Beyond Local Ownership in the Architecture of International Peacebuilding

Bibliographic Data

ID12891990
AuthorsOliver Richmond (0000-0001-8938-2209, University of Manchester, corresponding author)
Year2012
Volume11
Issue4
Pages354-375
Publication date2012-10-03
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueEthnopolitics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1744-9057 • E-ISSN: 1744-9065
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/17449057.2012.697650
OpenAlexW1988250717
LanguageEN
Citations received57
References cited12

‘Local ownership' and ‘participation’ have become buzzwords for international intervention, whether military, humanitarian or developmental, by the UN, World Bank, agencies or non-governmental organizations. This has been partly to avoid accusations of intrusion and to enhance its legitimacy. Yet, such strategies have often not promoted local ownership in any meaningful way. Rather, they have denied it, confused which (local), and obscured the wider range of meanings of the concept. Internationals claim that they are referring to ‘national’ rather than local ownership because their focus is on a viable state that should become a member of the international community while also providing rights to its citizens. Despite good intentions such understandings of ownership do little to enhance a contextual social contract even if they do create relationships of conditionality between national elites and international donors, though they may indirectly enable the voices of a range of local actors, as this article outlines

Conditionality · International community · Intervention (counseling · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Peacebuilding · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Sociology · State (computer science · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Development and Aid · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub