Universität Bonn
 

Institutionen-Mapping und Bibliographie zu
„Staatsversagen und Good Governance“

Institutional Mapping and Bibliography
on State Failure and Good Governance


6. Internationale Forschungsinstitute

6.1. OECD-Welt

6.1.1. Brookings Institution, Washington

6.1.2. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington

6.1.3. Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS), Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich

6.1.4. Center for Defense Information (CDI), Washington

6.1.5. Center for Global Development (CDG), Washington

6.1.6. Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM), University of Maryland

6.1.7. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington

6.1.8. Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), Bergen, Norway

6.1.9. Conflict Research Unit (CRU), Clingendael - Netherlands Institute of International Relations, The Hague

6.1.10. Development Research Centre (DRC), Development Studies Institute (DESTIN), London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)

6.1.11. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge

6.1.12. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), London

6.1.13. Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa

6.1.14. Stanford Institute for International Studies (SIIS), Stanford University

6.1.15. Stanhope Centre

6.1.16. University of Toronto

6.1.17. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Genf

6.1.18. United Nations University (UNU), Tokyo

6.1.19. Watson Institute, Providence

6.1.20. World Governance Assessment

6.1.21. World Peace Foundation, Cambridge

6.2. Partnerländer

6.2.1. Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), London/ Lagos/ Abuja

6.2.2. Centre for Liberal Strategies (CLS), Sofia

6.2.3. Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of Political Studies and International Relations - IEPRI)

6.2.4. Universidad de los Andes

6.2.5. Universidad del Rosario

6.2.6. Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research (WISER)

6.2.7. Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)



Zurück zum Inhaltsverzeichnis / Return to Index Page




6.1. OECD-Welt

6.1.1. U.S. State Department, Washington

Projekt: Governance Studies

Ansprechpartner:

Susan Rice, Donald Rothchild

Publikationen:

Rice, Susan, 2003: The New National Security Strategy: Focus on Failed States. POLICY BRIEF 116, February 2003. Brookings Institution.
Rice, Susan, 2002: U.S. Foreign Assistance and Failed States. Working Paper, 25.11.2002. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Hartzell, Caroline/Matthew Hoddie/Donald Rothchild, 2001: Stabilizing the Peace After Civil War: An Investigation of Some Key Variables, in: International Organization, 55 (Winter 2001) 1, S. 183-208.

Links:

http://www.brook.edu/gs/gs_hp.htm




6.1.2. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington

Democracy and Rule of Law Project

Kurzbeschreibung:

Democracy promotion has become a defining theme of U.S. foreign policy over the past two decades. Although much of the post-1989 euphoria about the global democratic trend has faded, the questions of when the United States should promote democracy abroad, how it should do so, and what effects the United States can realistically expect to have on the democratic fortunes of other countries remain major areas of debate.
The Democracy and Rule of Law Project is a leading source for independent research, writing, analysis, and discussion on democracy promotion. It examines efforts by the United States and other international actors to promote democracy abroad, distilling knowledge about what works and what does not. The project focuses on 6 areas, of which the following are of particular interest to this mapping:
1. Rule of Law: Efforts to promote the rule of law around the world are multiplying yet surprisingly little is yet known about whether these assistance programs are effective. Through commissioned research, study groups, and other activities, the project is exploring this question.
2. State Reconstruction: In an increasing number of countries, the international community is attempting to help failed states reconstruct themselves politically and economically. Project staff are examining the results of these efforts in different parts of the world and their implications for new cases, such as Afghanistan.
3. The Challenge of Semi-Authoritarianism: The project is responding to the proliferation of semi-authoritarian regimes in the world with work that seeks to determine why such regimes are increasingly common and what kinds of democracy promotion strategies work best in them.
The other three, related areas are: 4. Political Change in the Middle East, 5. Political Party Development, 6. Democracy Promotion under Bush. Quelle: Website (s.u.)
In collaboration with SWP, CEIP conducted a conference on “States at Risk — Stabilization and State-Building by External Intervention” from 20.-21.01.2004 in Washington (see below).

Ansprechpartner:

Thomas Carothers (Senior Associate and Director), Marina S. Ottaway (Senior Associate), Julia Choucair, Michele Dunne, Bassma Kodmani, M. Hadi Semati, Daniel Brumberg, Amy Hawthorne

Publikationen:

Swenson, Geoffrey/Eugene Whitlock, 2004: Conference Report. States at Risk—Stabilization and State-Building by External Intervention, Washington, D.C., 20-21.01.2004. Democracy and Rule of Law Project, Carnegie Endowment / States at Risk Project, SWP.
Ottaway, Marina, 2003: Rebuilding State Institutions in Collapsed States, in: Jennifer, Milliken (Hg.), 2003:State failure, collapse and reconstruction. Development and Change Special Issues. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carothers, Thomas, 2003: Promoting the Rule of Law abroad – The Problem of Knowledge. Democracy and Rule of Law Project 34, January 2003. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Ottaway, Marina/Anatol Lieven, 2002: Afghanistan: Zu hohe Erwartungen sind gefährlich, in: der überblick, 38 (2002) 2, S. 67-71.
Carothers, Thomas, 1999: Aiding Democracy Abroad. The Learning Curve. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Washington D.C.
Ottaway, Marina, 1997: From Political Opening to Democratisation?, in: Ottaway, Marina (Hg.), 1997:Democracy in Africa. The Hard Road Ahead. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Links:

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/drl/drl_home.asp

Kooperation mit:

SWP (3.1.16), German Marshall Fund (Konferenzfinanzierung)




6.1.3. Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS), Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich

International Conflict Research (ICR) Group

Kurzbeschreibung:

The International Conflict Research (ICR) group at the Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) conducts research on international and domestic conflict based on social-scientific theories and methodologies. The current work includes new approaches to understand the role played by macro-historical processes in the emergence of political violence such as: nationalism, democratization, state-formation, disintegration. To trace such transformations, ICR relies on computational methods, notably agent-based modeling, as well as more conventional methods, such as statistics and qualitative, historical analysis.
E.g. a GeoSim simulation has been produced that exhibits that rebellions in weak states and mountainous areas are more frequent than elsewhere. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Prof. Lars-Erik Cederman

Publikationen:

Cederman, Lars-Erik, 1997: Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop and Dissolve. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Links:

http://www.icr.ethz.ch/




6.1.4. Center for Defense Information (CDI), Washington

Projekt: Failed States Program

Kurzbeschreibung:

This page collects all the work by the CDI on the topic of failed states. The Center is mostly concerned with US foreign policy and has some articles on US relations with collapsed states, accordingly. Features links to other CDI projects of note, e.g. arms transfer or land mines. (Not updated since May 2002.) Quelle: Lambach-Website.

Ansprechpartner:

Rachel Stohl (Senior Analyst)

Publikationen:

Stohl, Rachel, 2001: The Failed and Failing and the Bush Administration: Paradoxes and Perils. Washington: Center for Defense Information (CDI), http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=529
&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated
%20deSC&programID=2&IssueID=0&Issue=&Date_From=&Date_To
=&Keywords=The%20failed%20and%20failing&ContentType=
&Author=&from_page=documents.cfm
(Zugriff am 24.08.2004).
Stohl, Rachel/Daniel Smith, 1999: Small Arms in Failed States: A Deadly Combination. Washington: Center for Defense Information (CDI), http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=537
&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated
%20deSC&programID=2&IssueID=0&Issue=&Date_From=&Date_To
=&Keywords=Small%20Arms&ContentType=&Author=&from_page
=documents.cfm
(Zugriff am 24.08.2004).

Links:

http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?ProgramID=2




6.1.5. Center for Global Development (CDG), Washington

Research Project and Commission on Weak States and National Security

Kurzbeschreibung:

Project on U.S. policy toward weak states. The project includes a volume of edited essays, expected by end 2004. The project also includes the convening of a high-level commission that will examine the topic and make recommendations to the Administration and U.S. government agencies for more effective policies to engage the poorest countries as part of American efforts in the global war on terrorism, and to reduce the short, medium, and long-term threats emanating from the developing world.
On June 8, 2004, the Commission on Weak States and US National Security released its report, On the Brink: Weak States and US National Security. On the Brink is the culmination of nine months of work by a bi-partisan panel of thirty former government officials, senior business leaders, academics, and NGO representatives, with wide-ranging expertise on the issues at the intersection of development and security. On the Brink recognizes that weak and failed states matter to US national security, American values and the prospects for global economic growth; and that a successful response to addressing the challenges of weak states combines security and development policies. Weak states are the “sleeping giant” threat to national security, receiving extremely limited attention within the highest levels of government. On the Brink outlines a framework for action – one that seeks to mobilize key actors and instruments in US foreign policy to the task of meeting the threat. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Jeremy Weinstein (Project Director and Research Fellow), Stuart E. Eizenstat (Co-Chair; Congressman), John Edward Porter (Co-Chair).

