determining action, assumptions orient action by shaping people’ s understandings of the world. Assumptions make the choice of certain strategies seem natural, appropriate, and effective, while others appear inappropriate, illegitimate, or even unthinkable. For instance, as I explain below, the assumption that more education leads to individuals that are more peaceful makes it seem appropriate and legitimate for peace interveners to devote resources to education programs. In contrast, it seems unthinkable that peacebuilding actors would support corruption because the assumption is that it undermines peace. Assumptions also shape people’ s views on what counts as a problem: They affect which events will be noticed and which will not, as well as how these events will be interpreted. To continue with the examples of education and corruption, peacebuilders will notice the adverse effects of corruption, but they are less likely to recognize the counterproductive consequences of education programs. Ultimately, assumptions authorize, enable, and justify specific actions while precluding others. These actions in turn reproduce and reinforce existing assumptions. Over time, as various assumptions spread through the peacebuilding field and as they get reproduced and perpetuated, interveners progressively come to take them for granted, seeing them as natural and as the only conceivable modes of thinking and acting. Of course, this approach and existing explanations that focus on macro-level politics, constraints, mandates, and vested interests( see the first section of this paper) are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they are complementary. The goal of this article is not to challenge all of these existing explanations, but rather to add an important and thus far unexplored one to the set of tools scholars and policymakers can use to analyze peacebuilding and its effectiveness. As the rest of this article shows, many international programs in support of local conflict resolution rely on unsupported, untested, and potentially flawed assumptions about peace, peacebuilding, and the role of outsiders and insiders. These detrimental assumptions often lead peace efforts to be ineffective and even counterproductive. However, when exceptional individuals and organizations challenge these assumptions and adopt other ways of working, peacebuilding is much more effective. My aim in this article is not to provide an exhaustive list of such exceptional organizations and individuals, but rather to analyze a few representative examples for each of the dominant assumptions I examine in order to draw lessons from their experiences.
Challenging Widespread Assumptions Good Things Do Not Necessarily Promote Peace, and Bad Things Do Not Necessarily Undermine Peace
A widespread assumption among peacebuilders is that all“ good things lead to good things”( Cameron et al. 2015, 5, also 9 and 14). For instance, education is widely seen as“ a force for good,” and many youth-oriented projects are grounded in the belief that more education leads to more peaceful societies( Bush and Saltarelli 2000, v; Zeus and Chaffin 2011). However, education— including programs funded by international donors as a way to help build peace can also reinforce violence by promoting intolerance, stereotyping, and ethnic antagonisms( Bush and Saltarelli 2000; King 2014; Spink 2005). Likewise, international actors believe that youth employment programs, skills training, and microfinance help promote peace. Yet, much empirical evidence challenges this claim( Amarasuriya, Gu¨ndu¨z, and Mayer 2009; Blattman and Ralston 2015; Izzi 2013).
Another widespread belief is that the“ surest foundation for peace, both within and between states, is market democracy”( Paris 1997, 56). Accordingly, numerous countries, as well as institutions as diverse as the African Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, and various non-governmental organizations, share a“ liberal peace agenda”( Paris 2004; Richmond 2005). This agenda typically emphasizes the organization of free and fair elections, the creation of a market economy, the separation of powers, the reform of the security sector, the rule of law, and the advancement of human rights and civil society. Far from being a“ force for good,” however, the push toward political liberalization often fuels violence( Autesserre 2010, chapters 3 and 5; Barnett 2006;