The assumption that employment or vocational training programmes are likely to impact jobs, incomes and skills is entirely plausible, as is the assumption that peacebuilding programmes should reduce antisocial behaviour and increase stability. Why should jobs lead to peace? Theories of change and empirical support In turn, there is much to gain from analysing programmes that aim only to stimulate employment as well as those aimed directly at building peace through employment. In this regard, employment-for-peace programmes must take place in fragile and conflict-affected scenarios (FCS) however, in such settings, it does not inherently follow that an employment programme need to intentionally have a peacebuilding focus to build peace. To do so, agencies must identify which programmes can have a peacebuilding impact (even when such an impact is not intentional) and understand the nature and probability of the effects that might occur. At the programme level, it requires monitoring and evaluation for enhanced knowledge focussed specifically on isolating the impact of employment programmes on peace rather than simply assuming that it is an inevitable consequence of other programme outcomes. At the practical level, closing this gap requires support for the development of new research that looks at individual selection into antisocial behaviour and how such selection is organised into collective violence. It is, therefore, not only the anticipated relationship between jobs and peace that remains theoretical but also that between employment interventions and peace.ĭespite these shortcomings, however, the strength of theory and conceptualisation implies that it is worth systematically closing these knowledge gaps. In an analysis of over 400 employment-for-peacebuilding programmes by international agencies, it appears that not a single one explicitly analyses the impact of the intervention on conflictual behaviour or peace-related outcomes. Although in some interpretations, this is indeed true, with programmatic staff displaying a wide array of knowledge and talents, there is a critical lack of meaningful evaluation of the concept. In these circumstances – particularly given the sheer volume of ‘employment for stability’ interventions by both number and expenditure – one might expect that, instead of robust empirical analyses, a significant body of programme knowledge has been developed. Moreover, even in situations where individuals are willing to engage in antisocial behaviour, it is not clear how such willingness can be organised into the collective violence that characterises conflicts, rebellions and uprisings. Why individuals select into antisocial behaviour at all, let alone how these decisions can be deterred is, as yet, poorly understood. This includes the two key drivers of the link between employment and stability. In this literature, two key concepts underpin the assumption that employment can build peace: first, that unemployment is one of the reasons why individuals select into antisocial behaviour and second, that provision of employment, therefore, becomes a means of deterrent to such behaviour.ĭespite strong theories connecting jobs and peace, there remains a lack of systematic empirical knowledge on many of the key relationships that causally could link employment and stability. The rationale behind this link is firmly grounded in strong and deeply considered economic theories, which are reviewed in a substantial new literature survey. The notion that employment can contribute to peace and stability is the explicit backdrop to a large number of the labour, training and entrepreneurship programmes run by international organisations, and an implicit one in many more.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |