Team,
Many thanks to all for your lively engagement in the December IPR. What great sessions!
As discussed, our Interim Report is due to the sponsor.
Sector Leads – please send these items for the IPR to Curt by Monday 23 December COB this is a hard constraint deadline due to the IMSG meeting w LTG Cleveland 3 January and
time needed for Karen/Curt & Terry to review:
1. NARRATIVES/UPDATES -- put your summaries, stakeholders, preliminary biblios etc
in the Interim Report google doc – you’ll see we provided an outline. You can add more to
these sections if you have it, and if less, give update on status.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vEZG8FHCVrnT8EG_Tr6Oq7eFPKfdMG6u2X3qymG
hXWY/edit?usp=sharing
2. TASK SCHEDULE consult the **updated** GANTT chart at this
link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6F4l0wArM8FNXcxZEk0dnpYbjQ/edit?usp=sharing
Sector Leads - provide your tasks, deliverables and dates. The tasks should be a
hierarchy, for example
a.
Gov Lit Review April 15 2014;
i. Ref works biblio/Dec 23 2013;
ii. Ref works annotations/March 24 2013, etc.
b.
Gov PSOTEW Panel March 25 2014;
i. Gov PSOTEW call for papers questions 20 Dec 2013
ii. Gov Panel plan/participants lined up 30 Jan 2014, etc.
3. EXPENDITURES – provide expected expenditures of labor, travel, invitational travel,
honoraria and supplies by quarter. If you’ve already provided these, thank you, and please
review to see if anything has changed.
4. DATE FOR WORK PLAN REVIEW Curt and I would like to have a conversation with
each of the team leads to review the work plans before 9 January. Send Curt your
availability or suggested meeting times among these options: 3, 6, 7 Jan.
We absolutely must have work plans for each team lead. Once we have these we can
check in during the weekly meetings, to see for example what your percentages of progress
are in your task X or Y. When we can track these - we can watch for anomalies - whether
you’re under/over by quarter, and adjust. We will on a monthly basis be checking our
records of your timekeeping, for example. Do not assume your allocations will rollover -from Q1 (Fall) to Q2 (Winter), for example – we will roll up quarterly. If you’re under
expended (labor, travel, for example) in a quarter, we will reallocate unless we have an
explicit agreement otherwise.
Thank you for all your efforts,
Karen and Curt
Military Support to Governance
Interim Progress Report
DRAFT
(updated 2100 12/24/2013)
I. INTRODUCTION (Karen / Curt)
This Interim Project Report provides information on the initiation and progress of the Military
Support to Governance Project performed by Naval Postgraduate School researchers and
colleagues for Special Operations Command and the US Army John F. Kennedy Special
Warfare Center and School (JFKSWCS). The sponsor point of contact is the new Institute
for Military Support to Governance (IMSG) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, directed by BG
Hugh Van Roosen. The research team completed the first quarter of work, from project start
30 September through 31 December 2013. Due to a gap in project funding and emerging
IMSG requirements, the team adjusted the focus and schedule to accommodate additional
interim program review (IPR) meetings and acceleration of research for recommendations
regarding civil sector certifications.
A. BACKGROUND
The civil affairs proponent is taking steps to address a deficit in critical areas for civil affairs.
Historically, civil affairs have played critical roles in conflict prevention and post-conflict
transformation, but this capability has not been realized to its potential. Rather than leading
forces for strategic civil engagement, civil affairs has been divided and subordinated, and generally
perceived as maneuver support elements. The Army is home to the largest number of CA
forces. In 2006 the force was split between active and reserve components, under US Army
Special Operations Command and US Army Reserve Command, respectively, that roughly
aligned with a division between special and conventional orientation, and produced
disparities in training and education. In particular, the primarily reserve force structure has
made it difficult for personnel to access education that is the hallmark of a professional
force. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Reserve and Manpower Affairs (ASA-M&RA) Thomas R.
Lamont addressed this gap in June 2011 with a memorandum stating his intention to establish a
branch and force modernization proponent for Civil Affairs to support the Army’s total force. ASA
Lamont proposed a new “… branch proponent that supports the Army’s total force, with
common standards for active and reserve CA forces,” and proposed giving U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) responsibility for creating and stationing the
new CA branch proponent.
In particular, ASA Lamont declared, “The Army’s current plan for CA force modernization at the U.S.
Army JFK Special Warfare Center and School is no longer tenable, given the transfer of proponent
responsibility for U.S. Army Reserve CA forces outside of the special operations community”
(Lamont, 2011).
One important step is the establishment of the IMSG to guide the professionalization of the
Civil Affairs force structure. In support of this effort, the team is conducting analysis of the
following civil sector areas: safe and secure environment, rule of law, sustainable economic
development, social well-being, effective governance, and homeland integration. We
examine the requirements for civil affairs expertise, particularly during theater security
cooperation, support to civil authority and transitional military authority missions. This
research supports deliberations regarding the classifications, qualifications and certifications
for a new military occupational specialty (MOS) titled 38G - military support to governance
specialists. Additional research areas proposed include analysis of human behavior,
technological enablers, and strategic planning and strategy for military support to
governance.
The project supports the US Special Warfare Center and School initiatives to address gaps
principally for Special Operations, but also the wider Civil Affairs community. The Principal
Investigator (PI) and colleagues at the Naval Postgraduate School together with the Institute
for Military Support to Governance will, through this research endeavor, develop
relationships and reach-back with premier civilian schools, and the community governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental - of complex operations
practitioners. The team itself embodies civil-military cooperation. Together we developed an
analytic working group - Governance Innovation for Security and Development (GISD) - to
develop analysis that will advance community research and education goals.
B. OBJECTIVES
This project for US Army Special Warfare Center and School on military support to
governance supports professionalization of the Special Operations Civil Affairs Forces and
the wider community of Civil Affairs practitioners. The project design creates a multistakeholder dialogue and analysis of requirements and competencies and fosters greater
community understanding of current issues and trends in military support to governance:
provision of essential services, civil security, rule of law, governance, economy and
infrastructure, and homeland integration. We will analyze required expertise qualifications,
human behavior dynamics in support of conflict prevention and mitigation, and technological
enablers for stability and peace building. The project aims to enable CA personnel to more
effectively operate in the civil dimension of military operations across the spectrum of
conflict.
C. APPROACH
The Principal Investigator leads a cross-disciplinary team including experts from academic
institutions in an analytic dialogue and academic writing on military support to
governance. The PI regularly weekly consults with the program sponsor. The team is
engaging relevant joint, interagency and international stakeholders, for example, the CivilMilitary Working Group at the US Institute of Peace and the Peacekeeping and Stability
Operations Education and Training Workshop include representatives from the State
Department Bureau of Conflict Stabilization, the USAID Office of Transition Initiatives, the
US Institute of Peace, the US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations University, the
Joint Special Operations University, and members of the non-governmental and academic
communities. The project team will consider throughout the changing environment and
information communications technologies that present both hazards and opportunities for
practitioners.
The GISD analysis is conducted by working groups on the following topics:
1. Analysis of the required areas of expertise, qualifications and certifications of IMSG
governance elements:
a. Social well-being
b. Security
c. Rule of law
d. Governance
e. Economy and infrastructure
f. Homeland integration
2. Human behavior dynamics in military support to governance
3. Technological enablers of military support to governance
4. Planning and integration for military support to governance
D. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Section I of this report provides introduction, background, objectives, and approach for this
project. Section II provides an overview of project progress, with break-outs for the major
sectors under study (including 38G Certification). Section III provides management
information, including the project plan of action and milestones and current project
expenditures. A glossary of acronyms and list of references are provided at the end of this
report.
II. PROJECT WORK AREA REPORTING
This section provides an overview of activities through the first quarter of project
performance.
A. TEAM ORGANIZATION AND INITIATION OF WORK (Karen / Curt)
A major activity of the first quarter of work has been formation of the project team,
particularly in identifying leads for the major sectors of study:
 Rule of Law: Melanne Civic, Department of State
 Governance: Karen Guttieri, Naval Postgraduate School
 Social Well-Being: Marc Ventresca, Naval Postgraduate School
 Economy/Sustainable Development: Maria Pineda, Naval Postgraduate School
 Security: Jon Czarnecki, Naval War College
 Homeland Integration: Paula Philbin, Naval Postgraduate School
 38G Certification: Marc Ventresca, Naval Postgraduate School
To promote and enable collaboration across the team, an early goal was creation of a
collaborative site for gathering reference materials, project notes, and interim products.
There are now two websites established for project use:
 An internal facing website just for the working group to manage files
(https://sites.google.com/site/innovativegovernanceworkgroup/)

A public facing website (http://www.stanford.edu/group/captology/cgibin/innovativegovernance/)
We also started a dedicated project Calendar at
https://sites.google.com/site/innovativegovernanceworkgroup/calendar and a Google email
group. All the Google sites are private (controlled access list) and require separate login
with whatever email used to access Google docs, calendar, action items, and other
features.
Transition to APAN
A new site has been established on the All Partners Access Network (APAN;
https://community.apan.org/default.aspx), an unclassified, non-dot-mil network providing
interoperability and connectivity among partners over a common platform. APAN fosters
information exchange and collaboration between the United States Department of Defense
(DoD) and any external country, organization, agency or individual that does not have ready
access to traditional DoD systems and networks. The team is currently transitioning
materials from the Google site to the APAN site. Apart from the newly uploaded documents
on the Google Drive “Governance Innovation for Security and Development,” most of the
documents have migrated to APAN analogue. The group has changed its name from
“Naval Postgraduate School – Governance Innovation for Security and Development” to
simply “Governance Innovation for Security and Development”
(https://wss.apan.org/s/GISD). Additionally, links to the different working groups are on the
home page. Sharing is not a problem, and that action be found under “Site Actions” and
then “Site Permissions.” There are instructional webinars available on the APAN site to help
new users learn the navigation controls and file management procedures. One major
logistical hurdle is that the platform is SharePoint which, at the moment, does not allow
anyone to collectively create or edit a document on the site (unlike Google Drive). Telligent,
another platform on APAN, also does not allow anyone to create or edit the document on
the site and it has even less functionality than SharePoint. We may decide to retain some
presence in the Google site to retain this capability (collaborative document production).
Project Launch
The project kicked-off on 30 September 2013 with agenda planning and website
development. Ongoing coordination and progress reporting is performed in weekly project
telephone conferences among the team members and with representatives from the IMSG.
In addition, the team has held several key meetings during the first quarter, including a
Design Meeting conducted 17-18 October 2013 at Stanford University and and an Interim
Program Review (IPR) conducted 5-6 November 2013 at Fort Bragg. The former added
review of military governance and initiated a literature review protocol (completed 31
October 2013); the latter added human behavior, field laboratory, and 38G classification
activities.Individual sectors have also conducted meetings to set direction and scope for
technical activities. A Civilian-Military working group was conducted 25 November 2013 in
Washington, D.C.
The team has initiated literature reviews in accordance with the protocol (see individual
sector progress reports in the following subsections). Literature reviews are using the
RefWorks tool. Team training on RefWorks was initiated 23 October 2013. An NPS Library
Research page (http://libguides.nps.edu/ROL) was opened for team use on 23 October
2013.
The first quarter work culminated in a week-long series of technical discussions held as part
of a project IPR at the Naval Postgraduate School and Stanford University during the week
of 16 December 2013. The meetings were very constructive and necessary to integrate
understanding and unpack the challenges and connotations of the assignments. There is a
lot of talent and knowledge and commitment across the team, so the more sharing that
occurs across sector themes the better and more thoughtful and successful the final result
will be. The meetings provided an excellent opportunity to work with CA colleagues and
former students as well as with the sponsor team. It was wonderful and timely to hear what
everyone was thinking and doing, and on how to address the questions of the original
deliverables as well as the added 38G requests. This was a critical moment for all
participants to join together, along with sponsor team to clarify and reaffirm directions for the
work. Inputs from several practitioner colleagues were extremely high level, impactful, and
value-adding. The team made special effort to conduct “integrative panels” that worked well
and provided grist for thought, adding perspectives beyond those already on the “top-ofmind” issues. Overall, it was considered a very successful IPR. Summaries of key aspects
of these meetings are provided in each of the sector reports provided in the following
subsections.
Activities underway on the project include work and schedule planning, project and sector
team budgeting, and establishment of budget and schedule tracking procedures.
PSOTEW
A major opportunity to bring the issues of this project to the community is through
participation in the Peace and Stability Operations Training and Education Workshop
(PSOTEW; see Figure xx) to be conducted March 24-27 at George Mason University
(GMU) in Arlington, Virginia. PSOTEW is sponsored by the Director, Force Readiness and
Training, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness), together with
GMU, the U.S. Army War College’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute
(PKSOI), and other stakeholders. The workshop brings together trainers, practitioners,
planners, and educators from U.S. and international governmental and military
organizations, non-governmental organizations, peace and stability training centers, and
academic institutes to review training and education efforts in the milieu of stability and
peace operations to develop recommendations regarding what should be preserved and
what should be changed as the community plans for activities in future complex operations.
The goals of the workshop are:
 To provide a forum that addresses the equities of the community of practice and its
activities;
 To foster collaboration between the joint professional military education and
academic communities;
 To link community efforts; and
 To inform and support senior leaders, to monitor progress and to provide feedback
on the recommendations over the next year.
The workshop deals with cross-cutting issues such as capacity building; resiliency
challenges; gender challenges; curriculum coverage (emergent topics and
themes/considerations); case studies; technological innovation/opportunities; and gaps in
research, publication, and experiential learning/exercises.
Figure xx. PSOTEW Announcement.
The workshop has approved an MSG project proposal for a Working Group (WG3) on
Governance Innovation for Security (GISD), with the following goals:
 Assess current and future environments for employment of support to governance.
Analyze required expertise qualifications, human behavior dynamics in support of
conflict prevention and mitigation, and technological enablers for stability and peace
building.
 Identify gaps in research, policy and practice in governance innovation for security
and development.
 Identify/consult additional stakeholders and include larger communities of interest as
required for support to governance and development of Civil Affairs Civil Sector
Experts.
 Developing greater understanding within the communities of practice of current
issues, trends and needs with respect to military support to governance.
 The US military’s Civil Affairs community is in the midst of professionalizing its force
structure—how can that best support governance innovation for security and
development? What competencies are needed for these civil affairs roles?
 How can governance innovation support resiliency?
 Identify gender issues affecting good governance practices.
 Identify strategies to innovate across research areas, communities of practice and
technological enablers.
Each WG will apply a common framework for its session: (1) Assess: In the current political
and fiscal climates, what are the challenges of the near and future operating environments
and the challenges that leaders must face? (2) Partner: What are the synergies that can be
developed amongst organizations? What economies can be created? (3) Innovate: What
paradigms, intra-organization and inter-organization, need to be changed? What are the
steps to create lasting change? Each of the MSG project sector leads is planning their
portion of WG3. An initial call for papers for participation in the working group session is in
preparation for dissemination in early January 2014.
The current planned schedule for major upcoming meetings is as follows (refer to Section III
for the overall project plan of action and milestones):
 14-15 January 2014: Rule of Law Sector (DC)
 19-20 February 2014: Governance Sector (NPS)
 4-6 March 2014: Social Well-Being / Economy Sectors (UCLA)
 Week before PSOTEW: Silent Quest
 24-28 March 2014: PSOTEW (GMU)
 13-15 May 2014: Security Sector (West Point)
 17-18 June 2014: Homeland Integration Sector
B. RULE OF LAW (Melanne / Margalynne)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
2. Stakeholder Analysis
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
4. December IPR Report-out
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
The RoL sector team has identified a number of invitees for the Sector IPR (note: for some
offices, more than one name is listed (e.g., Director and operational experts), but we
anticipate only one or possibly two will attend). Several invitees are from areas beyond
Washington DC, including internationals. If possible, an unclassified video conference
capability may be set up for remote participants (e.g., NDU can accommodate this – it has
been done for previous conferences, linking in participants from Geneva, Germany,
Brussels, Haiti, etc.).
