Peace research meets implementation studies: The role of implementing actors
| Author | Isabell Schierenbeck,Fredrik Söderbaum,Meike Froitzheim |
| DOI | 10.1177/00471178211033939 |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211033939
International Relations
2022, Vol. 36(2) 285 –306
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178211033939
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Peace research meets
implementation studies: The
role of implementing actors
Meike Froitzheim, Isabell Schierenbeck
and Fredrik Söderbaum
University of Gothenburg
Abstract
In spite of a vibrant debate about the genesis, logic and effects of peace operations, peace research
remains poorly equipped to account for how policies are implemented and ‘translated into practice’
– issues that have been the focus in implementation studies for nearly five decades. In response,
we propose a merger of certain strands of peace research with bottom-up implementation
studies, which forefronts the role of ‘implementing actors’, namely, those actors who are granted
the discretionary powers to carry out policies in their daily encounter with local counterparts on
the ground. Through a case study of peace operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), we show that successful policy implementation depends on that field-based implementing
actors are provided with discretionary powers to use their skill, judgement and local knowledge
to solve problems and ensure implementation of peace operations on the ground. There is a
need for a paradigm change within peace research in order to account for these findings. Better
understanding of the daily work carried out by implementing actors in the field makes it possible
to avoid many of the pitfalls and shortcomings we have witnessed through several decades of
flawed or even devastating peace operations such as the one in DRC.
Keywords
Democratic Republic of the Congo, peace-building, peace operations, policy implementation,
security sector reform, stabilization
Introduction
Today, a greater number of peace operations than ever before are deployed in increasingly
complex conflicts, with increasingly challenging duties and responsibilities. These
Corresponding author:
Fredrik Söderbaum, School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 700, Gothenburg 405 30,
Sweden.
Email: fredrik.soderbaum@gu.se
1033939IRE0010.1177/00471178211033939International RelationsFroitzheim et al.
research-article2021
Article
286 International Relations 36(2)
operations go beyond traditional surveillance and intervention to include the rebuilding of
state institutions, security sector reform, stabilization and creating the conditions for the
delivery of humanitarian aid.1 Much of the scholarly debate within peace research during the
last two decades has centred either on the shortcomings of peace operations or on debating
the assumptions, aims and methods involved in efforts to achieve and build peace.2
Mainstream and so-called problem-solving approaches within peace research empha-
size the need to ‘fix’ the problem of peace, however defined. From this perspective, the
primary focus is the design and ‘accomplishment’ of peace operations and state-building
interventions, rather than the question how policies are implemented and translated into
practice.3 Critically-oriented scholars within peace research, on the other hand, generally
reject the idea that external interventions can, or even should, ‘fix’ the problem of peace
from the outside. Instead, they frequently emphasize the need to bring on board local
actors and local perspectives in order to improve our understanding of the logic and con-
tradictions of contemporary peace operations on the ground. This has given rise to the
so-called ‘local turn in peace-building’ and a range of associated notions, such as ‘post-
liberal peace’ and ‘hybrid peace’.4 It is striking, however, that in spite of the strong
emphasis on local actors and local contexts, this literature gives little attention to imple-
mentation per se.5 Furthermore, since implementing actors are usually simply lumped
together with a range of other local actors, they are neither adequately conceptualized,
nor sufficiently analysed.
This article is motivated by the neglect of ‘implementation’ and ‘implementing actors’
in peace research. In spite of an impressive number of theories and studies within peace
research devoted to the genesis, logic and effects of peace operations and interventions
in a wide-ranging number of cases around the globe, peace research remains poorly
equipped to account for how policies are implemented and ‘translated into practice’ –
issues that have been at the centre of implementation studies for many decades. In order
to overcome the shallow approach to ‘implementation’ within peace research, we pro-
pose a merger of certain strands of peace research with certain strands of implementation
studies, in particular bottom-up approaches, which forefront the role of ‘implementing
actors’ and their understanding and interpretation of the policies they carry out on the
ground.
In line with bottom-up implementation studies, implementing actors are defined as
those actors who are granted ‘the legal authority, responsibility, and public resources to
carry out policy directives’.6 In order to carry out their daily activities, implementing
actors have a degree of flexibility and leverage that allows them to take the specific con-
text and issue at stake into consideration when deciding on how to implement a specific
policy. As a result of ‘the routines they establish, and the devices they invent to cope with
uncertainties and work pressure, [implementing actors] effectively become the public
policies they carry out’.7
The added value of the proposed merger for implementation studies is that it carries
this field of research, and more precisely bottom-up implementation studies, into a
new empirical domain. By doing so it provides new insights into how externally
induced policies are translated into practice in complex and unpredictable international
policy environments, which has received fairly limited attention in existing implemen-
tation research.8
To continue reading
Request your trial