- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
While we know that business is key for stable peacebuilding, less is known about why business actually becomes involved in peace processes and peacebuilding. Based on a review ofthe academic literature and of case studies atthe global level,this article addresses this question from three perspectives: First, business needs peace to solve specific problems related to their operations in unstable contexts. Second, some business leaders believe that social change is positive and in their self-interest and are willing to promote transformations (creed). Finally, business participation in peacebuilding may be motivated by the anticipation of renewed investment, profit, and growth (greed). The article arguesthat none ofthese perspectives alone can explain the bulk of business participation in peacebuilding efforts. Rather, depending on actor and context, each business strategy can be traced to multiple combinations of these motivations. The article suggests that simplistic generalizations hurt the development of desperately needed partnershipsin mutual learning processes between business and othersocial actors. We need improved knowledge and understanding ofthe mechanisms of private sector decision making in transitional processes in order to stem unrealistic expectations or frustrations as to the capability and willingness of the private sector in supporting peace-related activity. This interdisciplinary approach should draw from management sciences, political science, and economics
Peacebuilding is an endeavor that is still highly contested and insufficiently understood. One crucial actor related to peacebuilding is the private sector. In addition to underscoring the importance of business for peace, this article has attempted to unpack why business actors engage in peacebuilding activity by using three tenets: need, creed, and greed. More than definite answers, this article raises questions for future research, as we require improved knowledge and understanding of the mechanisms of private sector decision making in transitional processes in order to stem unrealistic expectations or frustrations as to the capability and willingness of the private sector to support peacerelated activity. Drawing from management sciences, political science, and economics, an interdisciplinary approach could significantly help avoid the recurrent bottlenecks faced by efforts to broaden the pool of private sector partners in peacebuilding and could identify the links (and tensions) between private sector decision making and peacebuilding efforts. In addition, an integrated approach could help answer overarching questions: Is the organizational make-up of the private sector and the incentives structure governing private sector activity (i.e., ongoing risk associated with resilient conflict, fiscal structure, investment capacity, return on investments, foreign loans) favoring the development of economic mechanisms and processes suited for building lasting peace? Is peacebuilding strategy toward the private sector taking into consideration the constraints of transitional economies (limits to funding, disarticulation of commercial and trading networks, loss of trust, weak institutions, illegal activity) and the particularities (sectoral diversity, structure of ownership, degree of informality) ofthe private sector?