USG:
Jane Stromseth, Deputy Office of Global Criminal Justice, Department of State; coauthor of Can Might Make Rights: Building the Rule of Law after Military
Interventions; StromsethJE@state.gov
Robert Vasquez, JAG Officer on assignment to State Department’s Office of Global
Criminal Justice; Vasquezrp@state.gov
Kelly Uribe (USAID-DOD/OSD; transitional police); Kelly.Uribe@osd.mil
Andrew Solomon, Rule of Law expert; former Brookings, American Society of
International Law; asolomon@usaid.gov, andrewsolomon@gmail.com
COL Eric Haaland (DOD/OSD CEW); Eric.Haaland@osd.mil
Rod Fabrycky, DOD/OSD – NATO; transitional police; Rodney.Fabrycky@osd.mil
Eric Rosand, Senior Advisor, Department of State Counterterrorism;
RosandEA@state.gov
Michele Greenstein, Director (Acting) INL CAP, Department of State;
GreensteinMA@state.gov
Walter Redman, Senior Police Advisor, Department of State, INL/CAP;
RedmanW@state.gov
Jenny Murphy, Senior Justice Advisor; MurphyJW@state.gov
Robert Kravinsky, DOD/OSD; robert.kravinksy@osd.mil
Merry Archer, Department of State Political Military Bureau; ArcherMA@state.gov
Faye Ehrenstamm, Director (Acting) OPDAT, DOJ; Faye.S.Ehrenstamm@usdoj.gov
R. Carr Trevillian IV, Director ICITAP, DOJ; robert.trevillian@usdoj.gov
Thomas L. Dorwin, Justice and Security Legal Advisor DOJ OPDAT (and former JAG);
Thomas.Dorwin@usdoj.gov
J. Terry Bartlett, DOJ-ICITAP, 29 years of experience in Corrections;
terry.bartlett@usdoj.gov, BartlettJt@state.gov
Denver Fleming, Assistant director special Operations at DOJ-ICITAP;
Denver.Fleming@usdoj.gov
George Huber, Justice and Security Legal Advisor; former Deputy Chief of Staff, United
Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK); former Head of the
Political Coordination and Reporting Office, United Nations Interim Administration
Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK); george.huber@usdoj.gov
John Kelly, NDU, Professor of National Security Studies, ACSS; Associate Dean
Emeritus; retired Colonel, U.S. Army Reserves; John.Kelly@ndu.edu
Dr. David Tretle, NDU- National War College Acting Dean; tretlerd@ndu.edu
Ambassador James Foley, National War College Interim Commandant; former State
Department Senior Coordinator for Iraqi Refugee; U.S. Deputy Permanent
Representative to the United Nations in Geneva; and Deputy Director of the Private
Office of the NATO Secretary General in Brussels; James.Foley@ndu.edu
William (Bill) Aseltine, Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS);
aseltinew@diils.dsca.mil
Chris Hartley and Helen Bowman, JAG Postgraduate School/ Rule of Law Handbook;
Christopher.m.hartley.mil@mail.mil, Helen.e.bowman2.fm@mail.mil
Roberto (Bobby) Bran, USMC; roberto.bran@usmc.mil
International/ Multilateral/ Intergovernmental:
Sheelagh Stewart, Director, UNDP Governance and Rule of Law;
sheelagh.stewart@undp.org (New York)
Robert Pulver, Chief UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Criminal Law and
Judicial Advisory Service, Office for Rule of Law and Security Institutions;
Pulverr@un.org
Mark Downes/ Victoria Walker, International Security Sector Advisory Team (ISSAT) of
the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of the Armed Forces (Geneva);
v.walker@dcaf.ch, mdownes@dcaf.ch
NATO: James Appathurali, Appathurali.james@hq.nato.int (Brussels)
NATO: Claus Hoeegh-Huldberg; hoeegh-guldberg.claus@hq.nato.int (Brussels –phone
in)
Marcos Nicoli; mnicoli@worldbank.org
Andrea Testa; atesta@worldbank.org
Christina Biebesheimer; CBiebesheimer@worldbank.org
Varun Gauri, Economist-Rule of Law overlap; judicial rulings on human rights, grievance
redress in basic service delivery; vgauri@worldbank.org
Alexander-Louis Berg; lb262@georgetown.edu, aberg2@worldbank.org
Andras Vamos-Goldman, Director, Justice Rapid Response (JRR); a.vamosgoldman@justicerapidresponse.org (Geneva)
Civil Society/ Private Sector/ Academia
Colette Rausch, Director Rule of Law Center of Innovation, USIP; crausch@usip.org
Louis Aucoin, Professor Tufts University; former Program Officer in the Rule of Law
Program, United States Institute of Peace (2000-2003); founder of The Mekong
Delta Regional Law Center promoting judicial collaboration; former Deputy Special
Representative in Rule of Law for Liberia and Legal Advisor to Haiti’s Minister for
Justice; Louis.Aucoin@tufts.edu
Rachel Kleinfeld, founding CEO and President of the Truman Security Project and
author of Advancing Rule of Law Reform Abroad; rkleinfeld@ceip.org
Michelle Hughes, Chief, Global Strategy at The Internet Bar Organization, former Senior
Policy and Program Advisor, Rule of Law and Security Sector Reform, J7, and
former Senior Advisor - Rule of Law and Security Sector Reform, NATO Training
Mission - Afghanistan; michelle.hughes@cox.net
Rosa Brooks, Georgetown University School of Law Professor , former Counselor to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Special Coordinator for Rule of Law and
Humanitarian Policy; brooks.rosa@gmail.com
Paul Williams, President and co-founder of the Public International Law & Policy Group
(PILPG); pwilliams@pilpg.org
Rob Boone, Director of the American Bar Association Rule of Law Iniatitve (ABA ROLI);
Rob.Boone@americanbar.org
Chuck Tucker, Major General (Ret.); Executive Director World Enterprise Institute;
former Program Director International Development Law Organization (IDLO);
ctucker@weinstitute.org, ctucker417@yahoo.com
Allen S. Weiner, Stanford University Law Professor; former Department of State
Assistant Legal Advsior; aweiner@stanford.edu
Thomas Umberg, private sector attorney and former California State legislator;Colonel in
the Army Reserve; former Co-Chair of the State Department’s Public Private
Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan; Chief, Anti-Corruption, North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Training Mission–Afghanistan (NTM–A)/Combined Security
Transition Command–Afghanistan; tumberg@kruzlaw.gov
Eric Jensen, Director, Rule of Law Program and Affiliated Faculty Member at the Center
on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at the Freeman Spogli
Institute for International Studies at Stanford University (FSI);
egjensen@stanford.edu
Susan Farbstein, Harvard Human Rights Law Clinic, Transitional Justice and Rule of
Law expert; sfarbstein@law.harvard.edu
Sandra Hodgkinson, Vice President, Chief of Staff of DRS Technologies; former director
of the Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice, Coalition Provisional
Authority in Iraq; sandra.lynn.hodgkinson@gmail.com
David Gordon, Principal Subject Matter Expert Rule of Law at General Dynamics
Information Technology; former Rule of Law Program Director, US Army Civil Affairs
and Psychological Operations Command; David.Gordon@gdit.com
Robert Buergenthal , Landesa Director of Global Programs; former Programs Director
IDLO; Senior Rule of Law Advisor World Bank Group; OSCE; and USAID;
forrmb@yahoo.com
David Crane, Professor Syracuse University College of Law and Maxwell School; former
Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone; dmcrane0617@yahoo.com;
dmcrane@law.syr.edu
John Ferejohn, Professor on Rule of Law (law and political science); Islamic Law, NYU,
Yale University and Stanford University; John.ferejohn@nyu.edu
Brita Madsen, Rule of Law- Gender – Human Rights expert, Project Coordinator, Rule of
Law Training Program at the Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF); former
Senior Expert on human rights and justice in the External Monitoring System of the
EU’s Development Cooperation in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Caucasus;
former Project Coordinator for the establishment of the Office of Police Ombudsman
at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) (Germany);
b.madsen@zif-berlin.org
Angelic Young, Senior Coordinator, Resolution to Act, Institute for Inclusive Security;
former Senior Police Advisor, Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement; angelic_young@inclusivesecurity.org
6. Enabling Technologies
C. GOVERNANCE (Karen - with Charles and Herman)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
Although the civil dimension of military operations is well-known to be vital to mission
success in locales as diverse as Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa, it
remains little understood. Military support to governance in particular has suffered from
years of neglect due to several factors: the policy and military communities – despite
specific responsibilities under international law and US DoD polcy - are skittish about the
appearance of “occupation” and wary of “military government” responsibilities that stem
from it; the literature on governance is largely crafted by civilians with little attention to or
understanding of military norms and rules; the literature on military operations is generally
focused on kinetic missions with little attention to or understanding of civil domain factors. In
short, the literatures that are available do not effectively speak to one another. Moreover,
the subject area is extremely complex, as state-society relations and expectations vary from
place to place, and technological developments including new roles for social media in civic
participation and empowerment, and new ways of monitoring political governance are
constantly being developed and/or refined.
Military support to governance, a significant knowledge gap in civil affairs, is as complex as
it is essential. The need for understanding military support to governance is particularly
acute today, given the number of missions and organizations now concerned with civilmilitary planning and execution. The information domain has become much more diverse
with the advent of new technologies – hardware and software – that enable people to
communicate, organize, and share information. Civil Information is a core task for Civil
Affairs.
Today, civil affairs are at the forefront of major developments in the mission of the United
States military and its relationship to civilian agencies. The November 2005 DOD Directive
3000.05 for the first time identified stability operations as “a core U.S. military mission,” that
the military should be prepared to conduct “throughout all phases of conflict and across the
range of military operations, including in combat and non-combat environments.” This
message was affirmed in a 2009 DOD Instruction. DoD Directive 5100.01 on 21 December
2010 requires the Army to be prepared to, when necessary and directed, “occupy territories
abroad and provide for the initial establishment of a military government, pending transfer of
responsibility to other authority.” Understanding of the socio-cultural-political dynamics is
critical to success in “the human domain,” defined as “the totality of the physical, cultural,
social, and psychological environments that influence human behavior. The success of
unified action depends upon the application of capabilities that influence the perceptions,
understanding, and actions of relevant populations and decision makers.” (7 August, 2012
Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, ARCIC and USASOC meeting of General Officers).
In January 2013, the US National Defense Strategy, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership:
Priorities for 21st Century Defense calls for the ability to “secure territory and populations
and facilitate a transition to stable governance on a small scale for a limited period using
standing forces and, if necessary, for an extended period with mobilized forces” as part of a
primary mission to deter and defeat aggression (p. 4, italics in original). Joint Publication 307 Stability Operations in September 2011 expects military contributions to operations
design and planning. The doctrine identifies the following stability operations functions:
security, humanitarian assistance, economic stabilization and infrastructure, rule of law, and
governance and participation. Civil Affairs perform key roles in stability operations, as JP 307 notes “A civil-military operations staff element (cell, branch, or directorate) and
appropriate employment of civil affairs (CA) forces provides connectivity and understanding
that enables unity of effort within the headquarters and among stakeholders.” (xi) The Joint
Requirements Oversight Council Recommendations of 1 December 2011 recommended
Joint CA education “with the overarching goal of equipping and transitioning CA officer from
a tactical focus in support of Brigade to Corps level formations to a strategic and operational
focus in support of CCDR, Theater Special Operations Command civil capacity focused on
the following: governance, city management/infrastructure, economics, public health and
safety (civil security), essential services, rule of law, public education and information.”
Initial perspectives on selected literature are provided below:
“Conceptualizing Governance: A Mechanical Approach to the Measurement and Facilitation
of Goverance”: At its most reductive form, governance can be simply defined as the “act of
governing,” which is characteristically distinguishable from a governing body in of
itself. However, regarding the measurement of governance, the current literature typically
ascribes either institution-oriented or procedure-oriented parameters—both approaches fail
to account for the actual mechanics of governing. Subsequently, efforts by the international
development community to promote governance have had mixed results because, arguably,
they have been couched upon a conceptualization of governance that does not directly
address those mechanics. This paper rejects both institution-oriented and procedureoriented conceptualizations of governance and argues that the “act of governing” should be
solely measured by its outcomes—namely, its effectiveness, consistency, and
sustainability. Moreover, this paper delineates between “governance” and “drivers of
governance”—capacity, autonomy, and incentives, which are allotted to an agent within a
system of principal-agent relationships. In reconceptualizing the measurement of
governance and the “drivers” (or facilitation) of governance, the issue of differentiating
between innovation and corruption are also addressed through literature review, decision
analysis, and thought experimentation.
“Institutional Drivers of Human Development: A Disaggregated Analysis of CommunityDriven Development in the Philippines”: This paper hypothesizes that “drivers of
governance”—capacity, autonomy, and incentives—will have a significant and positive
relationship with human development. Analyzing cross-provincial data from 1997 to 2012,
this paper seeks to explain how fiscal and political decentralization produced mixed results
in terms of human development since the implementation of the Local Government Code of
1991. A preliminary analysis of the data suggests that, while fiscal capacity and political
autonomy played a significant role in human development outcomes, the funding and
staffing strength of KALAHI-CIDSS (the largest community-driven development project in
the Philippines) also determined the incentivization of provincial governors to actually
promote human development. In addition to statistical analysis, this paper also draws from
literature regarding community-driven development, fiscal federalism, and public sector
innovation.
“Behavior Analysis of Elite Cooperation: Governance Modeling in the Context of High
Conflict, Low Development, and Mutual Distrust”: This paper investigates cooperative
behavior within principal-agent relationships. Specifically, it tests what conditions facilitate
elite cooperation to improve human development under high levels of mutual distrust. This
paper hypothesizes elites (or agents) will form sustainable alliances to promote human
development if the following characteristics of governance are institutionalized: 1) political
authority is decentralized, 2) state and non-state agents (including, violent non-state actors)
are empowered, 3) project accountability is driven by principals, 4) project challenges are
solved iteratively and adaptively, and 5) agents are solely accountable for human
development outcomes (as opposed to democratic outcomes, for example). The
hypothesis is tested through a behavior experiment in which participants, playing various
roles such as warlord or mayor, will decide whether to form an alliance to utilize a “human
development widget”—a placeholder name to generally describe a program that solely
raises human development—given the degree of certitude that other agents will cooperate
within a particular governance model. All of the possible combinations of the governance
model are tested to find an optimal approach, though the hypothesis argues that all five
conditions are necessary for consistent iterations of cooperation. Aside from behavior
analysis, the research will also rely on a literature review and computer modeling, and it will
draw from the success and challenges of community-driven development, deliberative
democracy, Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA), and the Multistakeholder
Governance Model in Afghanistan and the Philippines.
Additional literature in this area includes:
Abed, George T. and Sanjeev Gupta. 2002. Governance, Corruption, and Economic
Performance. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
Bekkers, Victor, Geske Dijkstra, Arthur Edwards, and Menno Fenger. 2007. Governance
and the Democratic Deficit: Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of Governance
Practices. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing .
Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans P., Jacomina P. de Regt, and Stephen Spector. 2010. Local and
Community Driven Development: Moving to Scale in Theory and Practice.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Bridges, Brian and Lok Sang Ho. 2010. Public Governance in Asia and the Limits of
Electoral Democracy. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
de Ferranti, David, Justin Jacinto, Anthony, J. Ody, and Graeme Ramshaw. 2009. How to
Improve Governance: A New Framework for Analysis and Action. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.