Publikationen:

Weinstein, Jeremy M./John Edward Porter/Stuart E. Eizenstat, 2004: On the Brink: Weak States and US National Security. Washington: Center on Gloabal Development (CGD), http://www.cgdev.org/docs/Full_Report.pdf (Zugriff am 26.08.2004).

Links:

http://www.cgdev.org/Research/LIPPS.cfm
http://www.cgdev.org/Research/?Page=Commission
%20on%20Weak%20States%20and%20US%20National%20Security




6.1.6. Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM), University of Maryland

Integrated Network for Societal Conflict Research (INSCR)

The program at the Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM), University of Maryland, College Park, was founded in 1998 as an organizational framework to better integrate and coordinate quantitative research initiatives investigating various aspects of complex societal conflicts and as a network platform for establishing closer contact and collaboration with similar research enterprises in other locations around the world. The INSCR program builds upon the well-established research foundations developed by Ted Robert Gurr including the Polity, Minorities at Risk, and State Failure research projects (see below).

Links:

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/index.htm


Project: State Failure Task Force
Internal Wars and Failures of Governance, 1955-2002 (Task Force on Political Instability seit 2003)

Kurzbeschreibung:

State failure is a relatively new label that encompasses a range of severe political conflicts and regime crises exemplified by events of the 1990s in Somalia, Bosnia, Liberia, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire). The website lists comparative information on cases of total and partial state failure that began between 1955 and 2002 in independent countries with populations greater than 500,000. The information was compiled as part of an unclassified study that is commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Intelligence in response to a request from senior US policy makers to design and carry out a data-driven study on the correlates of state failure since the mid-1950s using open source information. The study is being conducted by an inter-disciplinary Task Force led by academic experts and including data collection and management specialists and analytic methods professionals from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). It must be noted that, although the work of the Task Force was funded by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, none of the information contained in this website, associated data resources, or Task Force Reports is based on intelligence reporting or classified material. The information presented also does not represent the official view of the U.S. Government, the U.S. Intelligence Community, or the Central Intelligence Agency, but rather the colloborative views of the Task Force members, individual authors, and researchers themselves. The types of events included in the analyses under the general rubric of "state failure events" (i.e., the State Failure Problem Set) are revolutionary wars, ethnic wars, adverse regime changes, and genocides and politicides. The State Failure Web site includes access to all State Failure Task Forces reports, databases of all variables used in reported State Failure models, a data dictionary of variables and data sources included in the Task Force global dataset, and other supporting information. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Monty G. Marshall (Managing Director), Jack A. Goldstone, Ted Robert Gurr, Barbara Harff, Marc A. Levy, Robert H. Bates, David L. Epstein, Colin H. Kahl, Pamela T. Surko, John C. Ulfelder, Jr., and Alan N. Unger, Matthew Christenson, Geoffrey D. Dabelko, Daniel C. Esty, and Thomas M. Parris.

Publikationen:

Political Instability Task Force, 2004: Portable Data Dictionary - Political Instability Task Force Frequently Tested Variables.
Esty, D. C./J. Goldstone/T. R. Gurr/P. T. Surko/A. N. Unger, 1995: State Failure Task Force Report. Working Paper. McLean, Va.: Science Applications International Corporation.
Esty, D. C./J. A. Goldstone/T. R. Gurr/B. Harff/M. Levy, et al, 1998: State Failure Task Force Report: Phase II Findings. McLean, Va.: Science Applications International Corporation.
Goldstone, Jack A./Ted Robert Gurr et al., 2000: State Failure Task Force Report: Phase III Findings. 30.09.2000. McLean, Va.: Science Applications International Corporation.
Zudem: State Failure Problem Set, 1955-2002 (Datenbank)

Links:

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/,
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/stfail/


Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2002

Kurzbeschreibung:

The website contains information on, and access to, the most recent update of the well-known and highly respected Polity data series, originally designed by Ted Robert Gurr. Polity IV contains coded annual information on regime and authority characteristics for all independent states (with greater than 500,000 total population) in the global state system and covers the years 1800-2002. The Polity IV data is provided in three distinct formats: annual time series (Polity IV), polity-case (Polity IVd), and EUGene annual time-series (Polity IVe); the Polity data is consistent across these formats. The POlity IV Web site contains a description of the Polity IV Project and provides access to the Registration page for downloading the dataset and users' manual; these materials are provided at no cost to consumers. It also contains hyperlinks to other Web-based depositories containing earlier versions of the Polity data series (i.e., Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research--ICPSR and the University of Colorado). The Polity Web site also provides charts plotting contemporary trends in governance (global, regional, and state) and individual country reports for the year 2001, including narrative descriptions of the coded regime authority charcteristics, in order to increase the project's transparency and better inform research consumers. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Monty G. Marshall (Director), Ted Robert Gurr (Founding Director)

Publikationen:

Polity IV, 1800-2002 (Datenbank), Polity IV 2001 Country Reports

Links:

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/index.htm#polity


Individual Researcher: Nicole Ball / Security Sector Governance

Kurzbeschreibung: Nicole Ball joined CIDCM in December 2000 as Visiting Senior Research Fellow. In June 2001, Nicole Ball was also named Senior Fellow of the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC. Her main areas of work while at CIDCM will be security sector governance and assistance to conflict-affected countries. Her major project for 2001 involves collaborating with research and policy networks in West and Southern Africa to produce a security sector governance handbook for African policy makers, practitioners, and civil society. It is anticipated that this handbook will also be useful to external actors involved in strengthening security sector governance in Africa. The main partners in this project are the Centre for Democracy and Development (London and Lagos) and the Security Sector Transformation Program at the Institute for Security Studies (Pretoria). Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Publikationen:

Ball, Nicole, 2002: Security Engagement, and New Steps in Security Sector Reform. Development, Conflict and Peacebuilding: Responding to the Challenge Conference, Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues / University of British Columbia, 14.-15.02.2002. Center for International Policy / Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland.
Ball, Nicole, 2002: Wiederaufbau kriegszerrütteter Gesellschaften: Welchen Beitrag können externe Akteure leisten?, in: Debiel, Tobias (Hg.), 2002:Der zerbrechliche Frieden. Bonn, pp. 66-96.
Ball, Nicole, 2001: Transforming Security Sectors: The IMF and World Bank Approaches, in: Conflict, Security & Development, 1 (2001) 1, S. 45-66.

Links:

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/people/nball.htm




6.1.7. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington

Projekt: Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project

Kurzbeschreibung:

In the fall of 2001, in response to what was recognized as a major gap in the U.S. government's ability to effectively respond to the challenges of post-conflict reconstruction, Dr John Hamre, President of CSIS, and General Gordon Sullivan, U.S. Army (retired), established the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project - initially a collaboration between CSIS and the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA). Since then, the Project has been the leading source for authoritative recommendations and information on Post-Conflict Reconstruction. The Project continues to pursue needed reforms within the U.S. government to improve U.S. capacity to engage in post-conflict reconstruction. In 2003, Project members traveled to Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan, and Sri Lanka as the foundation for Project Reports.
The Post-Conflict Reconstruction (PCR) Project in the International Security Program is focusing its efforts on a project measuring progress in Iraq. The project relies upon the collection of data from news sources as well as polling and interviews conducted on the ground. Employing a system to track and map this information, the PCR Project aims to discern how the Iraqi people feel about the reconstruction effort in various areas, including security, governance, income and livelihoods, essential services, health and education. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Morgan Courtney (Project and CSIS Research Assistant), Rebecca A. Linder (Project and CSIS Research Assistant) Rick Barton (Project Co-Director, and CSIS Senior Advisor), Sheba Crocker (Project Co-Director, and CSIS Fellow)

Publikationen:

CSIS/AUSA, 2002: Meeting the Challenges of Governance and Participation In Post-Conflict Settings. Draft, Center for Strategic and International Studies and Association of the United States Army (AUSA).
Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction, 2003: Play To Win. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA).

