Capacity Conflict Research Articles

시민단체의 갈등역량이 정부의 갈등역량에 미치는 영향: 문재인 정부를 중심으로

본 연구는 시민단체의 갈등관리 역량과 정부의 갈등관리 역량을 중심으로 살펴보고 있다. 갈등예방적인 차원에서 시민단체의 갈등관리 역량은 정부의 갈등관리 역량에 크게 영향을 주지 않지만 갈등발생의 수준이 높아지거나 갈등관리의 역량에 대한 인식이 높아지면 정부의 갈등관리 역량이 더욱 높아지는 것을 알 수 있었다. 이러한 결과를 유추해 보면 갈등예방적 관점의 시기보다는 갈등이 발생한 이후 해결의 관점에서 갈등관리 역량에 대하여 더욱 높게 인식한다고 판단할 수 있다.<BR> 또한 시민단체의 갈등관리 역량과 정부의 갈등관리 역량은 상호 보완적인 관계에서 성립되며 이러한 결과는 추후 협력적인 갈등관리 시스템의 필요성을 제시하고 있다.

Assessing the capacity for conflict and health research in Lebanon: a qualitative study

BackgroundConflicts pose new challenges for health systems, requiring rapid and practical approaches to meet emerging needs on the ground. Lebanon has been highly influenced by surrounding conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, especially the Syrian crisis. Strengthening research capacity to collect evidence on conflict in the MENA region and beyond is crucial to inform healthcare policy and practice. For targeted capacity strengthening interventions, the main objective of this paper is to present key findings of a needs assessment of conflict and health research in Lebanon. This will support recent efforts to scale up context-specific policies, interventions to strengthen the country’s health system, and research capacity.MethodsThe study is based on 30 semi-structured interviews with key informants such as specialist academics, humanitarian workers and public sector officials.ResultsDespite being ranked third in the number of publications on biomedical and health research per capita in MENA and in hosting reputable universities which are considered central academic hubs in the region, lack of nationwide research culture, insufficient funding and limited access to data were reported to be major challenges for health researchers in Lebanon. Even with the ongoing efforts, poor impact of research on policy continues to be a persistent gap. Large disparities in research capacities and taught skills were reported between different universities in Lebanon, with a disproportionate emphasis on quantitative over qualitative skills. Most medical students are not trained to conduct research or to practice in conflict settings. Concerns were also expressed regarding the ethics of research conducted, specifically by local non-governmental organizations.RecommendationsTo conduct contextualized trainings on research skills with a stronger focus on qualitative approaches, medical practice, and ethical research in conflict. To better involve policymakers in designing research agendas by organizing multiple stakeholder meetings.ConclusionThe study indicates that health research in Lebanon is characterized by considerable strengths in terms of human capital and research capacities of certain universities. However, the Lebanese research infrastructure needs further development in terms of ensuring sustainable funding, providing access to data, teaching qualitative research skills, conducting ethical and multidisciplinary research, and promoting cross-sectoral knowledge transfer.

The political agenda effect and state centralization

We provide a potential explanation, based on the “political agenda effect”, for the absence of, and unwillingness to create, centralized power in the hands of a national state. State centralization induces citizens of different backgrounds, interests, regions or ethnicities to coordinate their demands in the direction of more general-interest public goods, and away from parochial transfers. This political agenda effect raises the effectiveness of citizen demands and induces them to increase their investments in conflict capacity. In the absence of state centralization, citizens do not necessarily band together because of another force, the escalation effect, which refers to the fact that elites from different regions will join forces in response to the citizens doing so. Such escalation might hurt the citizen groups that have already solved their collective action problem (though it will benefit others). Anticipating the interplay of the political agenda and escalation effects, under some parameter configurations, political elites strategically opt for a non-centralized state. We show how the model generates non-monotonic comparative statics in response to the increase in the value or effectiveness of public goods (so that centralized states and public good provision may be absent precisely when they are more beneficial for society). We also suggest how the formation of a social democratic party may sometimes induce state centralization (by removing the commitment value of a non-centralized state), and how elites may sometimes prefer partial state centralization.

Strategic culture in a risk society: The conceptual bases of analysis

«Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология» — научно-теоретический рецензируемый журнал, обобщающий результаты исследований ученых всего мира в области традиционных философских дисциплин — онтологии, теории познания, логики, этики, социальной философии, эстетики, истории философии, философии культуры и философии религии, а также актуальные разработки в конфликтологии, философии политики и права.

The Political Agenda Effect and State Centralization

We provide a potential explanation for the absence of, and unwillingness to create, centralized power in the hands of a national state in many societies based on the political agenda effect. State centralization induces citizens of different backgrounds, interests, regions or ethnicities to coordinate their demands in the direction of more general-interest public goods, and away from parochial transfers. This political agenda effect raises the effectiveness of citizen demands and induces them to increase their investments and conflict capacity. In the absence of state centralization, citizens do not necessarily band together because of another force, the escalation effect, which refers to the fact that elites from different sectors will join forces in response to the citizens doing so. Such escalation might hurt the citizen groups that have already solved their collective action (though it will benefit others). Anticipating the interplay of the political agenda and escalation effects, under some parameter configurations, political elites strategically opt for a non-centralized state. We show how the model generates non-monotonic comparative statics in response to the increase in the value or effectiveness of public goods (so that centralized states and public good provision are absent precisely when they are more beneficial for society). We also suggest how the formation of a social democratic party may sometimes induce state centralization (by removing the commitment value of a non-centralized state), and how elites may sometimes prefer partial state centralization.

Widening the view: situating collective impact among frameworks for community-led change

Collective impact is a framework for achieving systems-level changes in communities through coordinated multi-sector collaborations. It has quickly gained influence in public health, education, and community development practice. Many adherents to the collective impact framework position it as a novel approach, however, and they often neglect many of the relevant findings from previous research on coalitions, interorganizational alliances, and other forms of organizational and cross-sector collaboration. Additionally, the collective impact model differs in important ways from other effective models for community-driven changes in systems and policies, including grassroots community organizing. This article situates collective impact in relation to similar approaches, makes key distinctions between the collective impact framework and principles for grassroots community organizing, and draws on these distinctions to offer recommendations for enhancing collaborative practice to address community issues. The clarification of these distinctions provides possibilities for future innovations in community development practice, evaluation, and research. To tackle the root causes of the systemic issues that collective impact efforts seek to address will require learning from the community organizing approach to community engagement, analysis of power, and capacity for conflict.

Towards a Conflict Theory of Recognition: On the Constitution of Relations of Recognition in Conflict

AbstractIn this paper, we develop an understanding of recognition in terms of individuals’ capacity for conflict. Our goal is to overcome various shortcomings that can be found in both the positive and negative conceptions of recognition. We start by analyzing paradigmatic instances of such conceptions—namely, those put forward by Axel Honneth and Judith Butler. We do so in order to show how both positions are inadequate in their elaborations of recognition in an analogous way: Both fail to make intelligible the fundamental nexus between relations of recognition and individuals’ capacity for conflict. We then move on to reconsider aspects of Hegel's view of recognition—ones that, from our viewpoint, have been unjustly neglected in the debate about recognition: his focus on the constitution of relations of recognition in conflict and on the status of being an author of acts of recognition. On this basis, we then spell out in a more systematic way what we take to be a more convincing conception of recognition. This puts us in the position to gesture at some consequences of this conception in practical contexts, above all with regard to the justification, role and structure of political institutions..