Estrella, Marisol and Nina Iszatt. 2004. Beyond Good Governance: Participatory Democracy
in the Philippines. Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy.
Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Levi-Faur, David. 2012. "From "Big Government" to "Big Governance"?" In Oxford
Handbook of Governance, by David Levi-Faur, 3-18. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Lovan, W. Robert, Michael Murray, and Ron Shaffer. 2004. Participatory Governance:
Planning, Conflict Mediation, and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society. Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing.
Malesky, Edmund. 2008. "Straight Ahead on Red: How Foreign Direct Investment
Empowers Subnational Leaders." The Journal of Politics 70 (1): 97-119.
Norris, Pippa. 2008. Driving Democracy: Do Power Sharing Institutions Work? New York:
Cambridge University Press.
—. 2012. Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare,
and Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pierre, Jon. 2000. Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rothstein, Bo. 2012. "Good Governance." In Oxford Handbook of Governance, by David
Levi-Faur, 143-154. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sahni, Nikhil R., Maxwell Wessel, and Clayton M. Christensen. 2013. "Unleashing
Breakthrough in Innovation in Government." Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Summer: 26-31.
2. Stakeholder Analysis
Confirmed
Individual
Support
Confirmed
Institutional
Support
Potential
Individual
Support
Potential
Institutional
Support
Conceptualizing
Governance
Greg Distelhorst
(MIT/University of
Toronto)
TBD
Francis
Fukuyama
(Stanford
University)
Governance Project
(Stanford Center on
Democracy, Development,
and Rule of Law)
Institutional Drivers
of Human
Development
Gabriella Montinola
(UC Davis)
TBD
Barry Weingast
(Stanford
University)
Stanford Center on
Democracy, Development,
and Rule of Law
UC Berkeley Center for
Effective Global Action
Asia Foundation
Behavior Analysis
James Fearon
(Stanford
University)
TBD
Barry Weingast
(Stanford
University)
Stanford Center on
International Security and
Cooperation
Joe Felter
(Stanford
University)
Stanford Center on
International Conflict and
Negotiation
Christia Fotini
(MIT)
UC Berkeley Institutions
and Governance
Chris Ansell (UC
Berkeley)
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
4. December IPR Report-out
While the topic of governance was included in nearly all discussion throughout the IPR, the
session in which Stanford Communication Professor James Fishkin spoke on deliberative
democracy started a very thoughtful discussion on what military support to governance
would resemble. Specifically, at length, participants discussed how to transpose the expert
dialogue, as found in deliberative polling, to battlespaces in which Civil Affairs operates,
where experts on any particular subject may be few and far between. Additionally, from a
legal and moral standpoint, we discussed how can Civil Affairs proffer options to a
community without simultaneously imposing cultural standards foreign to that area. Neither
of these issues were unanimously resolved, though the basic mechanics of truly
understanding the human terrain, as in the case of deliberative polling, can certainly be
incorporated into the Assessment phase of Civil Affairs operations.
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
6. Enabling Technologies
D. SECURITY (Jon)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
2. Stakeholder Analysis
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
4. December IPR Report-out
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
6. Enabling Technologies
E. ECONOMY / SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (Maria)
During the first quarter of the project, the Economy / Sustainable Development sector team
has engaged in meetings with the military sponsor team and MSG project team members to
work on mission details, assess competencies and interrelationships among themes, and
coordinate expected outcomes and timeframes with sponsor. The sector team has
participated in weekly meetings of the project team and subteams, and meetings at NPS,
Fort Bragg, and Stanford University as part of project design and interim program reviews.
The team prepared for the December IPR and has started preparations for the March
PSOTEW community launch.
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
For the literature review, the sector team has scanned and pre-selected bibliographic items
and established content categories, relevance and annotation of anchor literature. Work has
included preparation and literature review of main debates, work on annotated bibliography
(update, evaluate, select, read, review, incorporate feedback), and sketching a initial
category selection. We have coordinated and trained on integrated and shared bibliographic
software, conducted individual and theme research of original content, identified potential
concepts for academic journal placement, and scanned current literature, critiques,
debates, conferences, and other media to identify gaps and relevance and salience of
content. The following is a preliminary bibliography gathered for research in this sector.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Collier, Paul "Natural Resources, Development and Conflict: Channels of Causation and
Policy Interventions," (Washington: World Bank, 2003)
Bobbitt, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, (NewYork: Anchor,
2002)
___________, Terror and Conscent: The wars of the 21 century
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, (NewYork: W.W.
Norton & Co., 1999)
____________, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition, (New
York: Penguin Group, NY, 2005)
____________, The World Until Yesterday: What Can we Learn from Traditional Societies,
(New York: Penguin Group, NY, 2012)
Kaldor, Mary; Karl, Terry Lynn; Said, Yahia, eds, Oil Wars, (London: Pluto Press, 2007)
Karl, Terry Lynn The Paradox of Plenty, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997)
Michael Lewis, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, (New York: W.W. Norton,
2003)
Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, (New York: Penguin
Books, 2008)
Perkins, John, Confesions of an Economic Hit Man, (San Francisco: Berret-Koehler, 2004)
Ross, M. L.,"The political economy of the resource curse". World Politics 51 (2): 297–322.
Ross, Michael (2006). "A Closer Look at Oil, Diamonds, and Civil War". Annual Review of
Political Science 9: 265–300
Thucydides, Robert B. Strassler Ed., The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide
to the Peloponnesian War, (New York: Touchstone, 1998)
BUSINESS ECONOMICS
Acs, Zoltan J. “Small Business Economics: A Global Perspective.” Challenge 35, no. 6
(1992): 38–44.
Davis, Steven J., John Haltiwanger, and Scott Schuh. “Small Business and Job Creation:
Dissecting the Myth and Reassessing the Facts.” Business Economics 29 (1994): 13–
13.
Porter, Michael E. “The Adam Smith Address: Location, Clusters, and the‘ New’
Microeconomics of Competition.” Business Economics 33, no. 1 (1998): 7–13.
Schwartz, Hugh. Rationality Gone Awry?: Decision Making Inconsistent with Economic and
Financial Theory, 1999. http://nabe-web.com/publib/be/990393.pdf.
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Bardhan, Pranab. Land, Labor, and Rural Poverty: Essays in Development Economics.
Columbia University Press, 1984.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kokSfD1Y5v4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=d
evelopment+economics&ots=av195pFwyf&sig=RODyPiOdFooM-ydirhn9NBKISOY.
Hirschman, Albert O. “The Rise and Decline of Development Economics.” Essays in
Trespassing: Economics to Politics and Beyond 1 (1981): 24.
Lal, Deepak. The Poverty of Development Economics. mit Press, 2000.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pYxw96EHDpEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq
=development+economics&ots=ch5pjgqueC&sig=VjO6ZlZwSWWSvOkhzsVDSBYnq1
4.
Meier, Gerald M. “Leading Issues in Development Economics.” Leading Issues in
Development Economics. (1964).
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19651802210.html.
Pearce, David William, Edward B. Barbier, and Anil Markandya. Sustainable Development:
Economics and Environment in the Third Wordl. Earthscan, 1990.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=03NeLzVsC8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=development+economics&ots=I2ybNiP1tW&sig=132Mb0T7s
6gXYczGCWzz7PVNAYI.
Rao, Pinninti K. Sustainable Development: Economics and Policy. Blackwell Publishers,
2000. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20001807469.html.
Ray, Debraj. Development Economics. Princeton University Press, 1998.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GKr5RxWT4uAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=
development+economics&ots=r4oLDo_qhs&sig=NHU286cedUwcrIOAWIZ_1KoWOM.
EXPEDITIONARY ECONOMICS (conflict economics, peace economics, and security
economics)
Karam, Azza. “Expeditionary Economics: Enabling Stabilization and Growth or Risking
Cultural Collateral Damage?” In Conference on Expeditionary Economics: Towards
and Doctrine for Enabling Stabilization and Growth, West Point, February, 15–17,
2011. http://relooney.fatcow.com/NS4053e/Kauffman-Expeditionary_11.pdf.
Looney, Robert. “Entrepreneurship and the Process of Development: A Framework for
Applied Expeditionary Economics in Pakistan.” Available at SSRN 2027512 (2012).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027512.
Patterson, Rebecca, and Jonathan Robinson. “The Commander as Investor: Changing
CERP Practices.” PRISM 2, no. 2 (2011): 115–125.
Patterson, Rebecca, and Dane Stangler. Building Expeditionary Economics: Understanding
the Field and Setting Forth a Research Agenda. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation,
2010. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1710010.
Peterson, Jeff, and Mark Crow. “Expeditionary Economics: Towards a Doctrine for Enabling
Stabilization and Growth.” In Conference on Expeditionary Economics: Towards and
Doctrine for Enabling Stabilization and Growth, West Point, February, 15–17, 2011.
http://relooney.fatcow.com/NS4053e/Kauffman-Expeditionary_8.pdf.
Riegg, Nicholas H. “Implementing Expeditionary and Entrepreneural Economics: Iraq and
Afghanistan.” Entrepreneurship and Expeditionary Economics: Towards a New
Approach to Economic Growth Following Conflict or Disaster (2010).
Schake, Kori. “Operationalizing Expeditionary Economics.” Entrepreneurship and
Expeditionary Economics: Towards a New Approach to Economic Growth Following
Conflict or Disaster (2010). http://www.relooney.info/SI_Expeditionary/0Expeditionary_2.pdf#page=201.
Schramm, Carl J. “Expeditionary Economics: Spurring Growth after Conflicts and
Disasters.” Foreign Aff. 89 (2010): 89.
FINANCE AND MACRO-ECONOMICS
Alesina, Alberto, Enrico Spolaore, and Romain Wacziarg. Economic Integration and Political
Disintegration. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6163.
Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo. Reforming the Reforms in Latin America: Macroeconomics, Trade,
Finance. Macmillan, 2000.
http://www.networkideas.org/featart/may2002/Latin_America.pdf.
Krugman, Paul. “How Did Economists Get It so Wrong?” New York Times 2, no. 9 (2009):
2009.
Rodrik, Dani. Trade, Social Insurance, and the Limits to Globalization. National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1997. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5905.pdf.
———. Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments? National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1996. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5537.
GENDER ECONOMICS
Benería, Lourdes. “Toward a Greater Integration of Gender in Economics.” World
Development 23, no. 11 (1995): 1839–1850.
Benería, Lourdes, Günseli Berik, and Maria Floro. Gender, Development, and Globalization:
Economics as If All People Mattered. Routledge New York, 2003.
http://orton.catie.ac.cr/cgibin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=SIBE01.xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion
=mfn=032097.
Elson, Diane. “Gender-Aware Analysis and Development Economics.” Journal of
International Development 5, no. 2 (1993): 237–247.
Jacobsen, Joyce P. The Economics of Gender. Vol. 631207279. Blackwell Malden, MA,
1998. http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?ouvrage=1787966.
Mackintosh, Maureen. “Gender and Economics: The Sexual Division of Labour and the
Subordination of Women.” (1981). http://www.popline.org/node/425964.
Nussbaum, Martha C., and Jonathan Glover. Women, Culture, and Development: A Study
of Human Capabilities: A Study of Human Capabilities. Oxford University Press, 1995.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jhLgdK84Ll8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Ge
nder+economics&ots=GbJiHfpJFe&sig=A4I6TaiExL_lEgz2GWrrr1XBKTw.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECONSTRUCTION
Berke, Philip R., and Thomas J. Campanella. “Planning for Postdisaster Resiliency.” The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 604, no. 1 (2006):
192–207.
Chang, Stephanie E., and Nobuoto Nojima. “Measuring Post-Disaster Transportation
System Performance: The 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Comparative Perspective.”
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35, no. 6 (2001): 475–494.
Davidson, Colin H., Cassidy Johnson, Gonzalo Lizarralde, Nese Dikmen, and Alicia
Sliwinski. “Truths and Myths about Community Participation in Post-Disaster Housing
Projects.” Habitat International 31, no. 1 (2007): 100–115.
Ingram, Jane C., Guillermo Franco, Cristina Rumbaitis-del Rio, and Bjian Khazai. “PostDisaster Recovery Dilemmas: Challenges in Balancing Short-Term and Long-Term
Needs for Vulnerability Reduction.” Environmental Science & Policy 9, no. 7 (2006):
607–613.
Johnson, Cassidy. “Strategic Planning for Post-Disaster Temporary Housing.” Disasters 31,
no. 4 (2007): 435–458.
Leitmann, Josef. “Cities and Calamities: Learning from Post-Disaster Response in
Indonesia.” Journal of Urban Health 84, no. 1 (2007): 144–153.
Munnell, Alicia H., and Leah M. Cook. “How Does Public Infrastructure Affect Regional
Economic Performance?” In Is There a Shortfall in Public Capital Investment?
Proceedings of a Conference, 1990. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=839830.
North, Carol S., Betty Pfefferbaum, Pushpa Narayanan, Samuel Thielman, GRETCHEN
McCOY, Cedric Dumont, Aya Kawasaki, Natsuko Ryosho, and Edward L. Spitznagel.
“Comparison of Post-Disaster Psychiatric Disorders after Terrorist Bombings in Nairobi
and Oklahoma City.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 186, no. 6 (2005): 487–493.
Oliver-Smith, Anthony. “Successes and Failures in Post-Disaster Resettlement.” Disasters
15, no. 1 (1991): 12–23.
INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS
Coase, Ronald. “The New Institutional Economics.” The American Economic Review 88, no.
2 (1998): 72–74.
Coase, Ronald H. “The New Institutional Economics.” Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte
Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 140, no. 1
(1984): 229–231.
Commons, John R. “Institutional Economics.” The American Economic Review (1931): 648–
657.
Furubotn, Eirik G., and Rudolf Richter. Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution
of the New Institutional Economics. University of Michigan Press, 2005.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fYgfNXezQN8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=in
stitutional+economics&ots=D2W2AmDjxN&sig=-e7mJ1EUuPqqTXUiIZOVtjmg4Rg.
Harriss, John, Janet Hunter, and Colin Lewis. The New Institutional Economics and Third
World Development. Routledge, 2003.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OXM0omA15WQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&d
q=institutional+economics&ots=-fAs6zuWva&sig=g1mr7w3II_tYRb6n5i-EH2pQ27A.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. “The Approach of Institutional Economics.” Journal of Economic
Literature 36, no. 1 (1998): 166–192.
Langlois, Richard. Economics as a Process: Essays in the New Institutional Economics.
CUP Archive, 1989. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7c8AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=institutional+economics&ots=mie8iS2koA&sig=B
_PDLORmVLSCUs4ygd0PRBm38Xk.
North, Douglass C. “The New Institutional Economics.” Journal of Institutional and
Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 142, no.
1 (1986): 230–237.
———. “The New Institutional Economics and Development.” EconWPA Economic History
no. 9309002 (1993).
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/sedef.akgungor/Current%20topics%20in%20Turkish%
20Economy/north.pdf.
Williamson, Oliver E. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead.”
Journal of Economic Literature 38, no. 3 (2000): 595–613.
POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DEVELOPMENT
Bardhan, Pranab. “The Political Economy of Development in India: Expanded Edition with
an Epilogue on the Political Economy of Reform in India.” OUP Catalogue (1999).
http://ideas.repec.org/b/oxp/obooks/9780195647709.html.
Bates, Robert H. Toward a Political Economy of Development: A National Choice
Perspective. Vol. 14. University of California Pr, 1988.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d4X_c883LSwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=
political+economy+and+development&ots=XIZ4YTx92M&sig=ehXgugoCvsNsZUstcIF
6AT9_OoI.
Cumings, Bruce. “The Origins and Development of the Northeast Asian Political Economy:
Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles, and Political Consequences.” International
Organization (1984): 1–40.