Links:

http://www.csis.org/isp/pcr/

Kooperation mit:

Association of the United States Army (AUSA)




6.1.8. Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), Bergen, Norway

Projekt: Governance in Post-Conflict Situations

Kurzbeschreibung:

The UNDP Oslo Governance Centre and the Chr. Michelsen Institute have entered into a partnership to take forward key themes around the nexus between governance and poverty through an annual series of focused seminars and workshops. The 2004 seminar explored challenges and issues to be addressed in programming democratic governance initiatives in post conflict contexts. Further details: See UNDP (5.1.4).

Kooperation mit:

UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (5.1.4)


Projekt: Good Governance in Angola: Parliamentary Accountability and Control

Kurzbeschreibung:

Among Angola's current predicaments is an extreme centralisation of power. Despite the fact that the civil war has ended, executive authority remains strong. The President controls the government and the ability of the other branches of government to provide checks and balances is very limited. However, an institutionalisation of effective mechanisms of democratic checks and balances is generally considered necessary to prevent the disintegration of democratic practices, and is thus crucial to democratic consolidation.
The purpose of this project is to analyse the constitutionally defined powers of the three branches of government in Angola (the executive, legislative and judicial branches), with a particular focus on the Angolan Parliament and its accountability function.
First, we will focus on the formal (constitutional and legal) role of the Parliament. We will analyse the parliament's mandate in terms of veto powers, law making authority, budgetary control, and influence on nominations. Furthermore, we will analyse the parliament's formal powers in terms of organisation, structure, financial situation, infrastructure facilities and leadership.
Secondly, we will analyse the informal structures of power in order to uncover the factors that condition - positively and negatively - the performance of the Angolan parliament. We will analyse the parliament's capacity and autonomy, its legitimacy and latent restrictive functions, and the party system. Are the less formal institutions, like clientelism and corruption, significant factors? Does the influence of informal networks diminish as formal political institutions take hold, or do they rather increase and "recapture" the formal institutions?
Funded by NORAD, this project began in January 2003 and has a volume of NOK 905 000.
The project is one of three parts of the research portfolio of a larger project on “Good governance in Angola”. The two other parts are: a) The Role of the Courts (Elin Skaar) and b) Social responsibility and strategies for internationalisation: The Angolan Case (Arne Wiig). Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Inge Amundsen (project leader), Laurinda de Jesus Fernando Hoygaard, Cesaltina C. Basto de Abreu, Robert Sjursen, Aslak Jangård Orre

Links:

Unter: http://www.cmi.no/research/project.cfm?proid=386

Kooperation mit:

NORAD (Funding)


Projekt: Review of Afghan Development Strategy

Kurzbeschreibung:

The CMI and PRIO undertook a review of the Afghan Development Strategy as background documentation for the April 2004 Donor meeting. Start date: February 2004. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Astri Suhrke (project leader), Arne Strand

Publikationen: (verwandt:)

Suhrke, Astri Suhrke/Kristian Berg Harpviken/Are Knudsen/Arve Ofstad/Arne Strand, 2002: Peacebuilding: Lessons for Afghanistan. Report 9/2002. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Kooperation mit:

Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)


6.1.9. Conflict Research Unit (CRU), Clingendael - Netherlands Institute of International Relations, The Hague

Projekt: Democratic Transition in Post-Conflict Societies - Building Local Institutions

Kurzbeschreibung:

After having experienced violent conflict over the past decades, many countries are currently in a ‘post-conflict’ situation. Apart from a shattered socioeconomic life and an instable security situation, such countries are typically characterized by a dysfunctional judiciary and police, a non-existing, corrupt or poorly performing government and a ruined civil society and media lacking resources of all kinds. Responding to these challenges, the international community has supported a broad range of programs addressing these problems and strengthening democratic governance.
In order to analyze the role of international democracy assistance to post-conflict countries, the Conflict Research Unit (CRU) of the Clingendael Institute has initiated a collaborative research project with research institutes in Africa, South Asia and Central America. Based on a comparative analysis of eight post-conflict societies, the Democratic Transition research project will take a closer look at international donor support to local organizations in three key areas of democratization: elections, human rights and media. Case studies include Cambodia (pilot case), El Salvador, Guatemala, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Divided into three phases (pilot-phase, case study phase and a book publication phase) the project has started in April 2002 and will end mid-2004. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Mr Jeroen de Zeeuw (project coordinator), Mr Luc van de Goor (project supervisor)

Links:

http://www.clingendael.nl/cru/project/index.htm

Kooperation mit:

Department of Cultural Cooperation, Education and Research (DCO) of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Funding)




6.1.10. Development Research Centre (DRC), Development Studies Institute (DESTIN), London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)

Projekt: Crisis States Programme

Kurzbeschreibung:

The aim of the Crisis States Programme (CSP) at DESTIN's Development Research Centre is to provide new understanding of the causes of crisis and breakdown in the developing world and the processes of avoiding or overcoming them. We want to know why some political systems and communities, in what can be called the 'fragile states' found in many of the poor and middle income countries, have broken down even to the point of violent conflict while others have not. Our work asks whether processes of globalisation have precipitated or helped to avoid crisis and social breakdown. 1. We will assess how constellations of power at local, national and global levels drive processes of institutional change, collapse and reconstruction and in doing so will challenge simplistic paradigms about the beneficial effects of economic and political liberalisation. 2. We will examine the effects of international interventions promoting democratic reform, human rights and market competition on the 'conflict management capacity' and production and distributional systems of existing politics. 3. We will analyse how communities have responded to crisis, and the incentives and moral frameworks that have led either toward violent of non-violent outcomes. 4. We will examine what kinds of formal and informal institutional arrangements poor communities have constructed to deal with economic survival and local order.
The Development Research Centre at DESTIN, LSE, was established in 2001 with the support of the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UK government, initially to undertake research on 'Crisis and Breakdown in the Developing World'. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Dr. James Putzel (Director), Dr. Jonathan Curry-Machado, Wendy Foulds

Publikationen:

Srivastava, Manoj, 2004: Moving beyond "Institutions Matter": Some Reflections on how the "Rules of the Game" evolve and change. Discussion Paper 4, March 2004. Crisis States Programme, Development Research Centre, LSE.
Emerson, Natacha, 2003: Tribal traditions and crises of governance. Briefing Paper 1, March 2003. Crisis States Programme, Development Research Centre, LSE.
(u.v.m.)

Links:

http://www.crisisstates.com/

Kooperation mit:

DFID (4.2.2.), ZEF (3.1.18.), Universidad de los Andes (6.2.4.), Universidad del Rosario (6.2.4.), IEPRI (6.2.3.), Stanhope Center (6.1.15.)




6.1.11. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge

WPF (World Peace Foundation) Program on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA)

Kurzbeschreibung:

The program analyzes the causes of ethnic, religious, and other intercommunal conflict, and seeks to identify practical ways to prevent and limit such conflict. It is concerned with the vulnerability of weak states, with good governance, with methods of moderating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with peace building and peace enforcement capabilities in Africa, and with the role of truth commissions in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
Robert I. Rotberg is both the Director of the Program on Intrastate Conflict and President of the World Peace Foundation. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Robert I. Rotberg

Publikationen:

Rotberg, Robert I, 2002: Failed states in a world of terror, in: Foreign Affairs, 81 (JUL-AUG 2002) 4, S. 127-+.
Rotberg, Robert I, 2002: The New Nature of Nation-State Failure, in: The Washington Quarterly, 25 (Summer 2002) 3, S. 85-96.
Rotberg, Robert I (Hg.), 2004: When States Fail: Causes and Consequences. Princton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rotberg, Robert I. (Hg.), 2003: State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror. Cambridge, Mass./Washington D.C.: World Peace Foundation and Brookings Institution Press.

Links:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/?program=WPF

Kooperation mit:

WPF (6.1.21.)


