Fragile states

Aid effectiveness, measuring impact and lessons learned

Page contents

Critical views on donor engagement and aid effectiveness
Gender mainstreaming
Measuring impact
Lessons learned and implications for improved donor practice
Case studies: Aid that works?

Critical views on donor engagement and aid effectiveness

Much of the criticism levelled against overseas aid to fragile states converges on the perceived disjuncture between, on the one hand the principles of good engagement, and on the other their inconsistent or lack of application on the ground. A number of commentators are concerned about the capacity and role of multilateral institutions in determining and sustaining a co-ordinated/harmonised approach. Some argue security objectives dominate development interventions in fragile states, and that whole of government approaches have exacerbated this.

Many call for improved mechanisms for donor accountability, and for donor strategies to better allow for local participation and ownership, and to be guided by a better understanding of local issues. Top-down, 'one-size-fits-all' approaches and short-term ‘gap filling’ systems are seen to undermine long-term capacity building. Recently, some have begun to question the adequacy of an approach to fragile states based on the MDG targets. More broadly, others argue that aid alone is not sufficient for addressing the complex needs of fragile states, and that donors need to pursue a more comprehensive approach that combines development, foreign and defence policy priorities, international political economy and trade.

Anten, L., 2009, ‘Fragile States: State Building is Not Enough’, Clingendael Conflict Research Unit, The Hague
What are the likely future trends for fragile states? What policy implications do these trends have for international actors? This paper from Clingendael examines the reasons for international interest in fragile states and past and future trends in state fragility. It argues that state fragility will probably increase in the coming decades and that focusing on state-building is not sufficient to address this problem. Instead, the industrialised states will also have to effectively address external factors leading to state fragility that they themselves are largely responsible for.
Access full text: available online

Care International, 2009, ‘Aid Reform: Addressing Conflict and Situations of Fragility’, Care International, Chatelaine, Switzerland
Violent conflict and ‘situations of fragility’ represent significant challenges for aid effectiveness. This Care International briefing paper argues that applying traditional development approaches in an unchanged fashion in such contexts simply does not work. Aid can have unintended interactions with conflict – both to exacerbate or mitigate violence or the potential for violence. Aid reforms need to place a much greater emphasis on conflict sensitivity and human rights-centred approaches to aid.
Access full text: available online

Browne, S., 2007, 'Aid to Fragile States: Do Donors Help or Hinder?' UNU-WIDER Discussion Paper, no. 2007/01, United Nations University - World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki
Does donor aid to fragile and poorly-performing states do more harm than good? This paper, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the United Nations University UNU-WIDER examines the aid relationship with respect to Burma, Rwanda and Zambia. It offers eight principles for donors to observe in engaging more productively with fragile states. Influencing political will and supporting development capacity are two of the most important ways in which donors can help move a state from fragility towards stability.
Access full text: available online

Debiel, T., Klingebiel, S., Mehler, A. and Schneckener, U., 2005, 'Between Ignorance and Intervention: Strategies and Dilemmas of External Actors in Fragile States', Policy Paper 23, Development and Peace Foundation, Bonn
How can development assistance be effectively carried out in weak or failed states? How can the legitimacy of state institutions be promoted in fragile states? This policy paper by the Development and Peace Foundation for the German Government addresses these questions and sets out some of the dilemmas and challenges facing external actors. The authors argue that the rigid concept of statehood needs to be rethought to include de facto states, and that an integrated approach to engagement is required that includes both security and development programmes.
Access full text: available online

International Alert, 2008, ‘The World Bank in Fragile and Conflict-affected Countries’, International Alert, London
Access full text: available online

Gender mainstreaming

Men and women are affected differently by the poverty, lack of access to justice, and physical insecurity that often characterises fragile states. In principle it is widely accepted that donor strategies for engagement in fragile situations should be based on and be sensitive to an understanding of these differential impacts. But progress on mainstreaming gender into development aid in fragile states has been slow.

World Bank, 2007, ‘Global Monitoring Report 2007: Confronting the Challenges of Gender Equality and Fragile States', World Bank, Washington
As 2015 draws closer, what progress has been made towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? This fourth annual Global Monitoring Report (GMR) from The World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) assesses the contributions of developing countries, donor nations and international financial institutions. While there have been gains in tackling extreme poverty, human development and aid quality, two serious challenges remain: achieving gender equality and addressing problems in fragile states.
Access full text: available online

Baranyi, S., and Powell, K., 2005, ‘Fragile States, Gender Equality and Aid Effectiveness: A Review of Donor Perspectives’, Report prepared for CIDA, The North-South Institute, Ottawa
To what extent is gender a strong thread running through donor thinking on fragile states? What opportunities exist to enhance the systematic integration of gender equality in donors’ thinking on state fragility? This paper from the North-South Institute looks at how gender issues are integrated into the emerging policy on state fragility of six donor agencies/bodies. It argues that donors are only beginning to bring their learning about gender equality into their emerging work on fragile states.
Access full text: available online

Baranyi, S., and Powell, K., 2005, ‘Bringing Gender Back into Canada’s Engagement in Fragile States: Options for CIDA in a Whole-of-Government Approach’ North-South Institute, Ottawa
Access full text: available online

Gender analysis

Gender analysis can help identify the differential impacts of fragility on men and women, how gender affects access to resources and power, and social and cultural constraints on promoting gender.