Dasgupta, Biplab. Structural Adjustment, Global Trade and the New Political Economy of
Development. Vol. 378. Zed books London, 1998.
http://www.getcited.org/pub/100406589.
Gibson, Clark C., Krister Andersson, Elinor Ostrom, and Sujai Shivakumar. The Samaritan’s
Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid. Oxford University Press Oxford,
2005.
http://www.dandelon.com/servlet/download/attachments/dandelon/ids/CH0015827293
148A143BAC12571180051A143.pdf.
Hart, Keith. The Political Economy of West African Agriculture. Cambridge University Press,
1982. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19836747808.html.
Hoogvelt, Ankie. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of
Development. JHU Press, 2001.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=856I7i5x9iQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=po
litical+economy+and+development&ots=QzL5rbIF_w&sig=CYOGOydXkZXsWk_FACa
xdtr9uFE.
Kiely, Ray. The New Political Economy of Development: Globalization, Imperialism,
Hegemony. Palgrave macmillan, 2007.
Rai, Shirin M. Gender and the Political Economy of Development. Polity Press, 2002.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j7cEwoFy4nwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1969&d
q=political+economy+and+development&ots=zeRrKTpksR&sig=YKhAyAtgI1ve3TCGd
OOics8V5pE.
RISK AND RESILIENCE
Alexander, David. “Globalization of Disaster: Trends, Problems and Dilemmas.” Journal of
International Affairs-Columbia University 59, no. 2 (2006): 1.
Allenby, Brad, and Jonathan Fink. “Toward Inherently Secure and Resilient Societies.”
Science 309, no. 5737 (2005): 1034–1036.
Britton, Neil R., and Gerard J. Clark. “From Response to Resilience: Emergency
Management Reform in New Zealand.” Natural Hazards Review 1, no. 3 (2000): 145–
150.
Coaffee, Jon. “Risk, Resilience, and Environmentally Sustainable Cities.” Energy Policy 36,
no. 12 (2008): 4633–4638.
Coaffee, Jon, and David Murakami Wood. “Security Is Coming Home: Rethinking Scale and
Constructing Resilience in the Global Urban Response to Terrorist Risk.” International
Relations 20, no. 4 (2006): 503–517.
Flynn, Stephen E. “America the Resilient: Defying Terrorism and Mitigating Natural
Disasters.” Foreign Affairs (2008): 2–8.
Furedi, Frank. “Fear and Security: A Vulnerability-Led Policy Response.” Social Policy &
Administration 42, no. 6 (2008): 645–661.
Killian, Beverley. “Risk and Resilience.” A Generation at Risk (2004): 40.
McAdam-Crisp, Jacqueline L. “Factors That Can Enhance and Limit Resilience for Children
of War.” Childhood 13, no. 4 (2006): 459–477.
Pei-Jun, Shi. “Theory and Practice on Disaster System Research in a Fourth Time [J].”
Journal of Natural Disasters 6 (2005): 000.
Renn, Ortwin, and Katherine D. Walker. Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice
Using the IRGC Framework. Vol. 1. Springer, 2007.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Z3IN309cLAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=risk+and+resilience+in+civil+affairs&ots=U3OdyDd5A&sig=1P8bvnd0Kw_ajH6s52E8vTmDFcc.
Schoon, Ingrid. Risk and Resilience: Adaptations in Changing Times. Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rJhwdkcJPBwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=
risk+and+resilience+in+civil+affairs&ots=pqWeV0TEwO&sig=voRoRGzP8YaUZhlldUu
LnVDOZh0.
Smith, Denis, and Moira Fischbacher. “The Changing Nature of Risk and Risk
Management: The Challenge of Borders, Uncertainty and Resilience.” Risk
Management 11, no. 1 (2009): 1–12.
Tanner, Thomas, Tom Mitchell, Emily Polack, and Bruce Guenther. “Urban Governance for
Adaptation: Assessing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Asian Cities.” IDS Working
Papers 2009, no. 315 (2009): 01–47.
Tidball, Keith G., and Marianne E. Krasny. “From Risk to Resilience: What Role for
Community Greening and Civic Ecology in Cities.” Social Learning towards a More
Sustainable World (2007): 149–64.
SOCIAL ECONOMY
Borzaga, Carlo, and Jacques Defourny. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. Routledge,
2001.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GMu4fLkMV4wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=
social+economy&ots=6_qNxLL1Tq&sig=uCsQB7fqbLOzibcaWCtTIwiHW5I.
Bowen, Howard Rothmann. Toward Social Economy. Southern Illinois University Press,
1977. http://www.getcited.org/pub/101688886.
Defourny, Jacques, and Patrick Develtere. “The Social Economy: The Worldwide Making of
a Third Sector.” Social Economy North and South (1999): 17–47.
Kay, Alan. “Social Capital, the Social Economy and Community Development.” Community
Development Journal 41, no. 2 (2006): 160–173.
Kotz, David M., Terrence McDonough, and Michael Reich. Social Structures of
Accumulation: The Political Economy of Growth and Crisis. Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EMAiVs23XBcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=s
ocial+economy&ots=WbkxWdxIkN&sig=SwqQB8iJ65CoXKPs7gPiraGZMrM.
Moulaert, Frank, and Oana Ailenei. “Social Economy, Third Sector and Solidarity Relations:
A Conceptual Synthesis from History to Present.” Urban Studies 42, no. 11 (2005):
2037–2053.
Procacci, Giovanna. “Social Economy and the Government of Poverty.” The Foucault
Effect: Studies in Governmentality (1991): 151–168.
Razavi, Shahra. “The Political and Social Economy of Care in a Development Context.”
Gender and Development Programme Paper no. 3 (2007).
http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/developpement/shared/developpement/cours/E
763/Razavi_Care.pdf.
Rifkin, Jeremy, and Ellen Kruger. The End of Work. Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1996.
http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%202005.pdf.
Sayer, Andrew, and Richard Walker. The New Social Economy: Reworking the Division of
Labor. Blackwell Cambridge, MA, 1992.
http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?id=RAAWLSAX3SOOWQ.
Scott, Allen J. Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the
Global Resurgence of Cities: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global
Resurgence of Cities. Oxford University Press, 2008.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TCUaDf41HIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=social+economy&ots=CJ1z6_N4AB&sig=icfWzX3Qj92Y
JyJzbQdDZi7LrDQ.
Van Til, Jon, and Foundation Center. Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Changing
Social Economy. Foundation Center New York, 1988.
http://www.getcited.org/pub/102688299.
Wagner, Richard E. Mind, Society, and Human Action: Time and Knowledge in a Theory of
Social-Economy. Vol. 29. Routledge, 2010.
URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Agyeman, Julian, Robert Doyle Bullard, and Bob Evans. Just Sustainabilities: Development
in an Unequal World. The MIT Press, 2003.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=I7QBbofQGu4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=U
rban+and+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=If2_KoquTc&sig=ttaQFmbGi
wXTIorPkjxmY1FgVk0.
Bayat, Asef. “Un-Civil Society: The Politics of The’informal People’.” Third World Quarterly
18, no. 1 (1997): 53–72.
Esser, Josef, and Joachim Hirsch. “The Crisis of Fordism and the Dimensions of a
‘postfordist’regional and Urban Structure.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 13, no. 3 (1989): 417–437.
Hall, Peter, and Mark Tewdwr-Jones. Urban and Regional Planning. Routledge, 2010.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LFLydtcQf54C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Ur
ban+and+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=f1UAscI4sT&sig=Xw8bwLYS
sLr6GwfclW-SsyJmKGQ.
Keating, Michael. “Regions and International Affairs: Motives, Opportunities and Strategies.”
Regional & Federal Studies 9, no. 1 (1999): 1–16.
MacLeod, Gordon, and Mark Goodwin. “Reconstructing an Urban and Regional Political
Economy: On the State, Politics, Scale, and Explanation.” Political Geography 18, no.
6 (1999): 697–730.
———. “Space, Scale and State Strategy: Rethinking Urban and Regional Governance.”
Progress in Human Geography 23, no. 4 (1999): 503–527.
Malecki, Edward. “Jockeying for Position: What It Means and Why It Matters to Regional
Development Policy When Places Compete.” Regional Studies 38, no. 9 (2004):
1101–1120.
McLoughlin, J. Brian. “Urban & Regional Planning: A Systems Approach” (1969).
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/handle/2042/30156.
Pierre, Jon. Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience.
Palgrave Macmillan, 1998.
Purcell, Mark. “Urban Democracy and the Local Trap.” Urban Studies 43, no. 11 (2006):
1921–1941.
Satterthwaite, David, and Cecilia Tacoli. The Urban Part of Rural Development: The Role of
Small and Intermediate Urban Centres in Rural and Regional Development and
Poverty Reduction. Vol. 9. IIED, 2003.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ywHHMUGzwv8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq
=Urban+and+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=Umri7xNHcL&sig=u5H5OTKFXrV7yxEVgdO-njt7NU.
Stock, Robert. Africa South of the Sahara: A Geographical Interpretation. Guilford Press,
2012.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VYae4_3VI2wC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=U
rban+and+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=dsRcEIDZGg&sig=JGCVuz
wDYGmUi3f5Nb2NPn9ZtRA.
Waddell, Paul. “UrbanSim: Modeling Urban Development for Land Use, Transportation, and
Environmental Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68, no. 3
(2002): 297–314.
Other bibliographies include: conflict economics, environmental economics, resource curse,
and collapse, change (De Soto, Castells, etc.).
2. Stakeholder Analysis
The sector team has initiated stakeholder identification and its dynamic relations (as
presented in the December 2013 IPR), identifying current debates in the following areas:
development, risks and resilience; energy-water-food nexus; regional and urban
development tensions and dependencies; and transformations and challenges.
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
The sector team established working contact with the following organizations/individuals:
 Atlantic council- Matt Burrows (NIC report)
 World Economic Forum- Andrew Bishop (Global Risk Report)
 CNA- Resilience work-team
 University of Geneva- David Esposito, Remi Baudoui- Security studies, Alexander
Hedjazi- Environmental regimes
 Geneva Center for Security Policy- Selmo Cikotic (former MOD Bosnia)
 DCAF- A.Torres-Gender studies and economic impact
 French Development Agency: Patrick Willot
 US-EBI- Andrew Paterson –energy and environment expert
 ILO, WTO, SDBC, USAID, USDOE
4. December IPR Report-out
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
The sector team has started to enlist specialists for Economy/Social panels, select potential
locations, and prepare for economic sustainability/social well-being work session. We have
started to interview and discuss topics with pre-selected potential experts for thematic
panels and area specialists.
6. Enabling Technologies
F. SOCIAL WELL-BEING (Marc)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
Pending, available Dec 26.
2. Stakeholder Analysis
Social well-being includes a broad concern with well-being and quality of life, and specific
focus on several institutional domains including education, health, and refugee
resettlement. We have initiated stakeholder identification within the Civil Affairs community,
with relevant research and policy colleagues and with lead partner agencies that are
fundamental to mission accomplishment and desired end states. The stakeholder focus
introduces several relevant research considerations: 1) Differences of language and
meaning across practitioner communities, 2) the challenge to reconcile near-term and longterm intervention standards and strategies, and 3) the persisting effects of cross-sector
coordination experiences.
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
The challenge in this sector is to review the broad debates occurring in the component
domains about specific questions of expertise, capacity, modes of delivery, all with an eye
to understand how to explore how to couple CA current and potential capacity with the
sector needs.
 Civil affairs professionals with substantial experience in the field
 Research academics including Deborah Gibbons (NPS), Susan Hocevar (NPS),
Peter Walker (Tufts), as well as research staff at major University Centers and also
research agencies like RAND that have considerable policy research expertise to
contribute
 Individuals with professional expertise in relevant domains, who also have prior CA
professional experience (e.g., James Sosnicky, SEAF).
4. December IPR Report-out
The December IPR was notable for the opportunity to engage across the project
themes/sectors and to have sustained discussion with the whole research team, with
Sponsor and his team, and with other CA professionals. We acquired a much better sense
of the capacity needs to deliver on the project, and also the value of these integrated
meetings.
We engaged in two sustained work periods, in midst the other activities and sessions. In
the first one, we compiled information on the variety of standards and intervention modes
used by different stakeholders to evaluate social well-being, and specifically to consider
resource minimums to support minimal human well-being. This discussion benefited from
several perspectives, and then carried over into several informal sessions with the CA
professionals and others. The second one focused on issues in the SWB material to
broader applications like systems thinking, building organizational systems for delivery,
‘theories’ of action and practice communities, frameworks and model from technology and
social innovation. The point here is to engage the specific content domain with available
concept frameworks that will allow us to think beyond creating existing organizational
systems (e.g., bureaucratic ministries or social technologies like a ‘hospital’) and instead
make use innovative and related.
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
We have settled on early April dates for the IPR, following the sessions at the
PSOTEW. Our work is in parallel with the Economic development/Sustainability project
theme, and we will likely coordinate for both the briefing session and the PSOTEW, pending
conference approvals. For the PSOTEW, we have identified themes of ‘translational
research’, that is research that explores and codifies research insights for policy and
practitioner use as relevant to the assess and innovate themes of the meeting.
6. Enabling Technologies
The work of the social well-being domain is one of the most vibrant for experiments with
enabling technologies in the broder civilian world - in mobile health, ed tech, and the broad
space around refugees and humanitarian/disaster responses. The kinds of simple, selfreinforcing design tools that our GSID team colleagues have introduced are relevant. There
are also many other options to use mapping and other crowdsource-based tools to improve
mission effectiveness. We are reaching out to colleagues and former students who are
active in these spaces, with an eye to learn from them and also to incorporate relevant
platform insights into our research and policy recommendations.
G. HOMELAND INTEGRATION (Paula)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
2. Stakeholder Analysis
Key stakeholders for the Homeland Integration sector include:
 FEMA
 Department of Homeland Security
 State, Local County and Tribal Governments
 Department of Justice
 Additional components of the National Response Plan as needed
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
Key points of contact for this sector include the following:
 MG Peter Aylward (Ret) USANG
 Col. Thomas Womble, US Army National Guard National Security Affairs
Fellow Hoover Institute Stanford University
 Lt Col Jeffrey Voice
 BG Michael McDaniel (ret) Professor at Cooley Law School
 Lt Gen Chipman
 Dr. Larry Morgan, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
 Jeanne Lin, DHS
 Senator John W Warner
4. December IPR Report-out
After much reflection, I am going to suggest an alternative to a multiday
workshop. Although I frequently joke about being the ”orphan” (or the “free radical”) of this
group, I must admit that it is a serious observation. The other five “petals “have been
developed and socialized across the universe of practitioners/stakeholders.
My work to compile bibliography and assemble relevant research over the first months of
the project yields two surprising findings: What I have discovered in the past several
months is (1) a noticeably thin literature about the concept of the military’s role in homeland
defense; and (2) a complete misunderstanding of what it is /might possibly be. My
proposed workplan develops these initial findings.
Please note the publication dates on many of the articles in my bibliography. They are a
stark reminder that many of the questions we are grappling with today have been asked for
almost a century—and we have yet to settle on answers, or even the terms of the
debate. This situation may not benefit from a workshop with many presenters and views,
that may not yield concrete output that would benefit the IMSG. Therefore I propose a
more structured approach for this topic.
I propose to continue to expand the literature review, and organize it into discrete
areas. This in turn will serve as the basis of a concrete research agenda that incorporates
the multitude of areas covered by homeland integration. The landscape of Homeland
defense integration ranges from the obvious--visible operations during situations such as
Katrina and Rita- to the unimaginable-how to distribute food/medicine during a quarantine,
or after a cyber attack that renders the infrastructure that supports “just in time” delivery
inoperable for a significant amount of time.