Projekt: Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University

Kurzbeschreibung:

Joint project with UNU and the International Peace Academy (New York). Builds on the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). For details, see .

Ansprechpartner:

Michael Ignatieff (Director, Professor of the Practice of Human Rights Policy)

Kooperation mit:

IPA (7.1.7.), UNU (6.1.18.)


6.1.12. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), London

Project: Progressive Responses to 'State Failure'

Kurzbeschreibung:

This project focused on how progressives should better address the issue of 'failed and failing states' and poor performers, and the policy responses needed to promote more effective states. It was project carried out in partnership with the German think tank Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. A joint one day symposium on Effective States was held in October 2003. One key area for discussion was the differing ways in which these issues have been dealt with by the US and by Europe. The crisis over Iraq was the cause of huge international divisions. We therefore invited representatives from a number of European countries and from the US. We saw the symposium as an attempt to forge a greater degree of consensus amongst progressives about the best way to tackle state failure and weakness and promote more effective states. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

James Lorge (Research Fellow, International), David Mepham (Associate Director, Head of International Programme), Leni Wild (Team Administrator, International)

Geplante Vorhaben:

IPPR is planning to conduct a follow-up project entitled "Tackling weak and failing states and promoting more effective governance", although no information has been made public so far. Quelle: Lambach-Website.

Publikationen:

Mepham, David/Gero Maass, 2004: Promoting Effective States: A progressive policy response to failed and failing states. January 2004. ippr/FES.

Links:

http://www.ippr.org.uk/research/index.php?current=36&project=108

Kooperation mit:

FES (3.2.1.), Saferworld (7.1.10.)


Project: Africa and Governance - policy priorities for the G8

Kurzbeschreibung:

This project seeks to examine issues around state weakness and aims to help promote more effective governance in Africa. Specifically, it addresses the extent to which the policies of developed countries (particularly the G8) may be hindering rather than helping to tackle state weakness and achieve better governance and more effective states in Africa, on issues like aid, arms exports, HIV/AIDS, investment and business regulation, corruption and revenue transparency. The project will develop new policy proposals for the UK Government and the G8, measures that would enable the G8 to produce a more coherent and effective policy response to issues of state weakness, poor governance and ‘poor performance’ in Africa. The UK Presidency of the G8 and the EU in 2005 creates a particular opportunity for influencing policy thinking and outcomes. The new Commission for Africa, set by Tony Blair in February 2004, creates an additional opportunity, to mobilise extra resources and serious political commitment to address these issues. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

s.o.

Geplante Vorhaben:

A major report will be published in Spring 2005.

Links:

http://www.ippr.org.uk/research/index.php?current=36&project=238




6.1.13. Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa

Projekt: Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP)

Kurzbeschreibung:

CIFP has its origins in a prototype geopolitical database developed by the Canadian Department of National Defence in 1991. The prototype project called GEOPOL covered a wide range of political, economic, social, military, and environmental indicators through the medium of a rating system. In 1997, under the guidance of Andre Ouellete, John Patterson, Tony Kellett and Paul Sutherland, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade decided to adopt some elements of GEOPOL to meet the needs of policy makers, the academic community and the private sector. The CIFP project as it became known has since then operated under the guidance of principal investigator David Carment of Carleton University and has received funding from DFAIT, IDRC and CIDA. The project represents an on-going effort to identify and assemble statistical information conveying the key features of the political, economic, social and cultural environments of countries around the world.
The cross-national data generated through CIFP was intended to have a variety of applications in government departments, NGOs, and by users in the private sector. The data set provides at-a-glance global overviews, issue-based perspectives and country performance measures. Currently, the data set includes measures of domestic armed conflict, governance and political instability, militarization, religious and ethnic diversity, demographic stress, economic performance, human development, environmental stress, and international linkages.
The CIFP database currently includes statistical data in the above issue areas, in the form of over one hundred performance indicators for 196 countries, spanning fifteen years (1985 to 2000) for most indicators. These indicators are drawn from a variety of open sources, including the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and the Minorities at Risk and POLITY IV data sets from the University of Maryland (see ).
Currently, CIFP has begun work on a pilot project intended to establish a framework for communications, information gathering and sharing, and operational coordination between CIFP, the FEWER Secretariat, and FEWER network members in the field, and to work towards a "good practice" conflict early warning system involving the various members of the FEWER network. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

David Carment (Principal Investigator). Alexandra Mackenzie, Andrew Gedris, Angelica Ospina, Anthony Romanelli, Ashley Campbell, Careesa Gee, Caroline Delany, George Conway, Gerard Peets, Jen Helsing, John Gazo, Juliette Gundy, Khan Tran, Leah Berger, Mahi Khallaf, Matt Loken, Megan Price, Molly Johnson, Peter Pulsifer, Satender Singh, Shannon Leah Smith, Sonja Varga, Troy Joseph, Zeynep Ersahin.

Publikationen:

Carment, D., 2003: Assessing state failure: implications for theory and policy, in: Third World Quarterly, 24 (June 2003) 3, S. 407-427.
Carment, David B., 1994: The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict: Early Warning Systems, Third Party Intervention and the Spread and Management of Ethnic Conflict. Draft Paper, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.

Links:

http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/about.htm

Kooperation mit:

CIDA, Forum on Early Warning and Early Response (FEWER)




6.1.14. Stanford Institute for International Studies (SIIS), Stanford University

Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law

Kurzbeschreibung:

A decade's worth of hard experience convincingly demonstrates that without fundamental changes in the ways developing and transitioning societies are governed, the kinds of far-reaching economic reforms necessary for sustained and equitable growth and development cannot be implemented. To advance our understanding, of the relationship between positive political, economic and legal change, the work of the Center is oriented around four programmatic poles: Program on Democracy (see below), Program on Economic Performance (Eva Meyersson Milgrom, John McMillan, Romain Wacziarg, Peter B. Henry, http://cddrl.stanford.edu/research/2113/), Program on Sovereignty (see below), The Rule of Law Program (Thomas C. Heller, http://cddrl.stanford.edu/research/2114/). Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Links:

http://cddrl.stanford.edu/


Program on Sovereignty

Kurzbeschreibung:

Work on the complex and evolving nature of sovereignty has been underway at IIS since the mid-1990s. The Center will build on this foundation of knowledge by taking up the issues of intervention, or efforts by external actors to alter domestic authority structures in other states. While influencing domestic authority structures of target states has been central to statecraft for centuries, it has been all but ignored by most international relations theorists. To a large extent, this reflects the fact that all the standard theoretical perspectives on international relations have treated states as autonomous actors. This is theoretically convenient, but historically inaccurate.
What is lacking is not a systematic way of thinking about why and when states intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but a better understanding of the consequences. The Program on Sovereignty explores questions such as: Can democracy be exported? Is the rule of law transferable? How useful is military coercion, and under what conditions? Is having internal partners or allies in targeted states a prerequisite for success? When are financial instruments - positive or negative - consequential? Scholarly interest in such questions waxes and wanes. But the importance of these issues from a policy perspective is enduring.
A Conference on “Governance and Sovereignty in Failed and Failing States” was held on April 16-17, 2004 (see below). Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Stephen D. Krasner

Publikationen:

CDDRL, 2004: Report. Conference on Governance and Sovereignty in Failed and Failing States, Stanford University, 16.-17.04.2004. Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, Stanford Institute for International Studies.
Krasner, Stephen D., 2004: Governance Failures and Alternatives to Sovereignty. Working Paper 1, 2 November 2004. Stanford: Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20667/
enhanced_sov_krasner_Aug_1_04.pdf
(Zugriff am 01.12.2004).

Links:

http://cddrl.stanford.edu/research/2115/

Kooperation mit:

ATASP (3.1.1.)


