Author
Abstract
This article examines three levels – policies, programs, and philosophies – and two types – cognitive and normative – of ideas in the policy discourse around the formation of the United Nations (UN) Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), using discursive institutionalism. This study of ideas helped explain this important global policy change and identify causal factors behind it. Underlying the policy ideas for the PBC and several antecedents, failed peacebuilding proposals were programmatic ideas about what peacebuilding was, whether it was relief, development, or security, and whether it should include prevention. A major questioning of ideas at the philosophical level, sparked by the 9/11 attacks and the 2002–2003 Iraq crisis, created the conditions under which the PBC policy idea could be brought forward. Tracing normative as well as cognitive ideas also helped explain policy change, by identifying policy actors’ motivations behind the policy proposals. Normative ideas were about what was wrong in post-conflict countries, including peacekeeping disasters, large-scale refugee and internally displaced persons (IDP) situations, a purportedly high rate of relapse into conflict, northern concerns about failed states, and southern concerns about a strong UN Security Council (UNSC). They also drove the particular policy proposals, including that for a small PBC with preventive functions and reporting only to the UNSC, and for the later removal of preventive functions, addition of General Assembly members to the PBC, and reporting to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
Suggested Citation
Lisa McCann, 2014.
"A discursive institutionalist analysis of global policy ideas in the creation of the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission,"
Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(5), pages 458-483, September.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:35:y:2014:i:5:p:458-483
DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2014.946481
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:35:y:2014:i:5:p:458-483. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.