DFID, 2008, 'Gender and Social Exclusion Analysis How to Note', A Practice Paper, Department for International Development, UK (DFID), London
This paper from DFID provides guidance on carrying out a GSEA, suggesting a structure, methodology and analytical framework. It emphasises the importance of a GSEA to ensuring that DFID’s policies and programmes are effective in reaching excluded groups.
Access full text: available online

BRIDGE, 2003, ‘Gender and Armed Conflict’, BRIDGE Cutting Edge Pack, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Access full text: available online

Danida, 2007, 'Country Gender Analysis', Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark
Access full text: available online

Measuring impact

Evaluation and assessment are critical for understanding and improving the effectiveness of aid in fragile states. But many argue that existing methodologies, tools and approaches cannot meaningfully determine the impact of interventions in these very complex, often volatile, environments. In practice, monitoring and evaluating in fragile settings present huge methodological and logistical challenges. There is often a lack of or unreliable data, or it is unfeasible or too dangerous to collect it. Added to this, it is inherently difficult to demonstrate causality or attribution in volatile situations, or to measure changes in key factors such as state legitimacy or inclusion.

Whilst there is an emerging consensus that clear objectives and measures of progress for fragile and conflict affected states are needed, such measures are yet to be set. Developing statistical capacity in fragile situations is key to supporting better monitoring and evaluation; a key concern recently taken up by Paris 21.

Social Impact, 2006, ‘Monitoring, Evaluating and Learning for Fragile States and Peacebuilding Programs’, Practical Tools for Improving Program Perfomance and Results’, Prepared for USAID, Social Impact, Arlington, Virginia
How can organisations implement fragile states peacebuilding (FSP) programmes with realistic development outcomes that can rapidly adapt to changing circumstances? This guide from Social Impact aims to increase the effectiveness of FSP programmes through more systematic approaches to Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (ME&L). Stronger ME&L enables agencies and communities to understand what is effective, how to consolidate best practice and how to increase accountability to stakeholders.
Access full text: available online

Paris 21, 2009, ‘Fragile Situations: Report to the Paris 21 Steering Committee’, June
Access full text: available online

Further resources on monitoring and evaluating interventions in conflict-affected areas can be found in the GSDRC’s conflict guide.

Lessons learned and implications for improved donor practice

A number of evaluations of aid programmes in fragile states stress the need for aid to prioritise a limited programme of reform, to be based on sound political analysis, to be reponsive to a varied and volatile environment (including flexible funding arrangements), and to be delivered in a way that is inclusive and accountable. Other common themes include the need to focus efforts on potential change agents, and to develop locally appropriate strategies. Whilst there has been some progress with multi-donor trust funds (MDTFs) and pooled technical assistance funds, both of these instruments require improvement.

Cox, M., and Hemon, K., 2009, ‘Engagement in Fragile Situations: Preliminary Lessons from Donor Experience – A literature review’, Evaluation Report EV699, DFID, London
What lessons can be learned from donor engagement in fragile situations? This report from DFID reviews the literature on donor interventions in fragile situations and finds that donors are struggling with many of the same problems they face in other developing country contexts, only amplified by the unique features of fragile settings. It recommends that donors continue in their recent efforts to adopt differentiated assistance packages to better engage with fragile states.
Access full text: available online

Cox, M., and Thornton, N., 2009, ‘DFID Engagement in Fragile Situations: A Portfolio Review: Synthesis Report’, Evaluation Report EV700, DFID, London
Access full text: available online

Cox, M., and Thornton, N., 2009, ‘DFID Engagement in Fragile Situations: A Portfolio Review: Case Studies’, Evaluation Report EV702, DFID, London
Access full text: available online

World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, 2006, ‘Recommendations’, chapter 5 in Engaging with fragile situations: An IEG review of World Bank support to Low-Income Countries Under Stress, World Bank, Washington
Access full text: available online

IMF, 2008, ‘The Fund’s Engagement in Fragile States and Post-Conflict Countries—A Review of Experience—Issues and Options’, International Monetary Fund, Washington
Access full text: available online

Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), 2009, ‘Context-sensitive engagement: Lessons learned from Swiss experiences in South Asia’, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) in collaboration with the Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding, Geneva
Access full text: available online

Case studies: Aid that works?

The following case studies describe successful interventions in fragile states. They consider the conditions necessary and the types of reforms that can help transition out of fragility.

Manor, J., 2006, 'Introduction: Synthesizing Case Study Findings' in Manor, J., (ed.) 'Aid That Works: Successful Development in Fragile States', World Bank, Washington
How can development agencies work with weak governments in fragile states? This introductory chapter from the book ‘Aid That Works: Successful Development in Fragile States’ looks at the design, implementation and governance outcomes of development initiatives in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Despite numerous challenges, much can be achieved through a consultative approach linked with democratic decentralisation efforts. The potential for constructive action is greater at and just above the local level than at higher levels in the political system.
Access full text via document delivery. Please see document summary

World Bank, 2004, ‘Making Aid Work in Fragile States: Case Studies of Effective Aid-Financed Programs’, World Bank, Washington
Can donors "do development" in recent post-conflict settings? Can aid achieve sustainable results in a poor governance framework? This background document for the World Bank looks at four programmes that have been successful in war-torn settings. The case studies from Timor Leste, Northern Uganda, Cambodia, and North-Western Afghanistan are assessed in terms of their poverty reduction and governance impacts.
Access full text: available online

Chauvet, L, and Collier, P, 2008, ‘What are the Preconditions for Turnarounds in Failing States?’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, Volume 25, Number 4, pp. 332-348
This paper analyses the preconditions for sustained policy turnarounds in failing states. It focuses on the explanatory variables of resource rents, education, and aid, distinguishing between finance and technical assistance. Overall, these variables have significant and large effects on the duration of state failure. Appropriate donor intervention can radically shorten state failure, whereas additional finance, whether from aid or resource rents, has the opposite effect.
Access full text: available online