Projekt: Program on Democracy

Kurzbeschreibung:

In the past three decades, the number of democracies in the world has tripled, and democracy has become the only broadly legitimate form of government. But many of the regimes that have replaced dictatorships themselves suffer from many illiberal practices, or hold multiparty elections only as a façade to mask continuing authoritarian domination.
The Program on Democracy at CDDRL examines the comparative dynamics of democratic functioning and change in the contemporary world, with a particular focus on the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the post-communist world that have experienced transitions from authoritarian rule, and with a new interest in the prospects for democratic change in the Middle East.
Among the questions the program explores are the following: 1.) How can we conceptualize and measure the quality of democracy, and how do we explain changes in the depth or quality of democracy across countries, and over time within countries? 2.) How do semi-democratic, pseudo-democratic and "hybrid" regimes differ from more established democracies? How can these states become authentic democracies? 3.) How do people in different societies around the world think about and value democracy? How do they evaluate the performance of their own governments? And how do these public attitudes, values, and evaluations affect the prospect for, and reflect the progress toward, stable, liberal democracy? 4.) How can the rights of citizens be better protected in formally democratic regimes? What institutional, social, and cultural changes can promote a stronger human rights regime? 5.) What is the relationship between natural resources, human rights, and democracy? How can countries escape the "trap" of oil wealth, which in most societies has led to massive corruption and abuse of power? 6.) What types of policies, programs, and practices have been most successful in promoting or fostering democracy and good governance? 7.) What lessons for fostering democratic political change in the Middle East can we learn from the past two decades of international democracy promotion activity? 8.)What are the specific challenges of promoting democracy in post-conflict societies? Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Larry Diamond, Gail W. Lapidus, Michael McFaul, Terry L. Karl.

Publikationen:

Andreas Wimmer, Democracy and Ethno-Religious Conflict in Iraq (2003)
Michael McFaul, Gail Lapidus, Larry Diamond, Workshop on Regime Transitions from Communist Rule in Comparative Perspective (2003)

Links:

http://democracy.stanford.edu/




6.1.15. Stanhope Centre

Projekt: Crisis, Stability, State Failure and the Role of the Media

Kurzbeschreibung:

The Center has been working closely with the Crisis States Programme of the Development Studies Institute at LSE. The Crisis States Programme was started to study why some political systems and communities, in what can be called the “fragile states” have broken down even to the point of violent conflict while others have not.
The partnership between the CSP and the Stanhope Centre has been created to study how media structures, media law and policies, and media content, integral to the development of civil society, are significant factors in the analysis of state stability, democratisation or "failure." In addition to this coordinated research project, the Stanhope Centre has been working with DESTIN graduate students interested in the study of media and crisis, to develop their thesis topics. The Stanhope Centre has become a valuable resource for student guidance and research development. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Monroe Price (Director), Gail Saliterman (Managing Director)

Links:

http://www.stanhopecentre.org/crisis.shtml

Kooperation mit:

DRC Crisis States Programme (6.1.10.)




6.1.16. University of Toronto

Munk Centre for International Relations

Kurzbeschreibung:

A workshop on "’States within states’: Incipient Political Entities in the Post-Cold War Era”, was held in October 2001 and covered case studies on Libanon, Savimbiland, Colombia, Eritrea, Sudan, Sierra Leone und Iraqi Kurdistan. The website provides an executive summary and the papers presented by William Reno, Hussein M. Adam and other noted academics. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Geplante Vorhaben:

In 2004, a book of the same title, edited by Paul Kingston and Ian Spears is due to be published by Palgrave.

Links:

http://ccasls.concordia.ca/contents/munk_center_report.htm


6.1.17. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Genf

Program: Democracy, Governance and Human Rights

Kurzbeschreibung:

The global debate on democratization and human rights can be sharpened by paying greater attention to specific problems of political and institutional reform at the local, national and international levels. This programme provides an opportunity to learn from recent experiences in countries, beset by economic crisis, where efforts are being made to create an enabling environment for democratic governance.
The promotion of democracy and respect for human rights is a central aspect of development. It is also a very complex undertaking. Thus despite the growing strength of the human rights movement, there is still a wide gulf between the articulation of global principles and their application in the majority of national settings. The same can be said of democratization. In fact, a large number of countries attempting to move toward democracy are suffering serious crises of state capacity and governance. And without a stable and efficient public sector that enjoys the confidence of the population, it is virtually impossible to uphold the basic rules of political competition on which democracy depends. This UNRISD programme explores some of the political and institutional factors affecting the creation of an enabling environment for democracy and human rights in different country settings. The international context is important in this regard, because strong pressures for reform are often exercised in a piecemeal fashion by global actors without adequate appreciation of inconsistencies in approach or the unintended consequences of their policy advice. Case studies highlight areas in which new approaches are required.
See below for a selection of research projects under way in this Programme Area. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Thandika Mkandawire (Director)

Links:

http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BB128/
(httpProgrammeAreasForResearchHome)/
7E49CBA637292F6E80256B48003D1C81?OpenDocument


Projekt: Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance of the Public Sector

Kurzbeschreibung:

This project examines the complex ways ethnic cleavages and inequalities affect social cohesion or consensus in the public sector under conditions of democratization. It challenges the undifferentiated treatment of ethnicity in development studies, in which scholars tend to see ethnicity as pathological regardless of the way it is configured in a country's social structure. This project thus takes up in detail the second type of public sector reform initiative outlined in the project below. Project running from 2002 to 2005. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Publikationen:

UNRISD, 2003: Ethnic Structure, Inequality and Governance of the Public Sector. Research Proposal to be conducted under the UNRISD project on Public Sector Reform and Crisis States, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.

Links:

http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/projects.nsf/
(httpProjectsForProgrammeArea-en)/
913C94EA1C6A110BC1256C1D00383EEF?OpenDocument


Projekt: Public Sector Reform and Crisis-Ridden States

Kurzbeschreibung:

The reform of economic systems in developing countries during the 1980s focused largely on increasing the role of the market and improving the environment in which it operates. For some years, there was a preoccupation with the private sector, such that reformers almost seemed to forget the potential role of the public sector in promoting development. In recent years, there have been widespread attempts both to redefine the role of the public sector in developing countries and to improve its performance. An increasingly important component of these reforms is the introduction of policies to decentralize the functions of government. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Links:

http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/
(httpPapersForProgrammeArea)/
CB00CBC1DB0E8E1E80256B5E003BFC1C?OpenDocument




6.1.18. United Nations University (UNU), Tokyo

Projekt: Making States Work: State Failure and the Crisis of Governance (under the Peace and Governance Program)

Kurzbeschreibung:

This joint project of UNU, the International Peace Academy (New York) and Harvard University's Carr Center (Cambridge) builds on the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect, which focuses on the roles and responsibilities of states vis-a-vis their own populations and the international community. Central to the project is the question of how political power defined through territorial boundaries is changing and what this means for the international security system. The interdisciplinary project aims at advancing research and policy debate on the changing nature of states.
The main product from this project will be an edited volume, published through the United Nations University Press. The book will focus on addressing situations where the weakness of state institutions become a matter of international concern. This encompasses a range of crises, from states in which basic public services are neglected to the total collapse of governance. What will distinguish the book from the many other accounts of state failure is firstly its focus on constructive engagement, rather than an autopsy of failure. It raises in turn questions of the nature of the state, the forms of strategies by internal and external actors that have worked (and those that have not worked). Secondly, the volume will provide a close examination of the role of power and how to encourage global actors, especially the United States, in such a way that they are constructively engaged in solving these problems.
In preparation of the volume, UNU, IPA and the Carr Center jointly organized two authors' workshops. The first was held on the weekend of November 22-24, 2002, at the Pocantico Conference Center of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in Tarrytown, New York. A second authors meeting will take place on May 16-18, 2003 and will be held at UNU in Tokyo. The volume is likely to be published by early 2004.
A third meeting, involving some authors and a group of distinguished experts in the field will gather at Magdalen College, Oxford, in September 2003 to discuss dissemination and implementation strategies. Here the focus will be on the distillation of a policy brief for dissemination among the UN community in New York in late 2003.
The project is generously funded by the Government of Australia, the Government of Germany, the Government of Sweden and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The meeting at Magdalen College is generously supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Ramesh Thakur (Senior Vice Rector for Peace and Governance), Hazel Smith (Senior Academic Program Officer)

Geplante Vorhaben:

Results will be published in Thakur, Ramesh; Chesterman, Simon; Ignatieff, Michael (eds.): Making States Work: State Failure and the Crisis of Governance. UNU Press, January 2005.

Links:

http://www.unu.edu/p&g/index.htm,

http://www.unu.edu/p&g/conflict/making-states.html

Kooperation mit:

J.F. Kennedy School of Government (6.1.11.), IPA (7.1.7.)




