“Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa : Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan. / Petrikova, Ivica; Lazell, Melita.

In: Development Policy Review, 17.02.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print

Standard

“Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa : Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan. / Petrikova, Ivica; Lazell, Melita.

In: Development Policy Review, 17.02.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{9ff70631a6c84c5b91b64381fe70adf7,
title = "“Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan",
abstract = "MotivationThe UK has recently merged the Department for International Development (DFID) with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). This policy move strengthens the securitisation of development trend, which sees the provision of aid motivated by national security concerns.PurposeMany researchers have raised concerns about aid securitisation and its consequences for development; however, little research has actually examined the impact of securitised aid on recipient countries.Approach and methodsThis study does so, by evaluating 144 securitised aid projects implemented by DFID between 2000 and 2018 in three African countries – Kenya, South Sudan, and Nigeria, using the OECD evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.FindingsOur analysis finds that whilst most of the projects assessed were {\textquoteleft}relevant{\textquoteright}, i.e. aligned with recipient and funders{\textquoteright} objectives on paper, many struggled to achieve their intended outputs ({\textquoteleft}effectiveness{\textquoteright}). Few of the projects had a positive impact. We conclude that the {\textquoteleft}securitised{\textquoteright} projects reviewed did not significantly strengthen the recipient countries{\textquoteright} institutions, stability, or security but had some negative side effects.Policy implicationsGiven the recent merger of DFID with the FCO and the decision to reduce aid to 0.5% of GDP, the UK is likely to draw an even closer connection between domestic security priorities and development aid provision. In view of our empirical findings, it must be more cognisant of the limitations of development interventions undertaken in the name of security and consider other means of enabling development.",
author = "Ivica Petrikova and Melita Lazell",
year = "2021",
month = feb,
day = "17",
doi = "10.1111/dpr.12551",
language = "English",
journal = "Development Policy Review",
issn = "0950-6764",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - “Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa

T2 - Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan

AU - Petrikova, Ivica

AU - Lazell, Melita

PY - 2021/2/17

Y1 - 2021/2/17

N2 - MotivationThe UK has recently merged the Department for International Development (DFID) with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). This policy move strengthens the securitisation of development trend, which sees the provision of aid motivated by national security concerns.PurposeMany researchers have raised concerns about aid securitisation and its consequences for development; however, little research has actually examined the impact of securitised aid on recipient countries.Approach and methodsThis study does so, by evaluating 144 securitised aid projects implemented by DFID between 2000 and 2018 in three African countries – Kenya, South Sudan, and Nigeria, using the OECD evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.FindingsOur analysis finds that whilst most of the projects assessed were ‘relevant’, i.e. aligned with recipient and funders’ objectives on paper, many struggled to achieve their intended outputs (‘effectiveness’). Few of the projects had a positive impact. We conclude that the ‘securitised’ projects reviewed did not significantly strengthen the recipient countries’ institutions, stability, or security but had some negative side effects.Policy implicationsGiven the recent merger of DFID with the FCO and the decision to reduce aid to 0.5% of GDP, the UK is likely to draw an even closer connection between domestic security priorities and development aid provision. In view of our empirical findings, it must be more cognisant of the limitations of development interventions undertaken in the name of security and consider other means of enabling development.

AB - MotivationThe UK has recently merged the Department for International Development (DFID) with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). This policy move strengthens the securitisation of development trend, which sees the provision of aid motivated by national security concerns.PurposeMany researchers have raised concerns about aid securitisation and its consequences for development; however, little research has actually examined the impact of securitised aid on recipient countries.Approach and methodsThis study does so, by evaluating 144 securitised aid projects implemented by DFID between 2000 and 2018 in three African countries – Kenya, South Sudan, and Nigeria, using the OECD evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.FindingsOur analysis finds that whilst most of the projects assessed were ‘relevant’, i.e. aligned with recipient and funders’ objectives on paper, many struggled to achieve their intended outputs (‘effectiveness’). Few of the projects had a positive impact. We conclude that the ‘securitised’ projects reviewed did not significantly strengthen the recipient countries’ institutions, stability, or security but had some negative side effects.Policy implicationsGiven the recent merger of DFID with the FCO and the decision to reduce aid to 0.5% of GDP, the UK is likely to draw an even closer connection between domestic security priorities and development aid provision. In view of our empirical findings, it must be more cognisant of the limitations of development interventions undertaken in the name of security and consider other means of enabling development.

U2 - 10.1111/dpr.12551

DO - 10.1111/dpr.12551

M3 - Article

JO - Development Policy Review

JF - Development Policy Review

SN - 0950-6764

ER -