Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative (PBR): Call for Proposals
Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative (PBR)
Globalization, Violent Conflict, and Peacebuilding
Call for Proposals
Deadline for Submissions: 17 December 2004
Thanks, dear Judit, for making us aware of this program!
Section 1 – Introduction
In June 2003, IDRC’s Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative (PBR) held a brainstorming workshop to identify research needs and opportunities around the nexus of globalization, violent conflict, and peacebuilding. The main idea behind the workshop was to take a closer and more systematic look at the various linkages involved, building on previous research support around the political economy of peacebuilding, but also looking to broaden and enlarge its scope.
Globalization is a complex phenomenon whose impact goes far beyond the economic sphere. Apart from the exponential growth in the flows of goods, services, and capital around the globe, globalization has promoted the movement of people, values, and ideas across borders and often across continents. Undoubtedly, these changes are remaking the political, economic, and social make-up of most societies around the world.
For example, globalization has posed new challenges to global governance and the management of global public goods (such as health, education, human security, etc.), provoked the emergence of global networks around a variety of issues (not least the trans-national movements fiercely critical of globalization), and put increasing strain on nation states, societies, and communities everywhere to adapt. In turn, this has called into question the capacity of the nation state to design and implement public policies, cast a spotlight on the role of regional and multilateral actors, and focussed attention on new information and communications technologies and particularly the Internet. At the same time, globalization has held out the promise particularly to nations in the South to finally address their deep-seated development challenges and grow their way out of poverty.
Just how these developments are related to violent conflict and peacebuilding is still an open question. A fundamental problem in assessing the respective debates is that they tend to be couched in black-and-white terms, particularly the dispute between so-called globalization “friends” and “foes”. Whereas the former argue that the spread of market economies and liberal democracy will help mitigate and resolve potential conflicts, the latter insist that growing corporate power over financial systems, economic resources, and national and international policymaking is producing new tensions and social protests.
Often put in fairly general terms, the evidence backing both kinds of arguments tends to be scarce or not very convincing. Clearly, there is a need to disaggregate the notion of globalization and to examine its various implications based on empirical evidence. In addition, more work needs to be done to develop and refine appropriate research methodologies, particularly those capable of assessing the conflict-related impacts of specific policies associated with globalization, such as structural adjustment or economic liberalization more generally.
Most importantly, globalization should not be portrayed as something inevitable, whose “impact” has to be passively absorbed by those affected. On the contrary, globalization is an open-ended process whose outcomes cannot be predicted in advance. Therefore, more research should be directed into efforts to shape the contours of globalization, both from an institutional and a civil society perspective, squarely addressing the issue of agency.
Section 2 – Research Themes
The present competition is meant to address some of the issues identified in the previous section, and in particular to encourage comparative analysis on issues of globalization, violent conflict and peacebuilding. Building on the rich and fruitful debates at the brainstorming workshop mentioned above, four research themes have been identified meriting further study.
Theme 1: Conflict-Related Impacts of Economic Liberalization
Globalization and economic liberalization are not the same, but they often go hand in hand. In many countries, the liberalization of foreign trade, greater openness to foreign direct investment, and the deregulation of key economic sectors coincided with broader processes of international integration and interrelatedness. While causing a great deal of controversy – as mentioned above –, the conflict-related impacts of these policies are still far from clear.
For some, economic liberalization is constraining the ability of nation states to regulate and enact policy, since sovereignty has been “signed away” to international bodies such as the WTO, or is curtailed by international or bilateral agreements. The increasing complexity of national and international policymaking is creating further hurdles, particularly for less-developed countries in the South lacking the necessary capacities. Together with the general downsizing of the state following the adoption of market-friendly policies, this is said to undermine already weak governance capacities, further undercutting the ability of nation states to ease social and economic tensions and to head off potential sources of conflict.
In a related way, greater economic integration and the espousal of pro-market economic principles are seen to deepen various kinds of inequities within nations and across regions. These policies are also said to prevent nation states from enacting re-distributional policies or investing more in areas such as health, education, or municipal development. In this context, much attention has been focused on the role of International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and international donors in setting domestic policy agendas by insisting on strict structural adjustment policies or other forms of conditionality.
In countries emerging from violent conflict, there is the more specific problem of economic liberalization taking precedence over, and often conflicting with, other goals in the post-conflict reconstruction process. While some cross-national statistical research exists, there is a dearth of rigorous and in-depth analysis of the impacts in specific national contexts.