The focus of the work will to continue to interview practitioners-at both the strategic and
operational levels-as well as scholars. I reaped great rewards from the discussion on
Thursday afternoon with the other leads. It benefited enormously from the input of serving
CA officers, who were quick to point out the gaps between what we believed to be in place,
based on our readings of the doctrine, and what actually existed. The deliverable is to
develop the outline of another petal, incorporating such areas as strategic communications:
managing crisis and political challenge, and military response in complex catastrophes (or
“beyond Katrina”) The end result would be a substantial multi-topic annotated bibliography,
as well as a policy paper outlining the way ahead for the IMSG to think about homeland
defense.
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
As I was composing the next phase of work, I realized that this area has different needs to
develop as a research and policy focus. There is a thin scholarly substantive literature to
draw from, several thesis documents and think tank reports, and much media/pundit
commentary. Scholars have not to date shown interest exploring the area. This may be a
result of the prevailing view that “Posse Comitatus begins with ‘No’”, when indeed, there are
26 exceptions to PC in existing law. Indeed, one focus literature for the project is the legal
and policy legacy of Posse Comitatus: origins, variant claims, and a new reading for
policy. This is also the reason I draw from a variety of existing literatures to attempt to
define the research agenda.
6. Enabling Technologies
No perspectives on the topic of enabling technologies for the Homeland Integration sector
at this time.
H. 38G CERTIFICATION (Marc / Charles / Herman)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
LTC Jeffrey Voice, 304th CA BDE, sketched out a concept for 38G expertise, shown in
Figure xx. The areas of concern here reflect sectors identified in the US Institute of Peace
(USIP) Guiding Principles (2009).
Figure xx. 38G Topology
There are a number of research questions/issues to address:
1. The elements within these “end states” are not the same as conditions as in USIP
Guiding Principles .
2. Are the End States the 38G ASI’s or do the elements listed above under each End
State become the ASI’s?
3. How do we handle elements that have impact across the continuum of end states or
in more than one?
4. There are general “cross cutting” elements not shown such as maintenance of
physical infrastructure, communications, information, etc.
5. Are we going to be able to recruit people with the commensurate civilian experience
in times of peace?
6. What’s the incentive for them to participate?
7. If we do find them, will they have the needed Mil background to be able to write Joint
Strategic Plans, understand Mil culture, Mil systems (CPOF, etc)?
8. Do we take an existing 38A who has been through ILE and educate/train them on
strategic thought, contacts, planning? For example, will a person with an economic
background deep enough to write plans to rebuild an economy a) be willing to leave
their careers for an extended period of time for training/deployment (pay cut, etc),
and b) who is responsible for recruiting or finding them?
2. Stakeholder Analysis
3. Data Collection and Analysis Planning
4. Key Participants / Points of Contact
5. December IPR Report-out
III. PROJECT MANAGEMENT: SCHEDULE AND COST STATUS
1. Project Tasks and Milestones
The project Gantt chart is shown in Appendix A. The chart identifies the major tasks, subtasks, milestone dates, deliverables, and key project meetings. It is intended to guide the
project and to provide a basis for assessing progress, but is expected to change as
necessary to align with growing understanding of project requirements, evolving challenges,
and unforeseen constraints. Changes in the plan will be announced and discussed in the
regular project team/sponsor meetings and the plan will be updated accordingly.
2. Status of Funds
Through pay period ending 14 December 2013, the project team has expended 15.5% of
project funds. Table xx summarizes cumulative expenditures to date. Figure xx illustrates
expenditures to date, with respect to a linear spend plan over the period of performance of
the project. This spend plan will likely be adjusted as we progress toward award of a
contract providing additional technical contributions to the project.
Table xx. Cumulative Project Expenditures through 14 December 2013.
Category
Expenditure
Labor
$108,455
Travel
$16,554
Honoraria
$2,500
Equipment/Supplies
$0
Indirect Cost
$27,237
Total
$154,746
Figure xx. Project Expenditures through 14 December 2013.
3. Contracting
The project team is preparing a contractual package to announce for competitive bid. The
contract statement of work calls for academic research to address technical challenges of
the MSG project. The package is expected to be ready for contract office evaluation in
January 2014, to be announced for bid by February 2014. The goal is to have the contract
awarded by May 2014, for execution in the latter stages of the current work, extending the
overall period of investigation and providing additional intellectual capital for the effort.
Glossary of Acronyms
APAN
ARCIC
ASI
BDE
CA
CCDR
CDDRL
COIN
CPOF
DOD
HN
ILE
IPR
IMSG
MSG
NPS
PI
PKSOI
PSOTEW
RoL
SE
SG
SSE
SWB
US
USAID
USASOC
USIP
All Partners Access Network
Army Capabilities Integration Center
Brigade
Civil Affairs
Combatant Commander
Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law
Counter-Insurgency
Command Post of the Future
Department of Defense
Host Nation
Instructional Learning Environment
Interim Program Review
Institute for Military Support to Governance
Military Support to Governance
Naval Postgraduate School
Principal Investigator
Peace Keeping and Stability Operations Institute
Peace and Stability Operations Training and Education Workshop
Rule of Law
Stable Economy
Stable Governance
Safe and Secure Environment
Social Well-Being
United States
United States Agency for International Development
United States Army Special Operations Command
United States Institute of Peace
References and Preliminary Bibliography (refer also to Sector
Summaries in Section II)
Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. "Case Study Methods in the International Relations
Subfield." Comparative political studies 40.2 (2007):170-195.
Coles, Harry L., and Albert K. Weinberg. Civil Affairs: Soldiers Become Governors. United
States Army in World War Ii. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military
History, Department of the Army, 1964.
Guttieri, Karen and Volker Franke. “Picking Up the Pieces: Are United States Officers
Ready for Nation Building?” Journal of Political and Military Sociology (forthcoming)
Guttieri, Karen and Jessica Piombo, editors. Interim Governments: Institutional Bridges to
Peace and Democracy? Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press,
2008.
Guttieri, Karen. “Unlearning War: U.S. Military Experience with Stability Operations.” In
Organizational Learning in the Global Context, edited by Leann Brown, Michael
Kenney and Michael Zarkin. London: Ashgate, September 2006.
Guttieri, Karen. "Gaps at the Seams of the Dayton Accord: A Role Play Scenario." In Case
279 Pew Case Studies in International Affairs. Washington, DC: Institute for the
Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, 2005.
Gundersen, Jon et al., "Sharing the Space: A Study on Education and Training for Complex
Operations." Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace and Consortium for Complex
Operations, 2008.
Guttieri, Karen and Jessica Piombo (eds). Interim Governments Washington, DC: US
Institute of Peace Press, 2008.
Hicks, Kathleen and Christine Wormuth. "The Future of U.S. Civil Affairs Forces: A Report
of the CSIS International Security Program" CSIS, February 2009.
Moore, Gregory. "Research Methods for International Relations Studies: Assembling an
Effective Toolkit" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies
Association 48th Chicago, Feb 28, 2007.
Ragin, Chales G. and Howard S. Becker. 1992. What Is a Case?: Exploring the
Foundations of Social Inquiry. University of Chicago Press.
Simon, H. A. 1973. The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4: 181202.
Schram, Sanford F. and Brian Caterino, Making political science matter : debating
knowledge, research, and method. New York : New York University Press, 2006.
US Army HQDA ALARACT Message 161/2004, Implementation of Intermediate Level
Education (ILE): Officers may qualify for constructive or equivalent credit in lieu of
ILE attendance based on duty assignment history and past academic
experiencesUS Office of the President, National Security Presidential Directive /
NSPD-44, “Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and
Stabilization”, December 7, 2005
USAR CA Stabilization and Security Qualification course briefing, November 2008.
U.S. Department of State Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization.
"Essential Task Matrix, 2005.”
U.S. Department of Defense. “Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and
Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations. Directive Number 3000.05.” November 28,
2005.
US Department of Defense Instruction 3000.05, "Military Support for Stability, Security,
Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations", September 16, 2009
US Department of Defense. "Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century
Defense." edited by The White House. Washinton DC, January 2012.
US Institute of Peace. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction. United States
Institute of Peace Press. Washington, D.C. 2009.
US Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Joint Publication 3-07 Stability Operations." Washington DC, 29
September 2011.
US Joint Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council. "Civil Affairs DOTMLPF Change
Recommendation (Dcr) Actions." Washington DC: The Joint Staff, 1 December
2011.
Yates, Lawrence A. The U.S. Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005. Fort
Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006.
Appendix A. Project Gantt Chart
The task breakdown, milestones, deliverable, and schedules are laid out in Gantt chart
format in the following six figures.
Team,
Many thanks to all for your lively engagement in the December IPR. What great sessions!
As discussed, our Interim Report is due to the sponsor.
Sector Leads – please send these items for the IPR to Curt by Monday 23 December COB - this is a
hard constraint deadline due to the IMSG meeting w LTG Cleveland 3 January and time needed for
Karen/Curt & Terry to review:
1. NARRATIVES/UPDATES -- put your summaries, stakeholders, preliminary biblios etc in the
Interim Report google doc – you’ll see we provided an outline. You can add more to these sections
if you have it, and if less, give update on status.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vEZG8FHCVrnT8EG_Tr6Oq7eFPKfdMG6u2X3qymGhXWY/e
dit?usp=sharing
2. TASK SCHEDULE consult the **updated** GANTT chart at this
link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6F4l0wArM8FNXcxZEk0dnpYbjQ/edit?usp=sharing Sector
Leads - provide your tasks, deliverables and dates. The tasks should be a hierarchy, for example
a.
Gov Lit Review April 15 2014;
i.
Ref works biblio/Dec 23 2013;
ii.
Ref works annotations/March 24 2013, etc.
b.
Gov PSOTEW Panel March 25 2014;
i.
Gov PSOTEW call for papers questions 20 Dec 2013
ii.
Gov Panel plan/participants lined up 30 Jan 2014, etc.
3. EXPENDITURES – provide expected expenditures of labor, travel, invitational travel, honoraria
and supplies by quarter. If you’ve already provided these, thank you, and please review to see if
anything has changed.
4. DATE FOR WORK PLAN REVIEW Curt and I would like to have a conversation with each of the
team leads to review the work plans before 9 January. Send Curt your availability or suggested
meeting times among these options: 3, 6, 7 Jan.
We absolutely must have work plans for each team lead. Once we have these we can check in
during the weekly meetings, to see for example what your percentages of progress are in your task
X or Y. When we can track these - we can watch for anomalies - whether you’re under/over by
quarter, and adjust. We will on a monthly basis be checking our records of your timekeeping, for
example. Do not assume your allocations will rollover -- from Q1 (Fall) to Q2 (Winter), for example –
we will roll up quarterly. If you’re under expended (labor, travel, for example) in a quarter, we will
reallocate unless we have an explicit agreement otherwise.
Thank you for all your efforts,
Karen and Curt
Military Support to Governance
Interim Progress Report
DRAFT
(updated 2100 12/24/2013)
I. INTRODUCTION (Karen / Curt)
This Interim Project Report provides information on the initiation and progress of the Military
Support to Governance Project performed by Naval Postgraduate School researchers and
colleagues for Special Operations Command and the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School (JFKSWCS). The sponsor point of contact is the new Institute for Military Support
to Governance (IMSG) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, directed by BG Hugh Van Roosen. The research
team completed the first quarter of work, from project start 30 September through 31 December
2013. Due to a gap in project funding and emerging IMSG requirements, the team adjusted the
focus and schedule to accommodate additional interim program review (IPR) meetings and
acceleration of research for recommendations regarding civil sector certifications.
A. BACKGROUND
Civil affairs -- “the vanguard of DoD’s support to U.S. government efforts to assist partner
governments in the fields of rule of law, economic stability, governance, public health and welfare,
infrastructure, and public education and information” (2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report) -has historically played critical roles in conflict prevention and post-conflict transformation.
However, the civil affairs capability has not lived up to its potential and has often been perceived as
maneuver support elements rather than as strategic assets. The Joint Requirements Oversight
Council in December 2011 recommended development of joint civil affairs education “with the
overarching goal of equipping and transitioning a CA officer from a tactical focus in support of
Brigade to Corps level formations to a strategic and operational focus.”
A system of reserve civil affairs experts was intended to develop and sustain specialized civilian
skills - functional expertise - that could be drawn upon as needed. Problems with the system of
functional specialty concentrations among civil affairs personnel became apparent in the midst of
intense demand for CA forces during the occupation of Iraq after 2003. The Army shifted the
organization of reserve units in teams of functional specialists (Civil Affairs Team or CAT B) as
compared to teams of generalists (CAT A). The distinction between the two became blurred (Malik,
p.6). The “functional specialists” became associated with unfulfilled promise. Changes to civil affairs
doctrine in 2006 narrowed the number of functional specialties to six general areas - rule of law,
economic stability, governance, public health and welfare, infrastructure, and public education, that
did not align neatly with the then-emerging Department of State and Army special operations
doctrine stability sectors. A study by the Center for Strategic and International Security in 2009
concluded “it is not clear that the current system of classifying and managing functional specialists
within the civil affairs community is optimized for accessing specialized skills at the appropriate
level,”(pp.43-44) and recommended that the Army “require civil affairs personnel with identified
functional specialties to take appropriate civil sector competency tests to validate and classify the
level of functional skills.” and “create a direct commission authority” to bring individuals with
advanced functional skills into the force structure as needed (Hicks and Wormuth, “Future of Civil
Affairs,” p. vi).
The civil affairs force structure itself has furthermore been both subordinated and divided. In 2006
the Army - home to the largest number of CA forces, mostly residing in the reserves - split its force
structure between special and conventional elements, under US Special Operations Command and
US Army Reserve Command, respectively. This split roughly aligned with a division between active
and reserve components, until complicated by the addition of a conventionally-oriented active
component brigade in 2010. Proponency and doctrine remained with Special Operations Command,
home to a small percentage of the total force structure. Disparities in training and education
between the active and reserve - where resides the preponderance of the force structure - became
more pronounced. In particular, it is difficult for reserve personnel to access education that is the
hallmark of a professional force.
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Reserve and Manpower Affairs (ASA-M&RA) Thomas R. Lamont
addressed these deficits in June 2011 with a memorandum stating his intention to establish a new
“… branch proponent that supports the Army’s total force, with common standards for active and
reserve CA forces” (Lamont, 2011). One important response to ASA Lamont’s concerns was the
2013 establishment of the Institute for Military Support to Governance (IMSG) to guide the
professionalization of the Civil Affairs force structure. In particular, the IMSG is leading the
development of a new military occupational specialty (MOS) titled 38G - military support to
governance specialists.
In support of this effort, we developed an analytic working group - Governance Innovation for
Security and Development (GISD) - to develop analysis that will advance community research and
education goals. The Principal Investigator (PI) and colleagues at the Naval Postgraduate School
together with the Institute for Military Support to Governance will, through this research endeavor,
develop relationships and reach-back with premier civilian schools, and the community governmental, non-governmental and intergovernmental - of complex operations practitioners. The
research team is conducting analysis of the following civil sector areas: safe and secure
environment, rule of law, sustainable economic development, social well-being, effective
governance, and homeland integration. We examine the requirements for civil affairs expertise,
particularly during theater security cooperation, support to civil authority and transitional military
authority missions. This research supports deliberations regarding the classifications, qualifications
and certifications for 38G personnel. Additional research areas proposed include analysis of human
behavior, technological enablers, and strategic planning and strategy for military support to
governance.
B. OBJECTIVES
This project for US Army Special Warfare Center and School on military support to governance
supports professionalization of the Special Operations Civil Affairs Forces and the wider community
of Civil Affairs practitioners. The project design creates a multi-stakeholder dialogue and analysis of
requirements and competencies and fosters greater community understanding of current issues
and trends in military support to governance: provision of essential services, civil security, rule of
law, governance, economy and infrastructure, and homeland integration. We will analyze required
expertise qualifications, human behavior dynamics in support of conflict prevention and mitigation,
and technological enablers for stability and peace building. The project aims to enable CA personnel
to more effectively operate in the civil dimension of military operations across the spectrum of
conflict.
