Peacebuilding Accountability: The United Nations Peacebuilding Fund and Community‐Based Monitoring and Evaluation

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Landon Hancock
{"title":"Peacebuilding Accountability: The United Nations Peacebuilding Fund and Community‐Based Monitoring and Evaluation","authors":"Landon Hancock","doi":"10.1111/nejo.12442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International peacebuilding as a discourse and practice has expanded rapidly in the nearly three decades since the publication of Boutros Boutros‐Ghali's Agenda for Peace. Alongside the growth of peacebuilding efforts has come the realization that many peacebuilding projects conceived of and sponsored by the international community have failed to meet their own objectives or, more importantly, have failed to be embraced fully by those whom they were supposed to help: the individuals and communities attempting to rebuild their lives in post‐conflict countries. One area that has been under‐examined and—in particular—under‐theorized is the role and impact of funder accountability mechanisms on local ownership, community agency, and peacebuilding success. However, in the development field some work has been done to examine accountability models and to try to develop new ones. As part of a project funded by the Council on Foreign Relations, the author served as a local peacebuilding advisor to the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund's monitoring and evaluation team, where he led an effort to develop a more collaborative evaluation method designed to close accountability loops by including a broader range of actors than that normally considered by current evaluation methodologies. This article offers a scoping analysis of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the interactions between large international donor agencies and local peacebuilding efforts. It also presents a preview of one agency's determined efforts to bridge those gaps and implement programs and processes designed to promote local agency while supporting transparent accountability.","PeriodicalId":46597,"journal":{"name":"Negotiation Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12442","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International peacebuilding as a discourse and practice has expanded rapidly in the nearly three decades since the publication of Boutros Boutros‐Ghali's Agenda for Peace. Alongside the growth of peacebuilding efforts has come the realization that many peacebuilding projects conceived of and sponsored by the international community have failed to meet their own objectives or, more importantly, have failed to be embraced fully by those whom they were supposed to help: the individuals and communities attempting to rebuild their lives in post‐conflict countries. One area that has been under‐examined and—in particular—under‐theorized is the role and impact of funder accountability mechanisms on local ownership, community agency, and peacebuilding success. However, in the development field some work has been done to examine accountability models and to try to develop new ones. As part of a project funded by the Council on Foreign Relations, the author served as a local peacebuilding advisor to the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund's monitoring and evaluation team, where he led an effort to develop a more collaborative evaluation method designed to close accountability loops by including a broader range of actors than that normally considered by current evaluation methodologies. This article offers a scoping analysis of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the interactions between large international donor agencies and local peacebuilding efforts. It also presents a preview of one agency's determined efforts to bridge those gaps and implement programs and processes designed to promote local agency while supporting transparent accountability.
建设和平问责:联合国建设和平基金和基于社区的监测与评价
自布特罗斯·布特罗斯-加利的《和平纲领》发表以来,国际建设和平作为一种话语和实践在近三十年中迅速扩大。随着建设和平努力的增长,人们认识到,国际社会构想和赞助的许多建设和平项目未能达到自己的目标,或者更重要的是,未能得到那些本应得到帮助的人的充分接受:那些试图在冲突后国家重建生活的个人和社区。一个已被审查的领域,特别是被理论化的领域,是资助者问责机制对地方所有权、社区机构和和平建设成功的作用和影响。然而,在发展领域,已经做了一些工作来审查责任制模式,并试图发展新的模式。作为美国外交关系委员会资助的一个项目的一部分,作者曾担任联合国建设和平基金监测和评估小组的地方建设和平顾问,在那里他领导了一项工作,开发了一种更具合作性的评估方法,旨在通过包括比当前评估方法通常考虑的更广泛的行为者来关闭问责循环。本文对大型国际捐助机构与地方建设和平努力之间相互作用中固有的优缺点进行了范围界定分析。它还展示了一个机构为弥合这些差距和实施旨在促进地方机构发展、同时支持透明问责制的项目和程序所作的坚定努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Negotiation Journal is committed to the development of better strategies for resolving differences through the give-and-take process of negotiation. Negotiation Journal"s eclectic, multidisciplinary approach reinforces its reputation as an invaluable international resource for anyone interested in the practice and analysis of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution including: - educators - researchers - diplomats - lawyers - business leaders - labor negotiators - government officials - and mediators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信