Peacekeeping for profit? The scope and limits of 'mercenary' UN peacekeeping

Bibliographic Data

ID3917360
AuthorsKatharina P Coleman (0000-0003-4155-5128, University of British Columbia), Benjamin Nyblade (School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, corresponding author)
Year2018
Volume55
Issue6
Pages726-741
Publication date2018-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Peace Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-3433 • E-ISSN: 1460-3578
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0022343318775784
OpenAlexW2810156773
LanguageEN
Citations received30
References cited20

Developing states furnish the vast majority of UN peacekeeping troops, a fact academics and policymakers often attribute (at least partly) to developing states' supposed ability to derive a profit from UN peacekeeping reimbursements. In this article, we argue that this 'peacekeeping for profit' narrative has been vastly overstated. The conditions for significantly profiting from UN peacekeeping are in fact highly restrictive, even for developing states. We begin by highlighting two potent reasons for re-examining the peacekeeping for profit narrative: developing states emerged as the UN's principal troop contributors in a period of stagnant reimbursement rates when UN peacekeeping was becoming less financially attractive; and the quantitative evidence scholars have presented as supporting the peacekeeping for profit narrative is flawed. We then identify the scope conditions within which peacekeeping for profit provides a plausible explanation for a developing state's UN troop contributions. First, the deployment and its attendant reimbursements must be significant not only in absolute and per-soldier terms but also in relation to the state's total armed forces and military expenditure. Second, the state must have an exceptional ability, compared with other troop contributors, to benefit from UN reimbursements. The scope for generalized profit-making from either equipment or personnel contributions is limited by intense political pressure against reimbursement rate increases. Individual states can nevertheless make a profit if they (1) invest in inexpensive and old but functional equipment, especially if deployed with usage restrictions, and/or (2) limit the deployment allowances (rather than salaries) they pay their peacekeepers. We establish that only a limited subset of developing states meets the plausibility conditions for the peacekeeping for profit narrative - and many top UN troop contributors do not

Business · Economics · For profit · Health care · Microeconomics · Narrative · Narrative review · Peacekeeping · Political science · Politics · Profit (economics) · Reimbursement · Scope (computer science) · Software deployment · Computer Science · Defense, Military, and Policy Studies · Finance · International Development and Aid · Law · Medicine · Peacebuilding and International Security · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub