“Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan


Journal article


I. Petrikova, Melita Lazell
Development Policy Review, 2021

Semantic Scholar DOI
Cite

Cite

APA   Click to copy
Petrikova, I., & Lazell, M. (2021). “Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan. Development Policy Review.


Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Petrikova, I., and Melita Lazell. “‘Securitized’ UK Aid Projects in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan.” Development Policy Review (2021).


MLA   Click to copy
Petrikova, I., and Melita Lazell. “‘Securitized’ UK Aid Projects in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan.” Development Policy Review, 2021.


BibTeX   Click to copy

@article{i2021a,
  title = {“Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan},
  year = {2021},
  journal = {Development Policy Review},
  author = {Petrikova, I. and Lazell, Melita}
}

Abstract

Motivation: In 2020, the UK Department for International Development (DFID) was merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). This policy move strengthens the trend to “securitize” development, whereby the provision of aid is motivated by national security concerns. Purpose: Many researchers have raised concerns about the securitization of aid and its consequences for development, but little research has examined its impact on aid- recipient countries. Approach and Methods: This study evaluates 144 securitized aid projects implemented by DFID between 2000 and 2018 in Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan, using the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability. Findings: Our analysis finds that although most of the projects assessed were “relevant”, i.e. formally aligned with recipient and funders’ objectives, many struggled to achieve their intended outputs (“effectiveness”). Few of the projects had a positive “impact”. We conclude that the securitized projects reviewed did not significantly strengthen the recipient countries’ institutions, stability, or security but had


Share



Follow this website


You need to create an Owlstown account to follow this website.


Sign up

Already an Owlstown member?

Log in