The Security-Development Nexus: An Illusion?

10 Feb 2012

While donor governments believe that the link between security and development forms a key component of contemporary development policies, critics argue that mixing the two does more harm than good.

Over the course of this week, we have looked at how economic development is faring within today's unstable economic and financial systems. We began our analysis by outlining how development-centered policies (and institutions) no longer reflect just the political agendas of 'advanced' states, but also those of emerging powers. We now end the week by considering a development policy that, despite constituting a consensus among donor governments and development institutions, is roundly criticized by various commentators - i.e., the security-development nexus. To help us walk through this issue, we begin today with a brief overview of the World Bank's current thinking on this widely-debated subject. What then follows are two multimedia presentations that shed further light on the Bank's understanding of what constitutes the security-development nexus.

There is No Development Without Security and No Security Without Development

The above mantra has influenced, if not outright shaped, international development policies over the past decade. The World Bank, for example, continues to argue in their external pageWorld Development Report 2011 that 1) institutional and personal insecurity has become the primary challenge for economic development, and 2) the primary culprit for this state of affairs is intrastate conflict. Indeed, none of the countries caught in or coming out of a current civil war has reached any of the Millennium Development Goals set by the UN. At the same time, this sorry truth is not self-contained. Refugee flows, massive black marketeering, and organized crime - these are some of the representative problems associated with intra-state conflict; a form of conflict which knows no borders. Indeed, not only are these problems responsible for some of the social-economic shockwaves now spreading across Western states, but their intensity has been made worse by the unwillingness or inability of developing nations to help provide security, justice, employment and even social cohesion in these troubled lands. As a result, the World Bank advocates development policies for fragile states that pursue extensive institutional reforms. With these reforms, the argument goes, will come security writ large, and with security present there is a greater possibility for sustained development.

A Nexus Only in the Head of Donors?

Despite the claims that the security-development nexus was the logical and much needed consequence of broader interpretations of development , critics have poured scorn on the concept. They argue that such conceptual blurring has not led to better policies, but in fact to confusion. external pageMark Duffield, for example, claims that the largely post-Cold War belief that development can promote international security is just an example of aid-industry boosterism - i.e., an attempt by the industry to recast its mandate in the name of innovative new policies. One unhappy consequence of this boosterism is that policies aimed at jointly promoting stability and economic development have led to more interventionism by outside actors. Again, the logic is inexorable - donors think they cannot deliver aid unless they first ensure their own and others' security. But by thinking in this way, is it not possible that poverty reduction might be subordinated to the security needs of major powers? And if that is true, has it not become more difficult to distinguish aid-driven interventions from purely political ones?

To be fair, though, not even the sternest critics of the security-development nexus go so far as to suggest that there are no connections between security and development. Instead, they warn us about the possibility that the nexus, for all its good intentions, is prone to abuse by the most powerful international actors. But what about an institution such as the World Bank? Here is an international financial institution that is currently at the forefront of a development policy that certainly transcends its external pageoriginal mandate and believes both in the need for and effectiveness of the security-development nexus. Well, instead of questioning whether a global financial institution should be so integrally tied to such a controversial policy, we'll let the World Bank make its own case here.

Robert Zoellick: World Development Report 2011

[Resource Embedded:136955]Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, briefly explains why the Bank needs to address violence as part of its development agenda.

Sarah F Cliffe: World Development Report 2011

[Resource Embedded:136946]Sarah Cliffe, Director at the World Bank, briefly summarizes the findings of the World Development Report (WDR) 2011.

World Development Report 2011: Citizen Security, Justice and Jobs

[Resource Embedded:136948]Robert Zoellick presents and discusses the findings and recommendations of the report together with WDR Advisory Council Members and Co-Directors.

Further readings

Security and Development: Convergence or Competition?, Daniel Trachsler, 2008, CSS Analysis in Security Policy

This brief explores the link between security and development, commenting on the increasing securitization of development policy.

external pageThe Security-Development Nexus and the Rise of 'Anti-Foreign Policy', David Chandler, 2007, Journal of International Relations and Development

This article analyses how the security-development 'nexus' reflects a retreat of Western governments from strategic policy-making and a more inward-looking approach to foreign policy, more concerned with self-image than the policy consequences in the areas concerned.

New Interfaces Between Security and Development: Changing Concepts and Approaches, Stephan Klingebiel (ed), 2006, DIE Studies

This collection of articles discusses the relationship between development and security. It provides an insight into the debate on the conceptual understanding of 'development and security' and on the relationship between development and security policy.

external pagePeace, Security and Development in Post-Conflict Environments, Keith Krause and Oliver Jütersonke, 2005, Security Dialogue

This article presents a critical overview of the contemporary practice of post-conflict peacebuilding (PCPB), arguing that contemporary post-conflict operations rest upon the assumption that a sophisticated social engineering approach could replace, or accelerate, a process of state formation that occurs rather more organically.

external pageGreed and Grievance in Civil War, Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler, 2002

This article investigates the causes of civil war, using a data set of wars during 1960-99. The authors test a 'greed' theory focusing on the ability to finance rebellion, against a 'grievance' theory focusing on ethnic and religious divisions, political repression and inequality.

Further videos

external pageChris Cramer on Unemployment as a Possible Movitation for Violence, The World Bank, 2011

In this short video, Chris Cramer, Professor of the Political Economy of Development at SOAS and author of an input paper for the World Development Report 2011, talks about the link between unemployment and violence.

external pageSpeech by Robert Zoellick: A New Social Contract for Development, The World Bank, 2011

In times of turmoil in the Middle East and Northern Africa, Robert Zoellick speaks about the lessons from the instability for the region, for the world, and for development institutions.

external pagePaul Collier's New Rules for Rebuilding a Broken Nation, TED Talks, 2009

In this TED@State talk, Paul Collier, author of The Bottom Billion, explains the problems with current post-conflict aid plans, and suggests three ideas for a better approach.

JavaScript has been disabled in your browser