Theme 2: Methodologies for Assessing the Conflict-Related Impacts of Globalization
In addition to the research gaps just mentioned, there is also a lack of appropriate methodologies, particularly those that would help policymakers to design and implement practical policies. Such methodologies do exist with regard to the conflict-related impacts of development assistance programs, or the effects of trade liberalization on economic, environmental, and social sustainability, but there appears to be no equivalent to study the conflict-related impacts of economic liberalization policies. The development and testing of such methodologies would be of great use not only to policymakers themselves, but also to others interested in economic and social policymaking.
In this context, the embryonic research area of peace budgeting might hold some promise. Inspired by ongoing work on gender budgeting, peace budgeting research looks at public sector budgets and the underlying policy decisions and constraints – globalization being central among them – in terms of their presumed effect on conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding. Civil society engagement and oversight play a central role. IDRC is prepared to consider proposals aiming to further develop this specific methodological approach.
Theme 3: Revisiting the Role of the Private Sector
There is already a considerable amount of research on private sector activities in conflict zones. In particular, the role of foreign direct investment in the extraction of natural resources has attracted much attention. This is reflected, for example, in the “Greed and Grievance” debate and the development of policy instruments such as the Kimberley Process. Nevertheless, research is still needed in several areas.
One of them is corporate social responsibility (CSR), an idea that has been broadly embraced by international economic operators. While considerable attention has been paid to CSR schemes as such, too little is known about their practical implementation on the ground, and especially about ways in which civil society and others could help shape them and monitor compliance. This knowledge gap is significant, given the potential of CSR to contribute to preventing as well as managing violent conflicts.
More research is also warranted into the involvement of some private sector actors – both international and domestic – in informal or illicit economic activities in conflict zones, such as drug trafficking or looting natural resources. Specifically, the transnational networks underlying these activities and the corresponding deficiencies in governance and regulation that make them possible deserve further study.
Theme 4: The Role of Migration in Building Peace and Preventing Conflict
Globalization has greatly accelerated the movement of people across borders and between continents, but even more importantly, it has furthered the transformation of immigrant communities into transnational migrant communities. These changes are less visible among internally displaced people (IDPs) or refugees, but all the more apparent among better-implanted migrants. Using all the tools afforded them by globalization – rapid transportation, modern telecommunications and the Internet, and a global financial infrastructure – transnational migrant communities are in the midst of creating, transforming, and maintaining numerous social, economic, cultural, religious, political, and other networks linking them with their countries of origin, which also affects their integration into their new host countries in new and powerful ways. Breaking down barriers of time and space, these networks allow migrants to straddle the divide between home and host countries and to effectively have a foot in both. Indeed, given the new possibilities of instant access to information and on-line, real-time communication across countries and continents, these distinctions have lost some of their significance.
What roles do transnational migrant communities and their various networks play with regard to violent conflicts at home, be they ongoing or simmering under the surface? This is still contentious: Some assert that migrant communities typically act as “spoilers,” fuelling conflicts in their home countries through remittances and other forms of support, while proselytizing and radicalizing their compatriots in their host countries. Others, by contrast, highlight the key roles these groups play in creating spaces for dialogue and confidence building, acting as intermediaries, and building bridges between more recent migrants and their host countries. Therefore, migrant communities may have major development impacts, positively by mobilizing resources for reconstruction, or negatively by feeding into criminal or war economies. Further research is clearly needed to help shed more light on these questions.
Section 3 – Deadlines and Grants Available
Complete research proposals must be received by IDRC no later than 17 December 2004. Proposals and all supporting documents have to be transmitted as electronic files (in MS Word or WordPerfect format) to globalization@idrc.ca and as hardcopies to the address noted at the end of this document.
Up to two research grants will be awarded, each with a maximum value of CAD 400,000 (four hundred thousand Canadian dollars), for research projects of no less than 24 months’ duration. For research projects exceeding this amount, IDRC is prepared to consider co-funding by other donors. Contributions by grant recipients are also welcome.
Award(s) will be announced in April 2005. Fewer than two grants may be awarded subject to the quality of proposals received. Awards are contingent upon final acceptance by IDRC and institutional approval of the proponent institution.
Section 4 – Eligibility of Applicants
Four elements will inform the decision on eligibility of applicants:
• Institution: Principal Researchers must be affiliated with a developing country institution or an international institution based in a developing country. The recipient institution must be a recognized legal entity that is capable of entering into contractual arrangements and assuming legal and financial obligations. The recipient institution should also be able to manage large, multi-country, comparative research projects. Independent researchers without institutional affiliation are ineligible.
