Risks for Development Cooperation in Fragile and Transitional States

Filed under:
Published on 24 April 2013 as a U4 Helpdesk Q&A

Query

Could you please: (i) highlight what new risk emerges for development programming as fragile/post-conflict states enter a transition phase? What suggestions are made for mitigating these risks?; and (ii) point us to recent and relevant writings on fiduciary mismanagement and managing corruption risk in Afghanistan.

Purpose

The answer will be used to inform development policy
and a risk strategy for programming in Afghanistan.

Content

1. Risks for development cooperation in post-conflict transition states
2. Lessons learnt in addressing risks for development cooperation in post-conflict transition states
3. Literature on fiduciary mismanagement and managing corruption
4. References

Caveat

There is very little publicly available information on the risks that will emerge as Afghanistan enters a transition phase, particularly with regard to corruption. This answer thus focuses on risks for developing
programming in fragile and transitional states more generally and on how these risks relate to corruption.

Summary

As many countries and regions emerging from armed conflict or violent instability, Afghanistan is entering into a transition phase where the international military presence will be scaled back and more resources will be channelled through the country system and managed by the Afghan state. Considering the highly complex environment in which such countries find themselves, this process is associated with major corruption challenges as well as other risks for donors. As international engagement in such transition periods typically combines humanitarian, development and security-related interventions as part of a broader peace-building and state-building agenda, risks for development programming should be considered at different levels, such as contextual (e.g. analysis of external facts which have an impact on developing programming such as security, economic and political environment), programmatic (e.g. risks of programme failure due to unrealistic approaches or unintended consequences), and institutional (e.g. fiduciary and reputational risks due to corruption). Donors will have to tailor their risk management approach to address.

Author(s): Maíra Martini, Transparency International, mmartini@transparency.org
Reviewed by: Marie Chêne, Transparency International, mchene@transparency.org; Dr. Finn Heinrich, Transparency International, fheinrich@transparency.org
Publication date: 24 April 2013
Number: 362

Download full answer

Tags:

Contact the TI Helpdesk

TI Helpdesk
Submit your query to the TI Helpdesk:
tihelpdesk@transparency.org

More corruption Q&As

22
Sep
2010

Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Sierra Leone

Please provide an update on the extent and type of corruption in Sierra Leone, including an assessment of government action to combat corruption. It ... See the answer

31
May
2010

Anti-corruption and police reform

Which are feasible, systemic AC-measures in the context of police reform? What are typical entry points to reduce susceptibility to corruption? Are ... See the answer