6.1.19. Watson Institute, Providence

Projekt: Governance in War-Torn Societies

Kurzbeschreibung:

Governance in War-Torn Societies Project explores the distinct but overlapping issues raised by efforts to secure peace and promote political participation in post-conflict societies. The project examines local level perspectives on international intervention, national policies, and community-level structures. In May 2003, Governance in War-Torn Societies co-hosted with the Fletcher School and the UN Development Programme an international workshop on justice and local governance in Afghanistan and other post-conflict societies. In September 2003, the Muabet Project on Local Dimensions of Democracy-Building in Southeast Europe hosted an international workshop examining international democracy assistance in the Balkans.
In 2002, Governance in War-Torn Societies also hosted a conference at the Watson Institute entitled “Democratization after War: State-of-the-Art Thinking about Governance and Peacebuilding.” A special issue of Global Governance (9, no. 2, April–June 2003), entitled “Democratization and Peacebuilding” and coedited by Professors Charles Call and Susan Cook, grew out of papers prepared for the 2002 conference. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Charles T. Call (Principal Investigator), Eric Berman, Keith S. Brown, Jarat Chopra, Susan E. Cook, Antonio Donini, Tanja Hohe, Stephen Lubkemann, and Melissa Labonte.

Publikationen:

Call, Charles, 2003: Democratization, War and State-Building: Constructing the Rule of Law in El Salvador, in: Journal of Latin American Studies, (2003) 35.
Call, Charles/Susan E. Cook, 2003: On Democratization and Peacebuilding. Governance After War: Rethinking Democratization and Peacebuilding, in: Global Governance, 9 (Spring 2003) 2 (Special issue).

Links:

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/project_detail.cfm?ID=14

Kooperation mit:

Fletcher School, UNDP

Verwandte Projekte:

Muabet - Local Dimensions of Democracy-building in Southeast Europe (http://www.watsoninstitute.org/muabet/)


Projekt: Afghanistan Transition Project (Affiliated with Global Security Program)

Kurzbeschreibung:

After more than 20 years of unrest and the recent U.S. military action, how are the people of Afghanistan shaping their political destiny? This research initiative of the Governance in War-Torn Societies Project began to address this question two years ago with a conference at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and another at Brown University, entitled “Afghanistan’s Political Future:(Re)establishment of Governmental Structures in Afghanistan.” In the spring of 2003, the “Justice and Local Government in War-Torn Societies: Afghanistan and Beyond” workshop continued to deliberate on both the political environment and humanitarian efforts taking place in that country today. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

James Der Derian (Director: Global Security Program), Jarat Chopra (Assistant Professor/Research), Antonio Donini (Visiting Senior Fellow)

Links:

http://www.Watsoninstitute.org/project_detail.cfm?id=40

Kooperation mit:

U.S. Army War College in Carlisle


Projekt: Effective and Defective States

Kurzbeschreibung:

A working group, organized by Professor Rueschemeyer, has been exploring the role of states in social and economic development. Begun in the spring of 2001, the group’s aim has been to gain insights that would be of value to regions of the world where state functioning has been most problematic. Its work combines broad historical examinations of “state making” with cross-national statistical studies and theoretical modeling. The Group also hosts an Effective and Defective States Seminar Series. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Dietrich Rueschemeyer (Principal Investigator). Working Group: Linda J. Cook, Abbott Gleason, Patrick Heller, Watson Institute; José Itzigsohn, James Mahoney, and Louis Putterman, Brown University; Peter Uvin, Institute of Humanitarian Studies, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.

Links:

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/project_detail.cfm?id=6


6.1.20. World Governance Assessment
Kurzbeschreibung:

The quality of governance is an issue of increasing concern in countries around the world, both developed and developing. And if governance matters, so does the need for more reliable and valid data on key governance processes. The United Nations University began to address this need in a World Governance Survey (WGS), carried out in early 2001. The survey focused on three main questions: How can we best measure governance? How does governance performance differ across time and space? Which are the most critical issues of governance?
Using a comprehensive framework and questionnaire, governance assessments were undertaken in 16 developing and transitional societies, representing 51% of the world's population. A national coordinator selected a panel of experts to complete the assessment exercise in each country. The panel comprised of persons with extensive experience of the governance realm (e.g. parliamentarians, researchers, lawyers, bureaucrats, etc); around 35 people were interviewed per country. The project represents an initiative to try to generate new systematic, comprehensive assessments of governance at the national level. First, the project developed a comprehensive framework and process-oriented set of indicators for assessing governance. The framework disaggregated the governance realm into six arenas and identified indictors based on widely held "principles" of good governance: participation, fairness, decency, accountability, transparency and efficiency.
Second, the project developed and tested a new approach to collecting governance data at the national level. Respondents were asked to rank each answer on a scale from 5 to 1; the higher the score, the better. In addition, respondents were invited to provide qualitative comments; thus the approach also generated very rich qualitative data.
The World Governance Survey was directed by Julius Court (United Nations University) and Goran Hyden (University of Florida). Ken Mease (University of Florida) was Senior Advisor. The project was carried out in partnership with local institutions in assessment countries - and with generous support from UNU and UNDP. A new, larger round of country assessments is planned for 2003. The Overseas Development Institute in London and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation in Uppsala, Sweden, have jointly agreed to house the WGA. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Julius Court, Goran Hyden, Kenneth Mease, Monica Blagescu

Publikationen:

Court, Julius/Goran Hyden/Ken Mease, 2002: Governance and Performance: The Aggregate Picture. World Governance Survey Discussion Paper 3, November 2002. United Nations University, http://www.odi.org.uk/wga_governance/Docs/
WGS-discussionPaper3.pdf
(Zugriff am 19.11.2004).
Hyden, Goran/Julius Court/Ken Mease, 2003: Conclusions: Governance in 16 Developing Countries. World Governance Survey Discussion Paper 10, August 2003. London: Overseas Development Institute, (Zugriff am 19.11.2004).
Hyden, Goran/Julius Court/Kenneth Mease, 2003: Making Sense of Governance: The Need for Involving Local Stakeholders. Synthesis Report. London: Overseas Development Institute, http://www.odi.org.uk/wga_governance/Docs/
Making_sense_Goverance_stakeholders.pdf

(Zugriff am 19.11.2004).

Links:

http://www.unu.edu/p&g/wga/index.html,
http://www.odi.org.uk/wga_governance/

Kooperation mit:

UNU (6.1.18.), Overseas Development Institute (London), Dag Hammarskjold Foundation (Uppsala)




6.1.21. World Peace Foundation, Cambridge

Projekt: Reinvigorating Failed States

Kurzbeschreibung:

Dieses Projekt wird in Kooperation mit der Harvard University im “Program on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution” des Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, durchgeführt. Details sind daher Abschnitt 6.1.11. zu entnehmen.

Ansprechpartner:

Robert I. Rotberg

Links:

http://www.worldpeacefoundation.org/collapsed.html

Kooperation mit:

BCSIA (6.1.11.)


Projekt: Measuring Governance

Kurzbeschreibung:

The practice of good governance distinguishes successful democratic nations from those many states which do little for their people. Governance is the delivery of a number of critical public goods to citizens: security, rule of law, political freedoms, an enabling framework for economic performance, education, health, and so on. Where a regime fails to perform—fails to provide reasonable quantities and qualities of essential public goods—it is governing poorly. But can the nations of the world, particularly the nations of the developing world, be rated according to how well they govern? Is it desirable, and possible, to develop a set of rankings of countries with the best governed at the top and least well governed at the bottom? Could such a ranking system, analogous to that developed by Transparency International for corruption, encourage countries to attempt to govern themselves more effectively?
Ranking nation-states according to how well they govern is a goal of the Foundation’s continuing endeavors on this subject. One part of that work at the initial meeting, and in 2004, will focus on the extent to which non-subjective or only partially subjective measures can be created to measure governance. Objective measures will reduce the carping from target governments; measuring devices that rely on perceptions, or subjectivity, are always open to charges of bias. The below-mentioned report by Dr. Besançon examines the nature of the governance problem and the extent to which the salient questions have been answered. She reports on the WPF-organized meeting at the Kennedy School of Government that discussed these and other critical governance issues. Her detailed analysis prepares policy makers to re-examine the criteria being readied for the Millennium Challenge Account, and those being used formally or informally by several national aid agencies. It also prepares policy makers to decide on the feasibility of creating a robust method of comparing how one government performs against another. Dr. Besançon also reviews the fifty most prominent data sets already employed to answer parts or nearly all of the relevant questions. The appendix to her report contains an appraisal of each of those data sets. It is intended to spur further research and discussion on how best to measure governance in the modern world. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Marie Besançon (WPF Fellow)

Publikationen:

Besançon, Marie, 2003: Good Governance Rankings: The Art of Measurement. WFP Report 36. Cambridge, Massachusetts: World Peace Foundation, WPF Program on Intra-state Conflict and Conflict Resolution / John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Links:

http://www.worldpeacefoundation.org/governance.html

Kooperation mit:

Kennedy School of Government (6.1.11.)




