No abstract

Using an examination of three NGO interventions in post‐conflict Burundi, this article questions community‐based reconstruction as a mechanism to rebuild social capital after conflicts, particularly when direct livelihood support is provided. The authors demonstrate a general shortcoming of the methodology employed in community‐based development (CBD), namely its focus on ‘technical procedural design’, which results in what may be termed ‘supply‐driven demand‐driven’ reconstruction. The findings suggest the need for a political economy perspective on social capital, which acknowledges that the effects on social capital are determined by the type of economic resource CBD gives access to. Through the use of a resource typology, the case studies show that the CBD methodology and the potential effects on social capital differ when applied to public and non‐strategic versus private and strategic resources. This has particular consequences for post‐conflict situations. A generalized application of CBD methodology to post‐conflict reconstruction programmes fails to take adequate account of the nature of the interventions and the challenges posed by the particular post‐conflict setting. The article therefore questions the current popular ‘social engineering’ approach to post‐conflict reconstruction.

The failure of food security and livelihood interventions to adapt to conflict settings remains a key challenge in humanitarian responses to protracted crises. This paper proposes a social capital analysis to address this policy gap, adding a political economy dimension on food security and conflict to the actor-based livelihood framework. A case study of three hillsides in north Burundi provides an ethnographic basis for this hypothesis. While relying on a theoretical framework in which different combinations of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) account for a diverse range of outcomes, the findings offer empirical insights into how social capital portfolios adapt to a protracted crisis. It is argued that these social capital adaptations have the effect of changing livelihood policies, institutions, and processes (PIPs), and clarify the impact of the distribution of power and powerlessness on food security issues. In addition, they represent a solid way of integrating political economy concerns into the livelihood framework.

No abstract

A B S T R A C TAssociations have been labelled the main 'building blocks ' for creating social capital. It has been argued that community associations need to transform ' bonding ' into 'bridging' ties to ' reach out ' while also creating 'linking' ties to ' scale up '. External development actions follow a reverse logic in promoting these associations : they assume that linking ties with the external intervener will reinforce prior social capital endowments. This article highlights the inherent difficulties of such a 'social engineering ' approach in the context of post-conflict reconstruction, describing three development interventions in the north of Burundi. It defines the process of ' institutional syncretism ' -merging local with global institutional settings -as a key element to social capital building. The findings illustrate how the three interventions failed to reach this objective, and * We wish to thank Koen Vlassenroot and Johan Braeckman for their comments on an earlier version of the paper.