Advertisement

Ownership Inheritance from External Advocate

  • SungYong Lee
Chapter
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)

Abstract

The case study chapters of this volume examine four behavioural patterns of local peacebuilders as stated above. They examine how the four types of ownership promotion have been employed in the two areas, focusing specifically on the strategies local actors utilize to develop their unique models of peacebuilding, the distinguishing features of each of these, and their limitations as models of authentically local peacebuilding. This chapter introduces the ownership inheritance cases where local actors strengthen their commitment to the peacebuilding programmes concerned through external actors’ voluntary ownership transfer. Such ownership inheritance frequently takes place while an organisation initially established by external peacebuilding actors attempts to localise. In other cases, local actors’ high-level of commitment is designed and encouraged by external advocates from the outset. Successful development of ownership inheritance brings about high levels of local ownership in terms of the organizational structure of peacebuilding agencies and the decision making process, where local representatives assume important roles. From a theoretical perspective, the chapter discusses that the local peacebuilders who inherit the ownership are likely to present different forms of norm diffusion and internalisation, adopting and internalising the value systems or core objectives set by the donor agencies.

Keywords

Ownership inheritance Ownership transfer Norm diffusion Norm localisation Capacity building 

References

  1. Acharya, Amitav. 2004. How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism, International Organization 58 (2): 239–275.Google Scholar
  2. Adamson, Fiona. 2005. Global Liberalism Versus Political Islam: Competing Ideological Frameworks in International Politics. International Studies Review 7: 547–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettiza, Gregorio, and Filippo Dionigi. 2014. Beyond Constructivism’s Liberal Bias: Islamic Norm Entrepreneurs in a Post-secular World Society. EUI Working Paper 10, Badia Fiesolana, European University Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Björkdhal, Annika. 2013. Ideas and Norms in Swedish Peace Policy. Swiss Political Science Review 19 (3): 322–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boesenecker, Aaron, and Leslie Vinjamuri. 2011. Lost in Translation? Civil Society, Faith-Based Organizations and the Negotiation of International Norms. International Journal of Transitional Justice 5: 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton, Nell, and Myla Leguro. 2015. Local Solutions to Land Conflict in Mindanao. Manila: CRS Philippines.Google Scholar
  7. Bonacker, Thorsten, Judith von Heusinger, and Kerstin Zimmer. 2017. Localization in Development Aid: How Global Institutions Enter Local Lifeworlds. Basingstoke: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Chaulia, Sreeram. 2007. International Organisations in Mindanao: To Protect or Not? The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance (February 1). Available at https://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/21. Accessed 15 Mar 2018.
  9. Cobb, Neil. 2014. Rethinking the ‘World Polity’ Perspective on Global Sodomy Law Reform. In Handbook of LGBT Communities, Crime, and Justice, ed. D. Peters and V.R. Panfil, 283–310. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cortell, Andrew, and James Davis. 2000. Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda. International Studies Review 2 (1): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devkota, Bharat Prasad. 2013. Nationalisation of International NGO Programmes and Institutions: Transformation of Development Institutions in the Context of Cambodia. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. DPA. 2017. Development and Partnership in Action Website. Available at http://dpacam.org. Accessed 2 Feb 2016.
  13. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hiwasa, Ayako. 2014. Changing Gendered Boundaries in Rural Cambodia. In Southeast Asia and the Civil Society Gaze: Scoping a Contested Concept in Cambodia and Vietnam, ed. Gabi Waibel, Judith Ehlert, and Hart Feuer. London: Routledge (e-book).Google Scholar
  15. Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Koenig, Mathias, and Julian Dierkes. 2012. Conflict in the World Polity: Neo-institutional Perspectives. Acta Sociologica 54 (1): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, Jeong-Hye. 2017. The Life and Learning in Banteay Prieb in Cambodia: Focusing on People-Centered Development in Technical Vocational Education and Training. Master’s dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, SungYong, and Alpaslan Özerdem (eds.). 2015. Local Ownership in International Peacebuilding: Key Theoretical and Practical Issues. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, SungYong, and Wookbeom Park. 2015. Nurturing Local Voice: The UNDP’s Local Empowerment Programmes in Cambodia. In Local Ownership in International Peacebuilding: Key Theoretical and Practical Issues, ed. SungYong Lee and Alpaslan Özerdem, 135–155. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leguro, Myla, and the A3B Project Team. 2017. Mindanao: Binding, Bonding and Bridging. In Interreligious Action for Peace, ed. Tom Bamat, Nell Bolton, Myla Leguro, and Atalia Omer, 71–83. Baltimore, MD: Catholic Relief Services.Google Scholar
  21. Luco, Fabienne. 2002. Between a Tiger and a Crocodile. Phnom Penh: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  22. Mac Ginty, Roger. 2011. International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance: Hybrid Forms of Peace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mac Ginty, Roger, and Gurchathen Sanghera. 2012. Hybridity in Peacebuilding and Development: An Introduction. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7 (2): 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson, Jenny. 2012. A Conceptual Unpacking of Hybridity: Accounting for Notions of Power, Politics and Progress in Analyses of Aid-Driven Interfaces. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7 (2): 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richmond, Oliver, and Audra Mitchell. 2012. Hybrid Forms of Peace: From Everyday Agency to Post-liberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Risse, Thomas. 2002. Transnational Actors and World Politics. In Handbook of International Relations, ed. Walter Carlsnaes, Thoms Risse, and Beth Simmons. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Risse, Thomas, Stephen Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.). 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Shaw, Rosalind, and Lars Waldorf (eds.). 2010. Localizing Transitional Justice: Interventions and Priorities After Mass Violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sriram, Chandra Lekha. 2012. Post-conflict Justice and Hybridity in Peacebuilding. In Hybrid Forms of Peace: From Everyday Agency to Post-liberalism, ed. Oliver Richmond and Audra Mitchell, 58–72. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. World Bank. 2013. Land: Territory, Domain, and Identity. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/968161490797321335/pdf/113866-WP-P156212-GSU02-PUBLIC-Land-Territory-Domain-and-Identity-Web.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2018.
  31. Zimmermann, Lisbeth. 2016. Same Same or Different? Norm Diffusion Between Resistance, Compliance, and Localization in Post-conflict State. International Studies Perspectives 17 (1): 98–115.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations