BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Lives Amid Violence - ECPv6.2.0.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Lives Amid Violence
X-ORIGINAL-URL:http://transformingdevelopment.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Lives Amid Violence
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230317T091500
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230317T101500
DTSTAMP:20261101T032922
CREATED:20230223T114648Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230223T114648Z
UID:1377-1679044500-1679048100@transformingdevelopment.org
SUMMARY:Author's Corner: Lives Amid Violence: Transforming Development in the Wake of Conflict
DESCRIPTION:In ‘Lives Amid Violence: Transforming Development in the Wake of Conflict’ (Bloomsbury Academic\, 2023)\, Mareike Schomerus sets out a new vision for what international engagement in situations of violent conflict needs to look like. Drawing on ten years of a major research consortium (the Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium)\, which conducted longitudinal empirical multi-method work in eight conflict-affected countries\, the book puts a number of bold claims to its critics: it posits that the mental models of stabilization and statebuilding set conflict situations on a never-ending violent path\, that economic growth models overlook how social economies really work\, that violence can often be the least disruptive element of lives in conflict situations\, that the invisible elements of what the author calls ‘the mental landscape’ are the most important parts to pay attention to\, and that current understandings of identity and identity-based targeting of populations shies away from a more honest discussion about the burdens of categorisation. Putting into question the past decades of international engagement in conflict situations\, it turns on its heads the notion of service delivery to achieve legitimacy and suggests a genuine turn towards more creative cooperation by calling for an empirically-grounded relational approach and a deep questioning of not just the practices of international development\, but the underpinning beliefs\, imagery\, metaphors and ideologies.
URL:http://transformingdevelopment.org/event/authors-corner-lives-amid-violence-transforming-development-in-the-wake-of-conflict/
LOCATION:ISA Montreal
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230317T103000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230317T121500
DTSTAMP:20261101T032922
CREATED:20230223T115547Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230223T115547Z
UID:1381-1679049000-1679055300@transformingdevelopment.org
SUMMARY:Panel Discussion: The State of the Art on Statebuilding (FB18)
DESCRIPTION:The 2021 fall of Kabul to the Taliban has led both scholars and practitioners to question what is really known about international statebuilding. For almost three decades\, international statebuilding has been one of the dominant forms of international engagement with conflict-affected states. Scholars have studied it extensively\, although from often-dispersed disciplinary and epistemological perspectives. As a result\, our cumulative knowledge on statebuilding and our ability to explain its successes and failures is surprisingly splintered. The papers on this panel consider the political dynamics\, processes\, and outcomes associated with a range of different types of statebuilding — from international interventions and security partnerships to rebel governance transitions — through different ontological\, epistemological\, and methodological prisms. Collectively\, they seek to answer a set of questions about our cumulated knowledge on international statebuilding\, including: Given that statebuilding is an endogenous process\, regardless of who is involved\, what is the difference between top-down and bottom-up approaches? Why are conceptual models of statebuilding so sticky in the face of persistent failure? By addressing these and other questions\, this panel aims to help integrate the fractured knowledge on international statebuilding\, how it is practiced\, and what conditions its successes and failures around the world.\n\nKeywords:\nLegitimacy; Statebuilding; Afghanistan; Peacebuilding; Capacity (State/Governmental)\n\n\nParticipants\n\nDiscussant: Megan Stewart (University of Michigan)\nAuthor: Naazneen Barma (University of Denver)\nAuthor: Susanna P. Campbell (American University)\nAuthor: Aila M. Matanock (University of California\, Berkeley)\nAuthor: Christine Cheng (King’s College London)\nAuthor: Romain Malejacq (Radboud University Nijmegen)\nAuthor: Jessica R. Piombo (Naval Postgraduate School)\nAuthor: Pierre Englebert (Pomona College)\nAuthor: Mareike Schomerus (The Busara Center)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Problem with Bricks: Statebuilding and Mental Models\n\n\n\n\nPeople:\n\nAuthor: Mareike Schomerus (The Busara Center)\n\n\n\nSponsored By:\n\nInternational Security Studies\n\n\n\nAbstract:\nDespite efforts to reimagine what international engagement in fragile and conflict-affected situations might need to look like\, moves towards genuinely changing the mental models that underpin such engagements have been largely unsuccessful. This paper argues—drawing on ten years of research with the Secure Livelihoods Consortium (SLRC)—that one reason for the continued repetition of established patterns of institution-building\, stabilisation and supporting service delivery by governments with the aim to establish greater credibility with citizens is the mental model that underpins such engagement. Western engagement is driven by imagery of the construction ground\, of architectural blueprints\, of predictability and causality. The mental model also continues to champion modernisation theory and neoliberal economics\, both of which assume that\, brick by brick\, a particular kind of institutions and economic models will create a free market with trickle down effects. These assumptions have not held true and require revision. Changing international notions of statebuilding is thus not a matter of tweaking existing approaches towards context-appropriateness or sequencing: It requires a whole new vision of international development.\n\nKeywords:\nCritical Security Studies; Institutions; Statebuilding
URL:http://transformingdevelopment.org/event/panel-discussion-the-state-of-the-art-on-statebuilding-fb18/
LOCATION:Ballroom West A\, Le Centre Sheraton Montreal Hotel\, Canada
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR