Publication

This paper analyzes the traditional impact of foreign investors in conflict zones. The author explains that critics have long accused foreign investors of propping up dictators, destabilizing governments, abusing human rights and generally worsening bad situations in many developing countries. The paper describes how pragmatists have begun to advocate a "middle course" on foreign investment, in an attempt to have both investment and development along with stability and democracy. The author explains how such development models envision foreign investors participating in economic activities in conflict-prone countries, while at the same time also engaging in conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction activities.