6.2. Partnerländer

6.2.1. Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), London/Lagos/Abuja

Governance, Security & Development Programme

Kurzbeschreibung:

The Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that focuses on questions of democratic development and peace-building in West Africa. The primary goal of the Governance, Security & Development component of CDD’s work is to coordinate a research, training and advocacy programme in governance, regional security, conflict prevention and peacebuilding as a means of enhancing human security and human development. Relevant projects include:
a) Promoting Constitutionalism in Africa: Our initial work in this area started with the constitution-making process in Nigeria, with a conference in 1999. As a direct outcome of this initiative, The Citizen’s Forum for Constitutional Reform (CFCR), a coalition of civil society institutions, emerged, with its secretariat at CDD. CFCR is leading a successful campaign for the reform of the 1999 constitution. From this success, CDD’s work on constitutionalism has grown tremendously in Africa, with its work on the Zimbabwe Constitutional Referendum as the most cited example. The fact that no fewer than twenty countries are currently engaged in constitutional reform initiatives makes CDD’s work all the more relevant. To support to the range of countries and civil society institutions involved in constitutional reform and ground these national initiatives within a regional framework, CDD organised a highly successful consultative conference on ‘The Role of Regional Institutions in Constitutional Development’ in 2001.
b) Promoting Dialogue as a means of conflict resolution, and Building the Capacity of Security Actors, Oversight Bodies & Civil Society: Since inception, CDD has gained prominence for its promotion of dialogue amongst stakeholders in countries in conflict. Apart from organising a series of brainstorming sessions on the way forward in countries in conflict or emerging from conflict, in Nigeria, Liberia and Sierra Leone, it also played the role of mediator between the government of Sierra Leone and the rebel leadership in process which led to the Lomé Peace Agreement. CDD played a significant role in facilitating the presence of key civil society leaders and players, and so ensured crucial consultation of non-political actors in the negotiations. The task of multilateral diplomacy is an area that CDD is determined to promote and utilise. CDD has extended this promotion of dialogue among critical stakeholders in the security sector, through a network of African researchers and civil society organisations. The network consists of the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Nigeria and UK; African Security Dialogue and Research (ASDR) Ghana; and the Southern Africa Defence & Security Network (SADSEM), South Africa. The network collaborates on key issues in the security sector, such as professionalism, transparency, accountability and confidence-building, and has sought to combine expert analysis of security issues with dialogue, policy development and capacity-building across the sector. In addition, members of the network have played a significant role in influencing many of the emerging international initiatives in security sector reform.
c) Governance in the Security Sector Handbook: Spearheaded by CDD, in collaboration with the Centre for International Policy (CIP), USA and the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), South Africa, the project is producing a security sector transformation handbook as a policy guide on the processes of transformation in the African security sector, and as a training tool for individuals and policy-makers. The Handbook goes to press in March 2003.
d) Peace & Security Cluster in NEPAD: The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), launched by a number of prominent African leaders in Abuja, Nigeria, October 2001, is a wide-ranging vision for promoting better government, ending Africa’s wars and reducing poverty. Working with its partner, Safer Africa in South Africa as facilitators for the OAU and NEPAD Secretariat, CDD has been involved in helping to shape the Peace & Security section of the NEPAD strategy document, by serving as facilitators at the Seminar of the OAU Ambassadors on the Central Organ, and also by seeking to popularise the strategy document. Several advocacy initiatives for the scheme are planned to take place in the near future.Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

J. Kayode Fayemi (Director), Sonny Onyegbula (Head of research and advocacy)

Publikationen:

Centre for Democracy and Development, 2002: The Legislative & Governance Index 2001. London.

Links:

http://www.cdd.org.uk




6.2.2. Centre for Liberal Strategies (CLS), Sofia

Projekt: Developing a Long Term Strategy for Democratization in the Balkan Region

Kurzbeschreibung:

The Balkans remain a region that breeds political and economic instability. To lower the instability factor people have been trying to identify its components and causes. Different social groups have identified different instability factors. Some of the important "destabilizers", however, are rather specific. More than ten years after democracy started to replace communism, the importance of various negative indicators can be enumerated: war (ex-Yugoslavia), state failure (Albania 1997), weak states and protectorates, criminalization, protest-vote democracy and disturbingly low level of confidence in the institutions. Moreover, although there has not been any direct attack on democracy in the region, erosion of democratic mechanisms is at hand.
This project is aimed at analyzing the situation in the more unstable parts of the Balkans by using a set of research tools tailored particularly to the situation at hand. The upshot would be to rethink the paradigm in which the Balkans are thought. At present the democratization process is thought of predominantly in a "normative" way. There is, however, a need to couple it with an insiders' "pragmatic" approach, which should tell us what works on the Balkans, what has failed, where are the risks and when are there opportunities. This should enable us to look for reconciliation of the principles of self-determination and intact borders, for example; or to search for the most effective sequence for state-building, nation-building, democracy-building and market-building.
The products of the project are country reports from the partner organizations in Albania, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and FR Yugoslavia. The reports are assessing political and economic instability, and are a result from five months insiders' work. On the basis of this work new strategy for democratic assistance on the Balkans should be devised. A report "Inflexibility trap. Frustrated Societies, Weak States and Democracy " on the state of democracy in the region was prepared by Ivan Krastev. The regional report together with the country reports were presented and discussed at the International conference "Securing the Balkans: The Unfinished Agenda" held in Washington D.C on February 5, 2002. The conference was organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Dayton Project. The input will be incorporated for publication. A delegation of representatives from the think tanks participating in the project visited Washington at the beginning of February 2000. The delegation presented the reports to the State Department, the House International Relation Committee, members of the Congress, the National Security Council, the International Forum for Democratic Studies, the Senate Foreign Relation Committee, the United States Agency for Internationsl Development, the German Marshall Fund, the United States Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute. The country reports and the regional report will be printed and presented at different forums in each of the involved countries. Financing organization: National Endowment for Democracy, USA. Project duration: September 2001 - April 2002. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Ivan Krastev (Project coordinator), Anna Ganeva

Publikationen:

CLS, 2003: The Inflexibility Trap: Frustrated Societies, Weak States, and Democracy. The State of Democracy in the Southeast Europe. Sofia: Centre for Liberal Strategies,
http://www.cls-sofia.org/publications/books/kniga3.pdf (Zugriff am 22.08.2004).

Links:

http://www.cls-sofia.org


Projekt: Institutional and political problems in the countries of SEE

Kurzbeschreibung:

Post-communist societies are simply obsessed with corruption. Corruption is the major policy narrative in the time of transition. It explains why industries that were once the jewels of the communist economies have bankrupted. Corruption explains why poor are poor and why rich are rich. Blaming corruption for the post-communist citizen is the way to express his disappointment with the present political elites. Talking about corruption is the way post-communist public talks about politics, economy, past and future.
Ivan Krastev established a research group engaged in the study of the Institutional and political problems in the countries of SEE. CLS include also junior researchers in this task and cooperate with other participants in the research network. As final outcome of this project became a policy paper "Moral Economy of the Anticorruption perception in the Period of Transition". Financing organization: The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, WIIW. Project duration: January-September 2001 Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Ivan Krastev (Project coordinator)

Links:

http://www.cls-sofia.org


6.2.3. Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of Political Studies and International Relations - IEPRI)
Kurzbeschreibung:

I.E.P.R.I. at the Universidad Nacional was founded in 1986 with the aim of promoting "a sense of public consciousness around issues of peace, political democracy, and the strengthening of international links between Colombia and the rest of the world". The Universidad Nacional is a public but autonomous university. IEPRI is a research institute - although members are involved in teaching within the university - with a multidisciplinary academic staff of about 40 at any one time, made up of sociologists, political scientists, historians, anthropologists, economists, lawyers, and philosophers. There are a variety of ongoing research projects at the IEPRI which are directly relevant to the Crisis States Programme, including work on globalisation and its impacts in Latin America; democracy and violence in the Andean region; the socio-economic consequences of institutionalised crisis in Colombia; decentralisation and political violence; as well as on the nature of armed actors in the Colombian conflict.

