Conflict and development

Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana, Mozambique. Argentina and Chile. Northern Ireland. In Asia, South Korea and even Singapore.

What do these countries have in common? Not too long ago, they were torn by armed conflict, in deep political turmoil, classified as failed or “fragile” states, or else on the tortuous path to building a nation.

All have managed to emerge from conflict and achieve “a much higher level of stability,” according to a World Bank official.

Today Singapore, the city-state born out of expulsion from neighboring Malaysia, is among the world’s most advanced economies. South Korea is an industrial giant, and Northern Ireland is worried about its finances rather than bomb attacks.

People thought it would take several generations for Uganda to emerge from the horrors of Idi Amin’s depredations, or Rwanda from genocide. And yet these countries have managed to achieve progress in nation-building, and sustain development.

What are they doing right, and what are countries that have failed to achieve similar progress doing wrong?

To get answers, the World Bank sent teams to Africa, Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Afghanistan and Nepal for two years starting in July 2009, assessing the linkages among conflict, security and development.

The results of the study are in the 2011 World Development Report, released recently by the World Bank. The director of the study, WB Special Representative Nigel Roberts, was in Manila for two days this week to discuss the report with government officials and stakeholders in conflict resolution in the Philippines. Last Tuesday I chatted with him and WB Country Director Bert Hofman.

Filipinos may sometimes feel that after two popular revolts and the restoration of democracy, we still qualify as a fragile state, eating the dust of better performing neighbors, our culture damaged. What are we doing wrong, and is Roberts optimistic about the Philippines?

“I don’t know enough (about the country),” he admitted, “but there’s a very serious and committed effort to do something.”

Roberts observed that while the Philippines is not classified as a fragile state – “a rather unfortunate label,” he said – and Filipinos are not among the estimated 1.5 billion people worldwide who suffer from “fairly severe” forms of violence, the country has pockets of conflict that undermine its image overseas and deter investment. The country also suffers from post-Cold War types of violence, including criminality and political violence, with the line between the two often blurred.

Such problems can take a heavy toll on a nation’s GDP, setting back economic growth by up to 30 years. Trouble spills over and neighboring countries can also see their GDP drop, the World Bank reported. None of the low-income countries suffering from conflict and criminal or political violence is on track to achieve any of the Millennium Development Goals.

Roberts was in Manila to ask how the World Bank could improve its assistance to the Philippines as it disseminates what the WB teams learned in those two years, especially from countries that have emerged from conflict and achieved sustained development.

“We asked, what did they do right, and are there common lessons in these?” Roberts said.

* * *

The common thread is that these countries strengthened governance and legitimate institutions to give their citizens security, address injustice and provide jobs. Failure to address any of these elements can lead to the failure of a peace initiative, according to the World Bank.

What triggers violence? “The single most prevalent phenomenon is perception – of injustice, unfairness or exclusion… this feeling that they are being oppressed… that they are being left out,” Roberts told me.

In releasing the development report, the World Bank is also hoping to change the mindset of the international donor community. The report notes that aid efforts tend to be fragmented, localized even when a regional approach is needed, and meant to achieve quick results that can be reported to the donors’ taxpayers and political constituencies. Diplomatic, security, development, and sometimes humanitarian actors generally do not coordinate their aid efforts.

Roberts places the typical “attention span” of the international aid community at five to 10 years. “Then there’s a tendency for them to leave the building.”

For example, a survey of foreign assistance to Cambodia, conducted recently by the European Commission, showed that over 35 percent of all aid projects had a duration of only a year; for 66 percent, it’s less than three years.

In 2004, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development surveyed 11 fragile countries and found an average of 38 activities per donor, with each project valued at just about $1.1 million – too small to make a sustained impact.

Better delivery of aid can help countries break recurring cycles of political and criminal violence. Roberts emphasized the need to strengthen institutions and restore public confidence in government, which is usually low because of previous disappointments or failed initiatives.

The World Bank wants to caution both aid donors and recipients that conflict resolution and strengthening of institutions take a long time.

“You really are talking about the effort of a generation,” Roberts told me.

A peace process in particular is “a very, very long road that needs a lot of persistence,” he said, with the causes often dating back several generations. But he pointed out that many successful peace efforts “are built on the backs of previous failed attempts.”

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, countries can learn from those that have undergone “promising transitions” from severe violence. Roberts cited Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, Ghana, Indonesia and Timor-Leste.

If the World Bank can contribute to the process of transition, “then we’ll be very happy,” Roberts said.

The World Development Report is replete with stories of failed initiatives in conflict resolution. The lesson can’t be missed: the process is long and arduous. But the report also offers success stories. With security, justice and livelihood, the cycle of violence can be broken.

Others have done it. So can we.

* * *

ERRATUM: Rainer Boehm is regional head of Novartis for Asia-Pacific, Middle East and African countries, not the head for life cycle innovation and strategy as I wrote in my previous column. My apologies.