C. APPROACH
The project supports the US Special Warfare Center and School initiatives to address gaps for
Special Operations and the wider Civil Affairs community. The team itself embodies civil-military
cooperation. The team is engaging relevant joint, interagency and international stakeholders, for
example, the Civil-Military Working Group at the US Institute of Peace and the Peacekeeping and
Stability Operations Education and Training Workshop include representatives from the State
Department Bureau of Conflict Stabilization, the USAID Office of Transition Initiatives, the US
Institute of Peace, the US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations University, the Joint Special
Operations University, and members of the non-governmental and academic communities. The
project team will consider throughout the changing environment and information communications
technologies that present both hazards and opportunities for practitioners. The Principal
Investigator leads a cross-disciplinary team including experts from academic institutions in an
analytic dialogue and academic writing on military support to governance. The PI regularly weekly
consults with the program sponsor.
The GISD analysis is conducted by working groups on the following topics:
1. Analysis of the required areas of expertise, qualifications and certifications of IMSG
governance elements:
a. Social well-being
b. Security
c. Rule of law
d. Governance
e. Economy and infrastructure
f. Homeland integration
2. Additional topic areas:
a.
Human behavior dynamics in military support to governance
b.
Technological enablers of military support to governance
c.
Planning and integration for military support to governance
D. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Section I of this report provides introduction, background, objectives, and approach for this project.
Section II provides an overview of project progress, with break-outs for the major sectors under
study (including 38G Certification). Section III provides management information, including the
project plan of action and milestones and current project expenditures. A glossary of acronyms and
list of references are provided at the end of this report.
II. PROJECT WORK AREA REPORTING
This section provides an overview of activities through the first quarter of project performance.
A. TEAM ORGANIZATION AND INITIATION OF WORK (Karen / Curt)
A major activity of the first quarter of work has been formation of the project team, particularly in
identifying leads for the major sectors of study:
 Rule of Law: Melanne Civic, Department of State
 Governance: Karen Guttieri, Naval Postgraduate School
 Social Well-Being: Marc Ventresca, Naval Postgraduate School
 Economy/Sustainable Development: Maria Pineda, Naval Postgraduate School
 Security: Jon Czarnecki, Naval War College
 Homeland Integration: Paula Philbin, Naval Postgraduate School
 38G Certification: Marc Ventresca, Naval Postgraduate School
To promote and enable collaboration across the team, an early goal was creation of a collaborative
site for gathering reference materials, project notes, and interim products. There are now two
websites established for project use:
 An internal facing website just for the working group to manage files
(https://sites.google.com/site/innovativegovernanceworkgroup/)

A public facing website (http://www.stanford.edu/group/captology/cgibin/innovativegovernance/)
We also started a dedicated project Calendar at
https://sites.google.com/site/innovativegovernanceworkgroup/calendar and a Google email group.
All the Google sites are private (controlled access list) and require separate login with whatever
email used to access Google docs, calendar, action items, and other features.
Transition to APAN
A new site has been established on the All Partners Access Network (APAN;
https://community.apan.org/default.aspx), an unclassified, non-dot-mil network providing
interoperability and connectivity among partners over a common platform. APAN fosters
information exchange and collaboration between the United States Department of Defense (DoD)
and any external country, organization, agency or individual that does not have ready access to
traditional DoD systems and networks. The team is currently transitioning materials from the
Google site to the APAN site. Apart from the newly uploaded documents on the Google Drive
“Governance Innovation for Security and Development,” most of the documents have migrated to
APAN analogue. The group has changed its name from “Naval Postgraduate School – Governance
Innovation for Security and Development” to simply “Governance Innovation for Security and
Development” (https://wss.apan.org/s/GISD). Additionally, links to the different working groups are
on the home page. Sharing is not a problem, and that action be found under “Site Actions” and then
“Site Permissions.” There are instructional webinars available on the APAN site to help new users
learn the navigation controls and file management procedures. One major logistical hurdle is that
the platform is SharePoint which, at the moment, does not allow anyone to collectively create or
edit a document on the site (unlike Google Drive). Telligent, another platform on APAN, also does
not allow anyone to create or edit the document on the site and it has even less functionality than
SharePoint. We may decide to retain some presence in the Google site to retain this capability
(collaborative document production).
Project Launch
The project kicked-off on 30 September 2013 with agenda planning and website development.
Ongoing coordination and progress reporting is performed in weekly project telephone conferences
among the team members and with representatives from the IMSG. Individual sectors have also
conducted interviews and meetings to set direction and scope for technical activities.
The NPS Library Research page (http://libguides.nps.edu/ROL) was opened for team use on 23
October 2013. Literature reviews are using the RefWorks tool. Team training on RefWorks was
initiated 23 October 2013. The team developed a literature review protocol (completed 31 October
2013). The team has initiated literature reviews in accordance with the protocol (see individual
sector progress reports in the following subsections).
Several key sponsor-team meetings including outside experts were conducted during the first
quarter:

Design Meeting conducted 17 October by VTC at 351 CACOM and Fort Bragg and research
team only follow-up meeting 18 October at Stanford University

Interim Program Review (IPR) with IMSG conducted 5-6 November 2013 at Fort Bragg

IPR conducted 16-19 December 2013 at NPS and Stanford
At the Fort Bragg IPR, a review of military governance, development of a field laboratory, and 38G
classification activities were added to the research effort. The IMSG developed a modified mission
statement as follows:
The Institute for Military Support to Governance manages the provision of civil sector
expertise across the range of military operations in order to support USG obligations under
international law and promote stability. On order, supports Theater Security Cooperation,
Transitional Military Authority, and Support to Civil Administration operations.
The PI traveled to Washington DC to participate in the Civil-Military working group 25 November
2013 at USIP, and meetings with the Office of The Judge Advocate General of the US Army, National
Defense University, George Mason University, the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute,
and the US Military Academy.
The week of 2 December 2013 the PI traveled to Fort Bragg for meetings with Viva Bartkus and
Emily Block of Notre Dame, a presentation on the research project with COL Terry Lindon of the
IMSG for the 95th Civil Affairs Brigade and David Kilcullen of Caerus Associates, meetings with the
Civil Affairs Qualifications Course team, and BG Van Roosen.
The first quarter work culminated in a week-long series of technical discussions held as part of a
project IPR at the Naval Postgraduate School and Stanford University during the week of 16
December 2013. The meetings were very constructive and necessary to integrate understanding
and unpack the challenges and connotations of the assignments. There is a lot of talent and
knowledge and commitment across the team, so the more sharing that occurs across sector themes
the better and more thoughtful and successful the final result will be. The meetings provided an
excellent opportunity to work with CA colleagues and former students as well as with the sponsor
team. It was wonderful and timely to hear what everyone was thinking and doing, and on how to
address the questions of the original deliverables as well as the added 38G requests. This was a
critical moment for all participants to join together, along with sponsor team to clarify and reaffirm
directions for the work. Inputs from several practitioner colleagues were extremely high level,
impactful, and value-adding. The team made special effort to conduct “integrative panels” that
worked well and provided grist for thought, adding perspectives beyond those already on the “topof-mind” issues. Overall, it was considered a very successful IPR. Summaries of key aspects of these
meetings are provided in each of the sector reports provided in the following subsections.
PSOTEW
A major opportunity to bring the issues of this project to the community is through participation in
the Peace and Stability Operations Training and Education Workshop (PSOTEW; see Figure xx) to be
conducted March 24-27 at George Mason University (GMU) in Arlington, Virginia. PSOTEW is
sponsored by the Director, Force Readiness and Training, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Readiness), together with GMU, the U.S. Army War College’s Peacekeeping and Stability
Operations Institute (PKSOI), and other stakeholders. The workshop brings together trainers,
practitioners, planners, and educators from U.S. and international governmental and military
organizations, non-governmental organizations, peace and stability training centers, and academic
institutes to review training and education efforts in the milieu of stability and peace operations to
develop recommendations regarding what should be preserved and what should be changed as the
community plans for activities in future complex operations. The goals of the workshop are:
 To provide a forum that addresses the equities of the community of practice and its
activities;
 To foster collaboration between the joint professional military education and academic
communities;
 To link community efforts; and
 To inform and support senior leaders, to monitor progress and to provide feedback on the
recommendations over the next year.
The workshop deals with cross-cutting issues such as capacity building; resiliency challenges; gender
challenges; curriculum coverage (emergent topics and themes/considerations); case studies;
technological innovation/opportunities; and gaps in research, publication, and experiential
learning/exercises.
Figure xx. PSOTEW Announcement.
The PSOTEW Stakeholders approved the PI’s project proposal for a Working Group (WG3) on
Governance Innovation for Security (GISD), with the following goals:
 Assess current and future environments for employment of support to governance. Analyze
required expertise qualifications, human behavior dynamics in support of conflict
prevention and mitigation, and technological enablers for stability and peace building.
 Identify gaps in research, policy and practice in governance innovation for security and
development.
 Identify/consult additional stakeholders and include larger communities of interest as
required for support to governance and development of Civil Affairs Civil Sector Experts.
 Developing greater understanding within the communities of practice of current issues,
trends and needs with respect to military support to governance.
 The US military’s Civil Affairs community is in the midst of professionalizing its force
structure—how can that best support governance innovation for security and
development? What competencies are needed for these civil affairs roles?
 How can governance innovation support resiliency?
 Identify gender issues affecting good governance practices.
 Identify strategies to innovate across research areas, communities of practice and
technological enablers.
Each WG will apply a common framework for its session: (1) Assess: In the current political and
fiscal climates, what are the challenges of the near and future operating environments and the
challenges that leaders must face? (2) Partner: What are the synergies that can be developed
amongst organizations? What economies can be created? (3) Innovate: What paradigms, intraorganization and inter-organization, need to be changed? What are the steps to create lasting
change? Each of the MSG project sector leads is planning their portion of WG3. An initial call for
papers for participation in the working group session is in preparation for dissemination in early
January 2014.
Upcoming Activities/IPR Schedule
Activities underway on the project include work and schedule planning, statement of work crafting
for identified needs, project and sector team budgeting, and establishment of budget and schedule
tracking procedures.
The current planned schedule for major upcoming meetings is as follows (refer to Section III for the
overall project plan of action and milestones):
 14-15 January 2014: Rule of Law Sector (DC)
 19-20 February 2014: Governance Sector (NPS)
 4-6 March 2014: Social Well-Being / Economy Sectors (UCLA)
 24-28 March 2014: PSOTEW (GMU)
 13-15 May 2014: Security Sector (West Point)
 17-18 June 2014: Homeland Integration Sector
B. GOVERNANCE (Karen - with Charles and Herman)
Although the civil dimension of military operations is well-known to be vital to mission success in
locales as diverse as Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa, it remains little
understood. Military support to governance and dedicated civil affairs elements in particular have
suffered neglect due to several factors: the policy and military communities – despite specific
responsibilities under international law and US DoD policy - are skittish about the appearance of
“occupation” and wary of “military government” responsibilities that stem from it; the literature on
governance is largely crafted by civilians with little attention to, or understanding of, military norms
and rules; the literature on military operations is generally focused on kinetic missions with little
attention to, or understanding of, civil domain factors. In short, the literatures that are available do
not effectively speak to one another. Moreover, the subject area is extremely complex, as statesociety relations and expectations vary from place to place, and technological developments
including new roles for social media in civic participation and empowerment, and new ways of
monitoring political governance are constantly being developed and/or refined.
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
The US military has with few exceptions failed to prepare effectively for civilian obligations in
war. Once boots are on the ground, two themes characterize the military’s approach to
transition. The first is civilianization – military efforts to handoff civilian responsibilities to civilian
agencies The second is indirect rule - a local authority that will enable US troops to depart, ideally
leaving a reformed state with legitimate authority to govern. Today indirect rule is remade in the
form of host nation or partner capacity building. These themes persist into the recent era, when US
policy-makers naively believed that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would not require
occupations, federal policy put the Department of State in the lead for stability operations, and
diplomats and commanders sought reliable host-nation partners to assume the mantle of
governance. The history of American civil affairs and military government shows that while many of
the patterns, such as debates about military or civilian roles, are recurring, there has also been
change over time. New agencies, new norms emerged. The civil affairs function shifted from
keeping civilians out of the way to providing for their relief, to addressing the civilian population as
the center of gravity. Another, much larger body of literature addresses governance more broadly,
and a subset of this literature addresses challenges of governance in fragile states or transitional
societies.
Civil Affairs and Military Government
Civil affairs as an historical term of art describes the United States military relationship with the
civilian realm. General George Washington at Valley Forge conducted civil affairs to secure civilian
supply, labor and loyalty. Since then, civil affairs has been prominent during engagements ranging
from humanitarian assistance to stability operations, to counterinsurgency campaigns and its fullest
expression in military government. Military government may seem an anachronism, but it was once
a common form of temporary rule, and the roots of current US military doctrine on stability
operations can be seen in doctrine set forth as early as 1898 and formally issued in World War II.
Significant chapters in American military history – the expansion west, the reconstruction of the
South, the liberation of Europe, the formation of partnerships abroad – are civil affairs stories. The
US military as an institution has had difficulty embracing the civil affairs mission. Although the US
has conducted more stability operations than conventional wars, the mobilization of overwhelming
force remained the mantra of “the American way of war” and the myth of stability operations as
exceptional missions persisted.
The history of civil affairs is intimately related to that of stability operations, small or guerrilla wars
and counterinsurgency. Keith Bickel’s study of the Marine Corps development of its small wars
doctrine, Mars Learning, although it focuses on tactics such as ground patrols, provides insight into
the rationale for “civil measures,” for example, in Haiti between 1915-1920. A commander was to
be “fully posted as to irrigation, roads, bridges, topography, postal service, telegraphs and
telephones, sanitation, and concessions, and he must also report on all work being performed by
the judiciary, municipal and government officials.” Public works projects such as roads served dual
purpose of providing means to bring goods to market and to bring troops to trouble spots. It was
hoped that works projects would help secure the loyalty of the population, given low troop to
population ratios, and that reform of the civil government would address the core grievances
behind insurgency.
The most comprehensive history of civil affairs to date, Stanley Sandler’s Glad to See Them Come,
focuses on the tactical to operational level of war. Harry Coles and Albert Weinberg volume of
World War II documents Soldiers Become Governors and John T. Fishel’s analysis of late 20th
century interventions in Civil Military Operations in the New World provide a more operational to
strategic view. Jeremy Suri’s Liberty’s Surest Guardian reflects on nation-building as a component of
America’s national character. Taking an historical perspective helps to show how the military
makes sense of its own practices through changes in context, including transformations in basic
constructs such as military and civilian, war and peace.
For example, the concentration of the legitimate use of force in the state is central to our
understanding of civil-military relations, yet few appreciate that monopoly as the product of social
change, namely, the demilitarization of the nobility around 1576 in England. Moreover, while today
many nations differentiate between domestic police and armies oriented against external attack,
that distinction is more recent still in European history.
From the earliest days, civil affairs sought to balance the principles of military necessity and
humanity. Early requirements for civil affairs were driven primarily by military necessity. Civil
affairs were left largely to the commander’s discretion. This worked well when a commander—such
as General Scott during the Mexican-American War—displayed keen understanding of the
relationship between political means and military ends. But the annihilation strategy adopted by
the Union Army during the Civil War made it difficult to reconcile the South with the North at the
end of the war, and for that reason the leadership in Washington commissioned Francis Lieber to
develop a code to define civilian protections. The April 24, 1863 Lieber Code, General Orders 100,
formed the basis of the American legal doctrine on war known as The Laws of Land Warfare. The
Lieber Code served as a model for European and international regulations, including the Brussels
Declaration in 1874 and ultimately, the 1899 Hague Conference. The 1899 and 1907 Hague
Conventions (also known as the Hague Regulations), were the first multilateral agreements relevant
to military occupation. The Hague Conventions form the cornerstone of the international law of
armed conflict, and their guidelines regarding treatment of civilians in conflict are frequently cited
in American policy and doctrine.
