Impact And Outcomes: The Ethical Perils Of Distancing In Peacebuilding Grant Solicitations

References

• Autesserre, S. 2014, Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention, New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, R.K. 2008 ed., Conflict after the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace, New York: Pearson Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Donais, T. 2012, Peacebuilding and Local Ownership: Post-Conflict Consensus Building, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission 2013, ‘Commission Implementing Decision of 22.3.2013 adopting the 2013 Annual Action Programme for the Instrument for Stability — Crisis Preparedness Component (Peace-building Partnership)’, European Commission, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Fast, L.A., Neufeldt, R.C. & Schirch, L. 2002, ‘Toward Ethically Grounded Conflict Interventions: Reevaluating Challenges in the 21st Century’ in International Negotiation 7: 185–207.
   Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. 1998, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’ International Organization 52: 887–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederach, J.P. 1997, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mac Ginty, R. 2010, ‘Hybrid Peace: The Interaction between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Peace’ in Security Dialogue 41: 391–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murithi, T. 2009, The Ethics of Peacebuilding, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neufeldt, R.C. 2014, ‘Doing Good Better: Expanding the Ethics of Peacebuilding’ International Peacekeeping 21: 427–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paffenholz, T. 2014, ‘International Peacebuilding Goes Local: Analysing Lederach’s Conflict Transformation Theory and Its Ambivalent Encounter with 20 Years of Practice’ Peacebuilding 2: 11–27.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J.H. 2012, ‘A Conceptual Unpacking of Hybridity: Accounting for Notions of Power, Politics and Progress in Analysis of Aid-Driven Interfaces’ in Journal of Peacebuilding and Development 7: 9–22.
   Google Scholar
• Social Impact/USAID/CMM 2014, ‘Evaluative Learning Review Synthesis Report: USAID/CMM’s People-to-People Reconciliation Fund, Annual Program Statement (APS)’, USAID, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Steering Committee of the UN/WB Fragility and Conflict Partnership Trust Fund 2014, ‘United Nations-World Bank Fragility and Conflict Annual Report 2014: Partnership Trust Fund’, World Bank Group Fragility, Conflict and Violence, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Sterba, J.P. 2005, The Triumph of Practice over Theory in Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• UNPF & Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office 2014, ‘2013 Annual Report of the Administrative Agent of the Peacebuilding Fund’, United Nations, New York.
   Google Scholar
• USAID 2012, ‘Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation’. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaid.gov%2Fwho-we-are%2Forganization%2Fbureaus%2Fbureau-democracy-conflict-and-humanitarian-assistance%2Foffice&ei=3IzTVKiJOMb4yQTs14KoBQ&usg=AFQjCNG7JxFB1q7c7Hn22W_TqO8Q640ZhQ&bvm=bv.85142067,d.aWw, accessed 20 January.
   Google Scholar
• USAID 2013a, ‘Agency Financial Report: Fiscal Year 2013’, USAID, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID 2013b, ‘Where Does USAID’s Money Go? Excel Spreadsheet’, USAID, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID 2014, ‘Agency Financial Report: Fiscal Year 2014’, USAID, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID 2014b, ‘Mission, Vision and Values’, USAID, Washington, DC: http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/mission-vision-values, accessed 9 February.
   Google Scholar
• USAID CMM 2011, ‘People-to-People Peacebuilding: A Program Guide’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2008, ‘U.S. Agency for International Development Annual Program Statement: Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. APS Solicitation #M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA-08-319’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2009, ‘Annual Program Statement (APS): Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. APS Solicitation #M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA-09-857’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2010, ‘Annual Program Statement (APS): FY 10 Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. APS #M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA-10-390’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2011, ‘USAID/DCHA/CMM Annual Program Statement: FY 11 Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. APS-OAA-11-000001’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2012a, ‘Annual Program Statement: FY12 Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. APS-OAA-12-00001’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2012b, ‘Conflict Assessment Framework, Version 2.0’, USAID, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2012c, ‘Conflict Assessment Framework: Application Guide’, USAID, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2013, ‘USAID/DCHA/CMM Annual Program Statement: FY 13 Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. APS-OAA-13-000002’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• USAID/DCHA/CMM 2014, ‘USAID/DCHA/CMM Annual Program Statement: FY 14 Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. APS-OAA-14-000003’, USAID/DCHA/CMM, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Weston, A. 2013, A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitmore, T.D., ‘If They Kill Us at Least the Others Will Have More Time to Get Away”: The Ethics of Risk in Ethnographic Practice’ in Practical Matters 3: 1–28.
   Google Scholar