Quelle:

http://www.crisisstates.com/Contacts/iepri.htm

Ansprechpartner:

Francisco Gutiérrez, Carlos Mario Perea

Links:

http://www.unal.edu.co/iepri/

Kooperation mit:

CSP (6.1.10.).




6.2.4. Universidad de los Andes
Kurzbeschreibung:

The Universidad de los Andes is an autonomous, secular private university. The Crisis States Programme of LSE works with two of its faculties, Economics and Social Sciences. The Economics hosts the Economic Development Research Centre (CEDE), which is conducting research on a number of issues related to the CS programme of work, including an evaluation of the operation, efficiency, and finances of the Colombian high courts; the characteristics of homicidal violence in Bogotá; economic determinants of violent crime; and the political economy of territorial expenditure.
The Social Sciences faculty also has pertinent research projects, including work on: violence and migration; Andean regional security; indigenous peoples and the Colombian conflict; power, local politics, and decentralisation; and violence and education. Quelle: http://www.crisisstates.com/Contacts/andes.htm (edited)

Ansprechpartner:

Roberto Steiner, Carlos Medina, Fabio Sanchez, Andrés Dávila (all CEDE), Alvaro Camacho (Social Sciences)

Links:

http://www.uniandes.edu.co

Kooperation mit:

CSP (6.1.10.).




6.2.5. Universidad del Rosario
Kurzbeschreibung:

The Universidad del Rosario is a private secular university. It is generally considered to be the foremost centre of legal and jurisprudencial studies in Colombia, and as such a crucial partner for the study of violence and conflict in the country. At present, the LSE’s Crisis States Programme works with the Economics and Political Science and Governance departments. The research programme at the Faculty of Economics has three principle axes of research, all of which intersect with the CS programme of research: social (economics of health, labour, and justice); institutional (economics of governance and administration); and macro-financial (banking). The Political Science and Governance department hosts the Centre for International and Political Studies, which co-ordinates a research programme which aims in particular to analyse the political economy of the Colombian conflict writ large. Quelle: http://www.crisisstates.com/Contacts/rosario.htm (edited)

Ansprechpartner:

Eduardo Barajas (Dean, Faculty of Political Science), Manuel Ramirez (Director, Economic Research Group). Luis Fajardo, Angelika Rettberg (Centro de Estudios Políticos e Internacionales, CEPI).

Links:

http://www.urosario.edu.co/

Kooperation mit:

CSP (6.1.10.).





6.2.6. Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research (WISER)

Projekt: The Limits of the State

Kurzbeschreibung:

Conventional understandings of the nature and powers of states have been called into question in relation to several critical developments of the late twentieth century, including the trans-nationalisation of economic activity, the supra-national powers of international regulatory bodies such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, and in developing countries the displacement of state power often in the midst of genocidal wars.
In South Africa, these global shifts are mediated by political projects of post-apartheid ‘transformation’, which implicate the state in various ways: in refashioning the idea and institutional matrix of the state itself, in building the nation, and in re-linking South Africa to the global economy. Each imperative entails a particular set of expectations about the appropriate powers and responsibilities of the state (associated with the often dissonant interests of different social classes and strata) which sit uncomfortably with each other. The state is simultaneously called upon to re-engineer the social order in more just and equitable ways, promote local accumulation - with particular vigour in black communities and provide a regulatory environment propitious for foreign investors wary of an overly interventionist state. This project examines the substance and effect of these contradictions of power and their implications for the limits of the state. These concerns will be framed in the light of an emerging international interest in the ethnography of state practices, their cultures of power and the historical genealogies thereof, along with questions about the spatiality of states and localities of power. This offers an opportunity to re-engage familiar concerns of political economy in the light of recent shifts in critical and cultural theory.
What are the differing imaginaries of the nation and the world which inform efforts to ‘transform’ the state in the post-apartheid era? How do these strategies of ‘transformation’ compare with struggles to democratise in other developing countries? What are the legacies of the politics and culture of governance bequeathed by the apartheid state? How has the changing geography of the Southern African region impacted on post-apartheid governmentality? How has the economic decline or collapse, along with ongoing war, in the Southern African region, affected the calculus of state regulation within South Africa? What are the particular exigencies of local government in the midst of changing economic geographies and reconfiguration of urban spaces along axes of deepening inequality? To what extent, and in what ways, does the state assert its monopoly over the legitimate means of violence? What are the philosophical and political tensions between democratisation and nation-building, as two critical facets of state power? What are the current modalities of political patronage? How is the issue of ‘corruption’ represented and addressed? Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Ansprechpartner:

Prof. Deborah Posel (Director)

Links:

http://wiserweb.wits.ac.za/research%20-%20limits.htm




6.2.7. Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa)

Centre for Governance in Africa

Kurzbeschreibung:

The Centre for Governance in Africa is one of IDASA’s regional programmes focussing on issues of political and economic governance. The programme works closely with three projects namely: the Afrobarometer, Democracy strengthening in Africa (see both below) and Public Opinion Surveys (POS). The programme also monitors regional integration issues in Africa namely: the Africa Union (AU), the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), and the Pan African Parliament (PAP). A pool of researchers drawn from different African democracy institutes undertakes research and advocacy work on regional integration issues in Africa.
Democracy Strengthening in Africa: This project focuses on building capacities of Parliaments and civil society organisations in Africa to achieve the goals of poverty reduction and fighting corruption. To date many AID organizations have overlooked the role of Parliaments in development efforts. This is despite the fact that many Parliaments in Africa are reforming their practices and processes to ensure that governments reduce poverty and fight corruption. Zimbabwe, Kenya, Namibia, Malawi, Zambia, Lesotho, Tanzania are some of the Parliaments that are reforming their practices and processes. Parliaments have oversight responsibilities, and as a result have a very large influence on national budgets and have legislative leverage to ensure that the needs of the disadvantaged groups are met and to monitor delivery of outputs and goods as outlined in Poverty Reduction Strategies. Parliamentary oversight is crucial to ensure effective service delivery, budget review to counter misuse of public resources, to ensure that poverty related priorities are achieved and to maintain financial transparency. MPs also have the ability to monitor poverty reduction progress in their constituencies. As a result of this realization IDASA has been working closely with Parliaments in Africa. The following are some of the activities being undertaken to strengthen parliamentary governance in Africa.
The Afrobarometer project undertakes research in 16 African countries to assess perceptions of citizens on governance issues. Beginning in 1993 in Zambia and in 1995 in South Africa, the Afrobarometer project expanded in 1999. The initial surveys covered 10 countries and four more surveys were undertaken in 2001. The project has already produced numerous reports for publication in academic journals and release in policy forums. Present and previous Afrobarometer surveys have been supported by grants to MSU from the National Science Foundation, the United States Agency for International Development and the World Bank.
The coverage of the Afrobarometer project moved rapidly from surveys in just two countries in 1998 to 10 countries in 2000. In 2001 the project expanded to French-speaking and Portuguese-speaking Africa, with surveys in Mali and Mozambique respectively. The survey has also been undertaken in Nigeria.
The Afrobarometer is modeled in part on parallel research programs in Eastern Europe (the New Europe Barometer) and Latin America (the Latinobarometer). Researchers from all three world regions, including Afrobarometer participants from MSU, are now coordinating efforts to ensure that systematic comparisons of evolving public opinion are possible, not only within the African continent, but ultimately, across continents as well. Quelle: Website (s.u.)

Links:

http://www.idasa.org.za/
index.asp?page=programme_details.asp%3FRID%3D9