Is Development Aid Securitised? Evidence from a Cross-Country Examination of Sector Aid Commitments. / Lazell, Melita; Petrikova, Ivica.

In: Development Policy Review, 15.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

E-pub ahead of print

Standard

Is Development Aid Securitised? Evidence from a Cross-Country Examination of Sector Aid Commitments. / Lazell, Melita; Petrikova, Ivica.

In: Development Policy Review, 15.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{87cf91c530fe4184836265bdcce3d87f,
title = "Is Development Aid Securitised?: Evidence from a Cross-Country Examination of Sector Aid Commitments",
abstract = "How has the securitisation of development impacted the sectoral distribution of bi-lateral development aid? Over the past two decades, academics and development NGOs have become increasingly concerned about the impact of the securitisation of development. This debate has not, however, adequately addressed the impact of securitisation on actual aid commitments to key sectors. If aid commitments are influenced by securitisation this will have implications on the types of programmes funded by bi-lateral donors. In response, this article investigates whether and how securitisation has impacted the distribution of British, American, Swedish and Danish development aid by sector. We do this through investigating how conflict in recipient states and the extent to which the recipient state is perceived as a security threat, impact aid commitments to priority sectors; democratisation and peace, conflict and security. A mixed methods approach analyses both the policy discourse and aid commitments of the bi-lateral donors. For the latter we utilise data from the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System and the Uppsala University Conflict Data Programme, along with data from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the Global Terrorism Database in a cross-sectional time-series regression analysis. The new data produced indicate that the securitisation of development has had the most significant effect on aid commitments to states not actually affected by conflict and furthermore that the strategic importance of conflict-affected states and the domestic character of donor governments both influence the strength of aid securitisation. Given the concerns regarding aid for security purposes and donor’s own policy discourse, bi-lateral donors should consider the necessity of current funding for conflict, peace and security programmes in non-conflict affected states and recognise the role that national security interests have in aid distribution decisions.",
author = "Melita Lazell and Ivica Petrikova",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1111/dpr.12426",
language = "English",
journal = "Development Policy Review",
issn = "0950-6764",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is Development Aid Securitised?

T2 - Evidence from a Cross-Country Examination of Sector Aid Commitments

AU - Lazell, Melita

AU - Petrikova, Ivica

PY - 2019/1/15

Y1 - 2019/1/15

N2 - How has the securitisation of development impacted the sectoral distribution of bi-lateral development aid? Over the past two decades, academics and development NGOs have become increasingly concerned about the impact of the securitisation of development. This debate has not, however, adequately addressed the impact of securitisation on actual aid commitments to key sectors. If aid commitments are influenced by securitisation this will have implications on the types of programmes funded by bi-lateral donors. In response, this article investigates whether and how securitisation has impacted the distribution of British, American, Swedish and Danish development aid by sector. We do this through investigating how conflict in recipient states and the extent to which the recipient state is perceived as a security threat, impact aid commitments to priority sectors; democratisation and peace, conflict and security. A mixed methods approach analyses both the policy discourse and aid commitments of the bi-lateral donors. For the latter we utilise data from the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System and the Uppsala University Conflict Data Programme, along with data from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the Global Terrorism Database in a cross-sectional time-series regression analysis. The new data produced indicate that the securitisation of development has had the most significant effect on aid commitments to states not actually affected by conflict and furthermore that the strategic importance of conflict-affected states and the domestic character of donor governments both influence the strength of aid securitisation. Given the concerns regarding aid for security purposes and donor’s own policy discourse, bi-lateral donors should consider the necessity of current funding for conflict, peace and security programmes in non-conflict affected states and recognise the role that national security interests have in aid distribution decisions.

AB - How has the securitisation of development impacted the sectoral distribution of bi-lateral development aid? Over the past two decades, academics and development NGOs have become increasingly concerned about the impact of the securitisation of development. This debate has not, however, adequately addressed the impact of securitisation on actual aid commitments to key sectors. If aid commitments are influenced by securitisation this will have implications on the types of programmes funded by bi-lateral donors. In response, this article investigates whether and how securitisation has impacted the distribution of British, American, Swedish and Danish development aid by sector. We do this through investigating how conflict in recipient states and the extent to which the recipient state is perceived as a security threat, impact aid commitments to priority sectors; democratisation and peace, conflict and security. A mixed methods approach analyses both the policy discourse and aid commitments of the bi-lateral donors. For the latter we utilise data from the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System and the Uppsala University Conflict Data Programme, along with data from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the Global Terrorism Database in a cross-sectional time-series regression analysis. The new data produced indicate that the securitisation of development has had the most significant effect on aid commitments to states not actually affected by conflict and furthermore that the strategic importance of conflict-affected states and the domestic character of donor governments both influence the strength of aid securitisation. Given the concerns regarding aid for security purposes and donor’s own policy discourse, bi-lateral donors should consider the necessity of current funding for conflict, peace and security programmes in non-conflict affected states and recognise the role that national security interests have in aid distribution decisions.

U2 - 10.1111/dpr.12426

DO - 10.1111/dpr.12426

M3 - Article

JO - Development Policy Review

JF - Development Policy Review

SN - 0950-6764

ER -