The primary text of international law addressing military occupation is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague
Regulations (IV). In order to balance the needs of the populace with those of the occupying power,
the law of occupation spells out obligations, as well as rights of the occupying power. It makes clear,
for example, that the occupying power should meet the basic needs of the populace with respect to
police and social functions. The critical passage follows:
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant,
the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
public order and safety [civil life], while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in
force in the country.
The Hague Regulations established a duty to provide administration, as was widely practiced at the
time. However, the conventions of the time were more modest than those that would arise after
the advent of the welfare state.
Two major normative developments in just the most recent generation have altered the ground on
which the soldier treads: the shift in United Nations non-intervention doctrine of the 20th century
to the Responsibility to Protect (R2) in the 21st, and the related shift in the locus of sovereignty
from regime to population. The growth of government aid agencies after World War II and the rise
of non-governmental organizations since the 1990s has further complicated the civil-military
relationships.
The nature of the war itself, including the technology to fight it and the vision of the peace to
follow, shape the conduct of civil affairs. The landmark study Military Aid to the Civil Power,
published in 1925, described three kinds of occupation: in the first, exemplified in the occupation of
Puerto Rico (1898-1900), the US permanently retains the conquered territory; in the second,
exemplified in Cuba (1898), the US does not hold the occupied territory once its people are able to
stand on their own; and in the third, exemplified in both postwar Germany (1918) and, much
earlier, in Mexico (1847), the US returns the territory to its former possessor. The policy intention
affects the occupation, but commanders are also able to shape facts on the ground regardless.
General Winfield Scott sought but did not receive guidance from Washington on troop conduct
toward civilians. To propose martial law in the era of Jacksonian democracy was unpopular, and the
Polk Administration neither approved nor denied Scott’s memorandum. At risk to his own career,
Scott then proceeded to take on the duties of military governor, issuing General Orders 20 to
declare martial law and establish military commissions to prosecute crimes that did not fit within
the purview of a court-martial—crimes committed by inhabitants against US forces, their retainers
and followers; or by the latter against the inhabitants or other elements of the force.
The appropriate role of the military in governance is a longstanding question. Putting the military in
charge of civil affairs seems contrary to the sensibilities of a modern liberal state, in which civilian
control of the military is sacred. In the early phases of World War II, US President Franklin
Roosevelt had insisted that the administration of occupied territories would be a civilian
responsibility, but after civilian agencies proved unable to handle the situation in North Africa, the
duty fell to General Dwitght D. Eisenhower. Those events prompted the War Department to create
a Civil Affairs Division (CAD) in 1943 With Major General John H. Hilldring as its director, CAD
became a joint Army-Navy planning agency for civil affairs and military government. Looking to the
larger occupation duties ahead, Roosevelt shifted to the view that “occupation, when it occurs,
should be wholly military.” In the words of John McCloy, a civilian “would be lost that quickly after
the close of hostilities.” Civilian agencies were unprepared, the Hague Convention obliged the
military to care for civilians under effective control, and military necessity required stabilization of
territorial gains in the war. The Second World War introduced the first formal doctrine, set out in
two field manuals written by Major General Allen W. Gullion, the Judge Advocate General and top
legal expert in the US Army. In 1939, Guillion published FM 27-10 The Rules of Land Warfare,
including a section on civil administration; and in 1940, in light of the war in Europe, he set to work
on FM 27-5 Military Government. These two volumes became known as “the Old and New
Testaments of American military government,” and underscored the connection between civil
affairs and international humanitarian law.
The Vietnam War brought a profound shift due to a footprint of civilian agencies prior to large-scale
military escalation. President John F. Kennedy took an unconventional approach—later known as
special warfare -- to the escalating conflict in Vietnam. In 1961, he created the US Agency for
International Development to assist in the economic development and stability of Vietnam and
other impoverished nations. In National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 124, issued in 1962,
he characterized insurgency as a form of politico-military conflict, and called for the development of
new doctrine and better cooperation among agencies to meet the challenges of insurgents.
Kennedy directed US civil-military efforts toward strengthening the South Vietnamese army and its
government. President Lyndon B. Johnson, who came after him, shifted the focus to combat
missions, but in 1967 Johnson also directed the formation of the Civil Operations and Revolutionary
Development Support (CORDS) organization. A component of the US Military Assistance Command
Vietnam (MACV) under military commander General William C. Westmoreland, CORDS
encompassed all US agencies relevant to civilian field operations and pacification except the Central
Intelligence Agency. In sum, Vietnam was characterized by militarization rather than civilianization
of the other war. Since that time, civilian agencies have grown in number and authority. However,
Congress significantly cut budgets for USAID, for example, so that the Foreign Service and Civil
Service staff dropped from 12,000 during the Vietnam era to about 2000 today. The administration
of William J. Clinton expanded outsourcing to non-governmental and private contractors during
peacekeeping missions.
After the terrorist attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, the US under President George W.
Bush aided an insurgency against the Taliban in Afghanistan, who had provided haven to the al
Qaeda leaders who directed the attack. The humanitarian effort was given to logisticians with
minimal civil affairs engagement at the outset, never fully utilizing the doctrinal Joint Civil Military
Operations Center (JCMOTF). As it became apparent that the Afghanistan mission would require a
more sustained effort than previously envisioned, civil affairs officers on the ground innovated. COL
Michael Stout and others recognized the Afghan government’s interest to expand the influence of
President Hamid Karzai’s government outside Kabul to address challenges from the
provinces. These officers reconceived the JCMOTF as a Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and
sold the JCMOTF as a combined civil-military effort like the CORDS program with an internationalhost-nation capacity building component. The PRTs were made up of civilians from the State
Department and other agencies as well as civil affairs - although these were by 2003 already in
seriously such short supply that in November 2008 Robert Bebber described the PRT composition as
follows:
American PRTs are approximately 80-90 personnel headed by a commander at the O-5
level, usually a Navy Commander or Air Force Lieutenant Colonel. PRT members are drawn
from the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard as well as respective Reserve
components. Typically, members have a variety of backgrounds and specialties and may or
may not be engaged in work related to their normal military occupation. Co-located with the
PRTs are civilian representatives from the Department of State, USAID, U.S. Department of
Agriculture as well as contracted local nationals serving in a variety of capacities, from
linguists and laborers to cultural advisors and specialists in law and health care. (italics
added)
Administration planning for the US-led invasion of Iraq seriously omitted civil dimension
considerations for many reasons. Senior leaders in the civil affairs community have conceded
privately that the planning team sent to CENTCOM at Tampa were ineffective. The policy leaders
and war planners expected the humanitarian component was expected to be short. The Bush
Administration hired a contractor - retired General Jay Garner - to lead the Office of Humanitarian
Assistance (ORHA) to provide basic services in the wake of the invasion. Ahmad Chalabi, leader of
the U.S.-financed Iraqi National Congress, said the day before Garner’s arrival in Iraq on April 21,
2003, "On the issue of the interim authority, I think General Garner's work of reconstituting the
basic services will finish in a few weeks...Meanwhile, we must start the process of choosing an Iraqi
interim authority to take over the reins of power in the country and the various departments of the
government." Instead, Iraq devolved into chaos. Chalabi failed to consolidate authority. President
Bush replaced Garner with a retired diplomat, L, Paul (Jerry) Bremer, who transformed ORHA into a
more robust proconsular entity, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Bremer acted as chief
executive in Iraq with power to rule by decree - CPA Order 2, disbanding the Iraqi Army, would
become the most infamous among them.
The Bush Administration and Congressional leaders gave new powers to the Department of
State. In December of 2005 the White House issued National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)
44 declaring the US Department of State the focal point 1) “to coordinate and strengthen
efforts...to prepare, plan for, and conduct reconstruction and stabilization assistance…” and 2) “to
harmonize such efforts with US military plans and operations.” NSPD 44 seemingly empowered the
Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization in the Department of State (S/CRS),
created in 2004. The Department of Defense developed plans to support the “civilian surge” - a
civilian response capacity. The S/CRS planned to hire deployable civilians, and the DoD offered
support to an integrated training strategy and the plan to hire, train, and deploy 250 Active
Response Corps (ARC), 2000 Standby Response Corps (SRC), and 500 Civilian Reserve Corps (CRC).
Together various agencies collaborated on the development of an Interagency Conflict Assessment
and Planning Framework. The expression “whole of government” replaced the term “interagency”
in policy discourse.
At the same time that these events seemed to shift energy to civilian agencies, they also put the
civil affairs elements in the military at the forefront of major developments in the mission of the
United States military and its relationship to civilian agencies. In November 2005, a DOD Directive
3000.05 for the first time identified stability operations as “a core U.S. military mission,” that the
military should be prepared to conduct “throughout all phases of conflict and across the range of
military operations, including in combat and non-combat environments.” This message, affirmed in
a 2009 DOD Instruction, presented a policy-level determination on the American way of war debate
that had simmered at least since Vietnam.
Unfortunately, the hoped-for panacea of a surge of civilian experts failed to materialize. Career
incentives were just not there to induce government workers to leave their home departments for
expeditionary deployments. Unlike military personnel, civilians could not be compelled to work in
dangerous environments. Meanwhile, although the State Department’s S/CRS had many
champions at DoD, there were too few at the State Department. S/CRS was underfunded and
understaffed, and operating in an institutional culture unwelcoming to its mission. After struggling
for several years, the S/CRS was transformed into the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization
Operations following the 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). One
commentator noted at the time, “State’s competence in S&R [Stabilization and Reconstruction] is
hanging on by a thread.” The “civilian surge” and plans for a cadre of expeditionary civilians as part
of S/CRS have now been largely set aside. In light of these events, the authorities of NSPD 44 ring
hollow.
For its part, the US military leadership by the turn of the decade included larger numbers of
veterans familiar with the civil dimension of conflict and interagency cooperation. In 2010, the DoD
reinforced at the policy level the reality of military obligations. DoD Directive 5100.01 required the
Army to be prepared to, when necessary and directed, “occupy territories abroad and provide for
the initial establishment of a military government, pending transfer of responsibility to other
authority.”
Joint Publication 3-07 Stability Operations in September 2011 identified the following stability
operations functions: security, humanitarian assistance, economic stabilization and infrastructure,
rule of law, and governance and participation, and the need for military contributions to operations
design and planning. Civil Affairs perform key roles in stability operations, as JP 3-07 notes “A civilmilitary operations staff element (cell, branch, or directorate) and appropriate employment of civil
affairs (CA) forces provides connectivity and understanding that enables unity of effort within the
headquarters and among stakeholders.” (xi) In January 2013, the US National Defense Strategy,
Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21 Century Defense called for the ability to “secure
territory and populations and facilitate a transition to stable governance on a small scale for a
limited period using standing forces and, if necessary, for an extended period with mobilized
forces” as part of a primary mission to deter and defeat aggression (p. 4).
st
The need to clarify military support to governance is particularly acute today, given the number of
missions and organizations now concerned with civil-military planning and execution. The
information domain has become much more diverse with the advent of new technologies –
hardware and software – that enable people to communicate, organize, and share
information. Understanding of the socio-cultural-political dynamics is critical to success in “the
human domain,” defined as “the totality of the physical, cultural, social, and psychological
environments that influence human behavior. The success of unified action depends upon the
application of capabilities that influence the perceptions, understanding, and actions of relevant
populations and decision makers.” (7 August, 2012 Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, ARCIC and
USASOC meeting of General Officers)
Supporting Stable Governance
US joint doctrine clearly assigns responsibility to military commanders for civil military operations
(CMO), including “directly supporting the attainment of objectives relating to the reestablishment
or maintenance of stability within a region or host nation (HN).” In this context, civil affairs forces
supporting commanders “specialize in indirect approaches in support of traditional warfare (e.g.,
stability operations), and irregular warfare. CA forces conduct military engagement, humanitarian
and civic assistance, and nation assistance to influence HN and FN populations.” In sum, a major
mission for military commanders and civil affairs assets supporting them is partner capacity
building.
Stable governance, as described in the USIP and PKSOI Guiding Principles, is a condition
characterized by “ability of the people to share, access, or compete for power through nonviolent
political processes and to enjoy the collective benefits and services of the state.” Because
governance includes delivery of core services such as security, rule of law, economic governance
and basic needs, this sector is in many ways an umbrella for the others. Delivery of services
enhances legitimacy - the right to rule, or the rightness of a regime.
Legitimacy implies acceptance of political order: “any political regime, in order to endure and
govern, requires that people believe that those who rule have a right to do so, that they are not
governing in their own selfish interest, and that they are entitled to use force to sustain order. This
definition implies a positive persuasive component of an attraction to justice as well as the darker
influence of coercion in attaining compliance with rules. Voluntary acquiescence is obviously
desired. If based not on the legitimacy of rulers but adherence to accepted processes, a constitution
or rule of law as in Max Weber’s legal-rational authority provides a more stable foundation.
However, in transitional states, not only are rulers often problematic but these processes are
themselves liable to be contested by self-interested actors seeking to shape that larger structure.
Kal Holsti’s analysis in The State, War, and the State of War describes legitimacy as twofold: vertical
legitimacy pertains to the hierarchical authoritative relationships in governance, and horizontal
legitimacy pertains to the communities that make up the polity. Exclusionary categories of
community such as ethnicity create a weak basis for legitimacy and often, grounds for war.
Expanding on Weber’s sociological types of authority, Holsti offers eight types of authority claims,
including consent as already discussed, religion, ethnicity and task performance. Military victory,
according to Holsti, created legitimate occupation regimes in Germany and Japan following World
War II. Seymour Martin Lipset had years before also cited Germany and Japan as examples, but his
argument rested not on the military victory but the ability of the new democracies to overcome a
legitimacy deficit by means of effective performance of basic governance functions over time. Must
military occupiers must meet some criteria of effectiveness if they are to legitimize and thereby
stabilize the order they seek to shape?
Two tests - effectiveness and consent - vie for prominence as markers for recognition of state
sovereignty in international law. The de facto or effective control test for recognition refers
explicitly to the regime’s ability to secure habitual compliance of all within its influence without
necessarily being concerned for the means by which that compliance is attained. The Reagan
Doctrine in the 1980s rejected the notion that effective control was sufficient to recognition of
government standing, preferring instead a test of consent of the governed and respect for rights of
citizens. Although this ideological legitimism was rejected at the time, it made a comeback after the
victory of liberalism in the cold war ideological contest. The triumph of liberalism included a
globalization of its democracy and human rights agenda that would become a basis for
“humanitarian interventions” in the 1990s.
The international system, absent a global leviathan, is characterized by anarchy, yet hierarchy
characterizes relations within state structures. The rules of the game established in the 20th
century were rules about avoidance of interference in the domestic affairs of other states. As the
21st century approached, failures within states came to be viewed as the primary threat to
security. The al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 symbolized for
many the consequences of state failure in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that provided a breeding
ground for resistance to the prevailing international order. The literature on governance in
transitional societies is premised on the notion that a system of states is the most effective form of
political order.
Provision of Essential Services
Francis Fukuyama’s measures of stateness include the scope of governmental activity and the
strength of the state, “the ability to plan and execute policies and to enforce laws cleanly and
transparently.” This focus on institutional capacity is one of the hallmarks of the literature on postconflict reconstruction. Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart in Fixing Failed States focus specifically on
key functions of the state. Primary among these functions in both accounts is the provision of a
monopoly on the use of force. For Max Weber, it was the successful claim on a monopoly on
legitimate use of force within a given territory that defines the state.
