9 April, 2008: As anyone involved in the study or practice of international affairs knows international attempts to promote economic growth in struggling states and societies around the world is a difficult and complex task. The challenges become even more magnified and manifold when the struggling state also happens to be one which has recently emerged from a conflict or natural disaster. This issue is becoming more and more salient for regions of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa, which include many states currently being devastated by internal conflicts and others who have recently ended such hostilities and are now seeking to bring about a new era of peace of and prosperity.  In turn, the international community and individual experts in the fields of economics, policy, and business are becoming more and more receptive to the unique needs of conflict-affected states.

The first step in aiding these states in moving forward economically is to recognize the challenges that conflict-torn states pose to the international community. One of the most widely-recognized challenges that must be met is more emotional than economic. In order for any development program to be successful there must be present within society what Ambassador David C. Litt, a retired career diplomat who specialized in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, has come to call a “psychology of hope” or the belief that a future in peace will be better than the past.

Obiageli Ezekwesili, Vice President for the Africa region of the World Bank and one of the founding members of Transparency International, agrees that a trust that there will be a peace dividend must be instilled and fulfilled in the society. She believes that there is a very small window in which to deliver hope and resources after a conflict ceases, and if the international community fails to do so the window may quickly disappear. “On visits to Africa I have been asked ‘What’s the difference between when we were at war and now that we have peace,’” she says. “You must show citizens that there are economic benefits to peace.” This window has also been likened elsewhere to the “golden hour,” which is a term used in the medical field to describe a period of time which could mean the difference between the life and death of a patient.

Both Litt and Ezekwesili agree that it is extremely important to establish legitimate indigenous authority over new institutions and structures. While this sounds rather common, it is actually one of the greatest challenges posed by post-conflict economic development. “Citizens tend to retrench themselves and pull out of the participation they once enjoyed before the conflict began,” Litt points out.

Ezekwesili firmly believes that getting the populace engaged is one of the best ways to promote development and prevent violence and criminality, especially in Africa. She notes that unemployment rates are often so high in conflict-affected states that there are many young men on the streets without jobs and with access to guns, which creates situations where new conflicts can develop. Employment generation is more often than not put on the backburner, however. According to Johanna Mendelson-Forman and Merriam Mashatt, who co-authored the report Employment Generation and Economic Development in Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations for the United States Institute of Peace, issues such as security and humanitarian concerns are so prominent that “livelihood creation, the root of potential economic success and security, has often become a secondary objective in the transformation from war and peace.” While this relegation is understandable, scholars and politicians are increasingly calling for job-creation measures to become a priority in transitional periods.

Another challenge is to get international donors involved while also keeping them under control and constantly reminding them whose best interest they should be working towards. Ezekwesili, who is sometimes referred to as “Madame Due Process,” says that one of her tasks at the World Bank is to “try to attract the best of human capital to a risky environment—it sounds wonderful, but it’s the most difficult part.” Once international donors are onboard, another challenge is to keep them working together harmoniously and for the greater good. “One of the main questions we must ask ourselves,” Litt admits, “is how we are going to organize ourselves with a plethora of international actors.”

Despite the inherent challenges that come with a diverse set of donors and consultants, the general consensus is that the receiving states are better off with their help, as long as they are effectively organized. “These issues are not the everyday interests of our world. More often than not people are concerned about the well-being of people who are already doing well,” Ezekwesili insists. “However, we have come a long way since the time when we thought conflicts in other countries were none of our business.”    

In the face of such challenges, new ways of supporting economic growth and stability in conflict-affected states must be developed and supported. One such technique which mixes the private and public sector is supported by some key individuals in the business world such as Francis Skrobiszewski, senior executive advisor at Monolith Capital Management, LLC, and is based on the U.S. Government-sponsored Enterprise Funds. Skrobiszewski worked closely with the Polish-American and Hungarian-American Enterprise Funds and believes that their basic structures and principles can be applied to other post-conflict areas.

The Enterprise Funds are non-political, non-profit organizations started in the mid-1990’s with the objective of promoting private-sector development in the formerly-Communist nations of Eastern Europe, including Poland, Hungary, and Albania. According to Skrobiszewski, the Funds support the principles of hope and ensuring legitimate indigenous control of development. “This program gives people hope for the future and a stake in stability,” he says. The Funds are unique because they are run like businesses—businesses that help to foster other business and support entrepreneurs in conflict-affected regions. Skrobiszewski considers the Funds businesses and not “projects.”

Those who support such initiatives believe in working from the ground up and staying out of politics. While these Funds are often controversial, they represent new and creative ways of thinking about helping other countries recover economically after a conflict.