• Citizenship of researchers: Principal Researchers must be citizens of developing countries and not permanent residents of a developed country. Co-researchers and Collaborators may reside in or be citizens of developed countries.
• Relevance: Research proposals must demonstrate clear relevance to the overall research theme of “Globalization, Violent Conflict, and Peacebuilding”, and more particularly to the specific research themes mentioned above.
• Approach: Proposals must be for evidence-based research and cannot be geared solely to advocacy activities. Those proposals adopting a comparative case study approach will be given clear preference, provided they are based on a rigorous comparative methodology. We encourage proposals drawing on various disciplines as needed, as well as those using gender-sensitive and/or participatory methodologies.
For applicants involved in collaborative research, research teams may consist of:
• Principal Researcher (Applicant): has primary responsibility for the intellectual direction and quality of the research and assumes administrative responsibility for the grant;
• Co-Researcher (Co-Applicant): makes a significant contribution to the intellectual direction of the research, plays a significant role in the conduct of the research and may have some responsibility for the financial aspects of the research;
• Project Collaborators: play various roles in research activities, including contributing to intellectual direction of the research and/or to the dissemination of the research results.
Members of any given research team may belong to different institutions. However, each team must have a Principal Researcher who is ultimately responsible for the quality of the research output and the financial management of the project. Funds granted to winning proposals will be paid to the Principal Researcher’s host institution. IDRC encourages institutional partnerships where appropriate, particularly to pool capacities and experience in managing large research projects.
Section 5 – Selection Procedure and Review Criteria
Grants will be awarded on the basis of excellence. Funding decisions will be made through peer review, involving IDRC staff as well as outside reviewers, with the final decision resting with IDRC.
All incoming proposals will first be reviewed for eligibility by IDRC staff. Subsequently, the best proposals will be short-listed and forwarded to a selection committee composed of IDRC staff and external reviewers. Proposals will be subject to independent review by this committee, according to the criteria listed below. The selection committee will remain anonymous and is solely responsible for evaluating and ranking the research proposals. The final decision on the granting of awards will be made by IDRC.
Finalists will be required to provide incorporation documents and banking information of the principal researcher’s host institution. They may also be asked to seek country clearance for their research project, depending on national requirements.
IDRC will invite the successful research team(s), and likely some of the highest-ranking finalists, to attend a workshop at IDRC headquarters in Ottawa in the spring of 2005. The purpose of this workshop will be to present the successful research proposals, to explore potential synergies among them and with other high-ranking proposals, as well as to strengthen networks of researchers working on similar issues.
Review Criteria
All eligible applications will be judged according to the following criteria:
A. Quality of proposal
• Overall relevance of the research topic
• Relevance to the theme of the competition
• Demonstrated understanding of the research topic and its context, review of the relevant literature
• Clarity and presentation of the research questions
• Justification of the choice of case studies (if applicable), demonstrating their explanatory power with regard to the overall research questions
• Well-developed methodology section, demonstrating the appropriateness of the chosen research methods and techniques with regard to the overall research questions and case studies
B. Utilization of research results
• Plans for the dissemination of research results, using appropriate media and formats for different audiences
• Demonstrated potential of the proposed research to contribute to specific national or other policy debates or processes
C. Suitability of candidate(s) and of proposed recipient institution
• Relevant and demonstrated skills, knowledge, and experience
• Institutional experience and capacity to manage large, multi-country, comparative research projects
Section 6 – Format of Research Proposals
Proposals must not exceed 7,500 words (about 15 single-spaced pages), excluding bibliography and CV’s of researchers. Longer proposals may be excluded from the competition. All proposals are expected to cover these main areas:
• Statement of research question(s) and objectives
• Significance of proposed research (in terms of relevant literature, policy debates, and national or regional development priorities); relation to competition theme
• Methodology
• Anticipated impact of research results
• Dissemination plan
• Institutions and personnel
• Project schedule
• Project budget
• Evaluation (optional)
Proposals may include a training component for research staff.
Please see the application kit for full details of proposal requirements, including allowed budget categories. Proposals that are missing any of these elements may not be considered for funding.
The deadline for submissions is: 17 December 2004
Applications may be submitted in English, French or Spanish; application forms are available on-line at: http://web.idrc.ca/ev_en.php?ID=64955_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
We thank all participants but will only contact pre-selected applicants.
For information please contact the Senior Program Specialist at:
Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative
International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
250 Albert Street, P.O. Box 8500
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1G 3H9
Email: globalization@idrc.ca
Fax: 1-613-567-7748
