, it suggests a particular role for both research and theory in the design of peacebuilding activities. In thinking of the nexus between theory and action this way, this article revisits an agenda for the study of peace and security that was formulated in the 1950s and 1960s. The agenda was overshadowed by trends in political science and peace research, leaving it all but forgotten in contemporary discussions. It placed the study of meaning – and the comparative study of cultural meanings – at the forefront of policy research for the benefit of decision-making and design. This article argues that this ‘lost agenda’ should be reinvigorated as a guide for modern peacebuilding efforts and that new tools from the academy – particularly those in the field of communication – can be applied to the challenges of building peace and security where possible.