Can Jobs Programs Build Peace?

Abstract

In the last decade, well over $10 billion has been spent on employment programs designed to contribute to peace and stability. Despite the outlay, whether these programs perform, and how they do so, remain open questions. This study conducts three reviews to derive the status quo of knowledge. First, it draws on academic literature on the microfoundations of instability to distill testable theories of how employment programs could affect stability at the micro level. Second, it analyses academic and grey literature that directly evaluates the impacts of employment programs on peace-related outcomes. Third, it conducts a systematic review of program-based learning from over 400 interventions. This study finds good theoretical reasons to believe that employment programs could contribute to peace. However, only very limited evidence exists on overall impacts on peace or on the pathways underlying the theories of change. At the program level, the review finds strong evidence that contributions to peace and stability are often simply assumed to have occurred. This provides a major challenge for the justification of continued spending on jobs for peace programs. Instead, systematic and rigorous learning on the impacts of jobs for peace programs needs to be scaled up urgently.

Building Stability between Host and Refugee Communities: Evidence from a TVET Program in Jordan and Lebanon

“…In particular, the program made refugees in the treatment group more optimistic, left them feeling more capable to meet their current needs and has resulted in a reduction of relative group bias in the dictator game. These social outcomes appear to be driven by a direct "program effect" as identified by Brück et al (2021) as opposed to an indirect effect via employment gains. For these specific outcomes, we imagine, simply, that involvement in the program sent a positive signal to refugee participants about their future competitiveness in the labor market, which improved optimism.…”

“…The question of whether jobs programs, as opposed to having a job, alleviate societal tensions has limited and mixed evidence (Brück et al, 2021). For one, jobs programs in fragile environments have shown limited results, largely due to labor market demand constraints (Blattman and Ralston, 2015).…”

“…In this article, we evaluate one potential approach to tension reduction -increasing employability (Date-Bah, 2003). Brück et al (2021) argue that pro-employment interventions can affect social outcomes through both "employment effects" and "program effects", which suggests that interventions can stimulate social impacts, even when they fail in their narrower economic aims. These program effects may have social impacts as a direct result of how the intervention is designed (e.g., training people of different social groups together; changing perceptions of the future).…”

Theories of Change for WFP Afghanistan’s Contribution to the Triple Nexus: Final Report

“…The main theoretical framework used here when discussing conflict and peace is that they revolve around three key areas: opportunity, grievance, and contact (Brück et al 2021). A report supported by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the World Bank Group (WBG) which examines the literature and aid interventions suggests that most are predicated on the idea that creating opportunities, reducing grievance, and creating contact (and through contact, understanding) between communities are all plausible routes to reducing support for violence (Brück et al 2016).…”

A Qualitative Assessment of Pathways to Youth Inclusion in Afghanistan

“…Providing youth with jobs may not be enough to promote social cohesion. A 2015 study by Mercy Corps found that "experiences of injustices" were a driving factor in Afghan youths' feeling disaffected by the government (Mercy Corps 2015, see also Brück et al 2019). Perceived social inequalities are bad for social cohesion, and people are less likely to view decision-making institutions as legitimate if they feel systematically excluded from them on the matters affecting their lives (World Bank 2013c).…”