At the centre of SLRC’s research are three core themes, developed over the course of an intensive one-year inception phase.
At the centre of SLRC’s research are three core themes, developed over the course of an intensive one-year inception phase in 2011-2012.
Establishing, building or strengthening state legitimacy is a major element of state-building, and considered important for securing both peace and development. Yet policymakers and researchers have tended to ignore the tricky question of legitimacy – sometimes referred to as the ‘intangible’ element or ‘demand’ side of state-building – instead focusing their attention on the more technical exercise of increasing state capacity. Using a local-level, people-centred perspective, we explore how individuals’ experiences, perceptions and expectations of the state and local governance shape legitimacy, and attempt to identify some of the routes through which improvements in legitimacy might strengthen state-society relations. More specifically, we want to know whether government provision of basic services actually contributes to state-building via its possible effects on state legitimacy.
If the first theme focuses on the ‘demand’ side of state-building, then the second is concerned with its ‘supply’ side. Social protection and basic services are important in their own right, and identifying which mechanisms and partnerships are most effective in terms of securing their delivery in different contexts is a key priority for research and policy. One of the standard modes of international engagement in conflict-affected environments is through programmes where the intention is to build the capacity of the state to a point where international aid actors can handover to government authorities. So, for example, various types of independent service authorities or project management units are created in order to substitute for weaknesses in state delivery capacity, while technical assistance is simultaneously provided to enable line ministries to gradually take increasing responsibility for implementation. There is, however, little evidence on the impacts of international attempts to build state capacity, and many efforts appear to be based on unrealistic expectations about the speed at which state capacities to deliver services can be built.
SLRC research under this theme follows a two-stage logic: we first describe what international actors’ approaches to capacity development in conflict-affected situations look like, before analysing the outcomes of their engagement in order to draw out lessons for future programming. Theme 2 research therefore involves both descriptive and prescriptive elements, and is of direct use to aid agencies engaging in state-building and service delivery operations in conflict-affected environments.
Taken together, these two research themes will generate evidence that contributes towards a fuller understanding of the different dimensions of the state-building process.
Research in this area asks: what do livelihood trajectories in conflict-affected situations tell us about how governments and aid agencies can more effectively support the ways in which poor and vulnerable people make a living? SLRC addresses this using a longitudinal perspective – a key gap in the current evidence base – which helps build a picture of how people attempt to secure their livelihoods in particular contexts and over time. Rather than tracing the impact of individual programmes, this enables us to start from the perspective of poor people, and to ask which, if any, aid interventions or government policies and programmes are making a difference in peoples’ lives. By paying close attention to the governance structures that both support and undermine people’s livelihoods, we link our research within this theme with our work on legitimacy and state capacity.
At the heart of SLRC’s research is a longitudinal panel survey on livelihoods and access to services, which also explores experiences, perceptions and expectations of the state and local governance. Rounds take place three years apart, with the first two rounds of fieldwork completed in 2012 and 2015. The surveys are complemented by in-depth qualitative research.