Stewardship of State Resources
Stewardship of state resources is about public administration. Transitional administrators, or
interim regimes can form in many different ways, and often go through several
transformations. Nonetheless, they make crucial decisions affecting the fundamental rights of the
people.
Security sector and civil service reform are some of the most challenging issues in post-conflict
states. Development of good practices of custodianship of state resources, transparency and
accountability are required.
Civic Participation and Empowerment
The International Declaration of Human Rights proclaims:
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage
and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. (Article 21)
Political Moderation and Accountability
The goal of political moderation is to channel conflict through institutions. Liberal theory
emphasizes the role of civil society and institutions to rein impulses to violence. At the heart of
liberal theory is “a search for principles of political justice that will command rational assent among
persons with different conceptions of the good life and different views of the world.” National
constituting processes set the rules for expression, representation and reconciliation of
interests. The idea of government by and for the people begs the question, “who governs and in
whose interest should prevail when there are differences among the people?” Arend Lijphart, in his
classic text Patterns of Democracy provides two alternative answers to that question:
1. the majority of the people (majority rule)
2. as many people as possible (consensus)
Majority rule concentrates power, often in a mere plurality. The consensus approach, by contrast,
uses “rules and institutions [that] aim at broad participation in government and broad agreement
on the policies…” Lijphart’s taxonomy of such systems around the world identifies ten differences
arranged in terms of two dimensions: 1. executive power related to party systems and 2. federalunitary distribution of decision making authority:
1. executives-party dimension
1. single-party majority cabinets versus executive power sharing
2. executive dominance versus executive-legislative balance of power
3. two-party versus multi-party systems
4. majoritarian versus proportional representation
5. pluralist interest groups versus coordinated and “corporatists” interest groups
2. federal-unitary dimension
1. unitary and centralized versus federal and decentralized
2.
3.
4.
5.
unicameral legislature versus two equally strong but differently constituted houses
flexible versus rigid constitutions
legislature final word on constitutionality versus judicial review
central bank dependence on the executive versus independent central banks
Some liberals emphasize the potential for international organizations to fill a vacuum of authority at
the international level. Another variant of the liberal school relies upon the character of states
themselves for peace, claiming that liberal states are more stable and peaceful.An article published
by Francis Fukuyama in 1989 fits the second stream. This article was significant, but not only
because of its seeming prescience about the end of the Cold War. Fukuyama’s argument had
political consequences, legitimating the American model of governance and the drive to export
democracy. The article was also significant as scholars in the 1990s established empirically that
democracies do not war with one another. As the Soviet empire collapsed, Francis Fukuyama
declared an end of history. However, as Jack Snyder has shown, the transition to democracy is, on
the other hand, typically violent. Snyder’s work is one of the most important references for anyone
participating in a political transition.
Goverance: Selected Bibliography
Abed, George T. and Sanjeev Gupta. 2002. Governance, Corruption, and Economic Performance.
Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
Abed, George T. and Sanjeev Gupta. Governance, Corruption, and Economic Performance.
Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 2002.
Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. International Practices. Cambridge Studies in International
Relations. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Anderson, Lisa. Transitions to Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
Army Service Schools U.S. War Department, Military Aid to the Civil Power (Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas: The General Service Schools Press, 1925
Bain, William. Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003.
Bebber, Robert J. "TheRole ofProvincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Counterinsurgency
Operations:Khost Province, Afghanistan". Small Wars Journal. Retrieved 28 December 2013
Bekkers, Victor, Geske Dijkstra, Arthur Edwards, and Menno Fenger. 2007. Governance and the
Democratic Deficit: Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of Governance Practices. Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing.
Bekkers, Victor, Geske Dijkstra, Arthur Edwards, and Menno Fenger. Governance and the
Democratic Deficit: Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of Governance Practices. Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing, 2007.
Beris, Jonathan V. Defining Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations
Requirements for Future Department of the Navy Training and Analytical Models and
Simulations [Electronic Resource].
Bickel, Keith B. Mars Learning: The Marine Corps Development of Small Wars Doctrine, 19151940. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001.
Binnendijk, Hans and Patrick M. Cronin Civilian Surge: Key to
Complex Operations, edited by. 165-94. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press,
2009
Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans P., Jacomina P. de Regt, and Stephen Spector. 2010. Local and
Community Driven Development: Moving to Scale in Theory and Practice.Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans P., Jacomina P. de Regt, and Stephen Spector. Local and Community
Driven Development: Moving to Scalein Theory and Practice. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank, 2010.
Birkhimer, William E. Military Government and Martial Law, 2nd Revised ed. (Kansas City, MO:
Franklin Hudson Publishing Company, 1898; 1904).
Bride, Frank “The Gendarmerie d’Haiti,” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 3, no. 4 (Dec. 1918), pp. 297298
Bridges, Brian and Lok Sang Ho. 2010. Public Governance in Asia and the Limits of Electoral
Democracy. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bridges, Brian and Lok Sang Ho. Public Governance in Asia and the Limits of Electoral Democracy.
Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010.
Coles, Harry L., and Albert K. Weinberg. Civil Affairs:Soldiers Become Governors, United
States Army in World War Ii. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military
History, Department of the Army, 1964. Fishel, John T. Civil Military Operations in the New
World. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1997.
CONVENTION (IV) RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND Signed at The Hague,
18 October 1907. ENTRY INTO FORCE: 26 January 1910
gopher://gopher.law.cornell.edu/00/foreign/fletcher/HA07-IV.txt
Corrigan, Philip and Derek Sayer, The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution,
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985) Davidson, Janine. Lifting the Fog of Peace : How Americans
Learned to Fight Modern War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010.
de Ferranti, David, Justin Jacinto, Anthony, J. Ody, and Graeme Ramshaw. 2009. How to Improve
Governance: A New Framework for Analysis and Action. Washington,D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press.
Dewey, John. The Public and Its Problems. New York,: H. Holt and Company, 1927.
Doyle, Michael “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, part 1” Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol.
12, No. 3 (Summer 1983) and “Kant, Liberal
Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, part 2” Philosophy
and Public Affairs Vol. 12, No. 4
(Fall 1983)
Dunne, Timothy “Liberalism” in John Baylis and Steve Smith (Eds.) The Globalization of World
Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 147-163
Estrella, Marisol and Nina Iszatt. 2004. Beyond Good
Governance: Participatory Democracy in the Philippines. Quezon City: Institute for Popular
Democracy.
Estrella, Marisol and Nina Iszatt. Beyond Good Governance: Participatory Democracy in the
Philippines. Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy, 2004.
Ferguson, Yale H., and R. J. Barry Jones. Political Space : Frontiers of Change and Governance in a
Globalizing World. Suny Series in Global Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press,
2002.
Fischer, William D. Untapped Air Force Resources for Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations
[Electronic Resource].
Fisher, Julie. "Local and Global: International Governance and Civil Society." Journal of International
Affairs 57, no. 1 (Fall 2003, 2003): 19.
Ford, Jess T. Foreign Affairs [Electronic Resource] : Effective Stewardship of Resources Essential to
Efficient Operations at State Department, USAID.
Fukuyama, Francis “The End of History?” The National Interest Vol. 16 (Summer 1989), pp.3-16
Fukuyama, Francis. State-Building : Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 2004.
Ghani, Ashraf, and Clare Lockhart. Fixing Failed States : A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured
World. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Gilley, Bruce. The Right to Rule : How States Win and Lose Legitimacy. New York: Columbia
University Press, 2009.
Governance and International Legal Theory [Electronic Resource]. Nova Et Vetera Iuris Gentium.
Series A, Modern International Law ; no. 2-3.
Gray, John Liberalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986)
Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction. United States Institute of Peace and United
States Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, 2009.
Guttieri, Karen Military Government and Civil Affairs: Lost Lessons
in the American Way of War and Peace Draft m.s.
Guttieri, Karen, and Jessica Piombo. Interim Governments : Institutional Bridges to Peace and
Democracy? Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007.
Guttieri, Karen. "Civil-Military Relations in Peacebuilding." Sicherheitspolitik und Friedensforschung
2 (2004):79-85.
Guttieri, Karen. "Gaps at the Seams of the Dayton Accord: A Role Play Scenario." In Case 279 Pew
Case Studies in International Affairs. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of
Diplomacy, Georgetown University, 2005.
Guttieri, Karen. "Professional Military Education in Democracies." In Who Guards the Guardians and
How?: Democratic Civil-Military Relations, edited by Thomas Bruneau and Scott Tollefson.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006.
Guttieri, Karen. "Stuck in the Moment: Prospects for United States Stability Operations in Iraq." In
The Dilemmas of American Strategic Primacy: Implications for the Future of Canadian-American
Cooperation, edited by David S. McDonough and Douglas A. Ross. 141-61. Toronto: Royal
Canadian Military Institute, 2005.
Guttieri, Karen. "The Civil Dimension of Strategy." In Humanizing ur Global Order, edited by Obiora
Chinedu Okafor and Obijiofor Aginam. 87-111. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003.
Guttieri, Karen. "Unlearning War: U.S. Military Experience with Stability Operations." In
Organizational Learning in the Global Context, edited by Michael Kenney Leann Brown, Michael
Zarkin. London: Ashgate, 2006.
Guttieri, Toward a Usable Peace Phd Dissertation, 1999.
Guttieri,Karen “Making Might Right: The Legitimation of Occupation,” 45th International
Studies Association Convention, Montreal Quebec 2004.
Held, David. Models of Democracy. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA: Polity, 2006.
Hicks, Kathleen H., Christine E. Wormuth, and Eric Ridge. The Future of U.S. Civil Affairs Forces
Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2009.
Holshek, Christopher. "Civil-Military Power and the Future of Civil Affairs." The Officer 83, no. 4
(May 2007, 2007): 45-48.
Holsti, Kalevi J. The State, War, and the State of War Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Hull, Cordell, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, New York: Macmillan, 1948, Vol. 2.
Hull, William I. The Two Hague Conferences and Their Contribution to International Law (Boston;
New York: Ginn and Company; Kraus Reprint Company, 1908; 1970).: 467.
Irvine, Cynthia E. Roundhouse : A Security Architecture for Active Networks.
Kalyvas, Stathis N., Ian Shapiro, and Tarek E. Masoud. Order, Conflict, and Violence. Cambridge, UK
; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Keller, James Cliff. Fixing the Whole-of-Government Approach in Failed States-a Model for Security
Force Assistance [Electronic Resource].
Kelsen, Hans General Theory of Law and State, Anders Wedberg trans. New York: Russell and
Russell, 1961; discussion in Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Kennedy, Harold. "Pentagon Broadens Duties for its Civil Affairs Teams." National Defense 87, no.
591 (Feb 2003, 2003): 36-39.
Kettl, Donald F., author. System Under Stress : The Challenge to 21st Century Governance. Public
Affairs and Policy Administration Series.
Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications.
Kooiman, Jan. Governing as Governance. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003.
Kraft, Michael E., and Scott R. Furlong. Public Policy : Politics, Analysis, andAlternatives. 4th ed. Los
Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2013.
Kumar, Krishna. "After the Elections: Consequences for Democratization." In Postconflict Elections,
Democratization, and International Assistance, editedby Krishna Kumar. 215-28. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner, 1998.
Lambert, Alexandre. "From Civil-Military Relations Towards Security Sector Governance." European
Political Science: EPS 10, no. 2 (Jun 2011, 2011): 157-166.
Levi-Faur, David. "From "Big Government" to "Big Governance"?" In Oxford Handbook of
Governance, edited by Levi-Faur, David, 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Levi-Faur, David. 2012. "From "Big Government" to "Big Governance"?" In Oxford
Handbook of Governance, by David Levi-Faur, 3-18. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1999.
Lipset, S.M. Political Man, The Social Basis of Politics New York: Doubleday, 1959.
Lovan, W. Robert, Michael Murray, and Ron Shaffer. 2004. ParticipatoryGovernance: Planning,
Conflict Mediation, and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Lovan, W. Robert, Michael Murray, and Ron Shaffer. Participatory Governance: Planning, Conflict
Mediation, and Public Decision-Making in Civil Society. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004.
Malesky, Edmund. "Straight Ahead on Red: How Foreign Direct Investment Empowers Subnational
Leaders." The Journal of Politics 70, no. 1 (2008): 97.
Malesky, Edmund. 2008. "Straight Ahead on Red: How Foreign Direct Investment
Empowers Subnational Leaders." The Journal of Politics 70 (1): 97-119.
Malik, Sarita. "The Army Civil Affairs Officer Educational Pipeline a Supply and Demand Analysis."
Naval Postgraduate School, 2008.
Malik, Sarita. The Army Civil Affairs Officer Educational Pipeline [Electronic Resource] : A Supply and
Demand Analysis.
March, James G., Martin Schulz, and Hsüeh-kuang Chou. The Dynamics of Rules : Change in Written
Organizational Codes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Martin, Gail , PBS Newshour Iraq in Transition “Iraq: Key Players” date unknown
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iraq/keyplayers/garner.html
McCloy, John J. “US Military Governor and High Commissioner for Germany, 1949-1952” in
Moore, Kenneth H.,Jr. "Strategic Civil Affairs for the Long War." The Officer 84, no. 2 (Feb/Mar
2008, 2008): 51-54.
Moore, Mark Harrison. Creating Public Value. 1st Replica Books ed. Bridgewater, NJ: Replica Books,
1997.
Mostovicz, E. Isaac, Nada K. Kakabadse, and Andrew P. Kakabadse. "Self- Or Rule-Based
Governance: Analysis of Choice-Making Behaviour." Corporate Governance 10, no. 4 (2010):
541-557.
Norris, Pippa. 2008. Driving Democracy: Do Power Sharing Institutions Work? New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Norris, Pippa. Making Democratic Governance Work: How Regimes Shape Prosperity, Welfare, and
Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Norris, Pippa. Electoral Engineering [Electronic Resource] : Voting Rules and Political Behavior.
Pierre, Jon. Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Pirnie, Bruce. Counterinsurgency in Iraq (2003-2006) [Electronic Resource]. Rand Counterinsurgency
Study ; v. 2.
Ramos, Jennifer. Changing Norms through Actions : The Evolution of Sovereignty. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2013.
Regner, Tobias, Javier A. Barria, Jeremy V. Pitt, and Brendan Neville. "Governance of Digital Content
in the Era of Mass Participation." Electronic Commerce Research 10, no. 1 (Mar 2010, 2010): 99110.
Reynolds, Andrew. The Architecture of Democracy : Constitutional Design, Conflict Management,
and Democracy. Oxford Studies in Democratization. Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Rose, Richard. What is Governing? : Purpose and Policy in Washington.
Rothstein, Bo. 2012. "Good Governance." In Oxford Handbook of Governance, by David Levi-Faur,
143-154. New York: Oxford University Press.
Russett, Bruce Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993).
Sahni, Nikhil R., Maxwell Wessel, and Clayton M. Christensen. 2013. "Unleashing Breakthrough in
Innovation in Government." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer: 26-31.
Sahni, Nikhil, Maxwell Wessel, and Clayton M. Christensen. "Unleashing Breakthrough in Innovation
in Government." Stanford Social Innovation Review no. Summer (2013): 26.
Sandler, Stanley. Glad to See Them Come and Sorry to See Them Go: A History of U.S. Army Tactical
Civil Affairs/Military Government, 1775-1991. Fort Bragg, NC: US Special Operations Command,
1998.
Sassen, Saskia. Territory, Authority, Rights : From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 2006.
Schwenk, Edmund H. "Legislative Power of the Military Occupant under Article 43, Hague
Regulations," Yale Law Journal (1945) Vol. 54: 93-416
Sellers, Cameron S., and Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.). Provincial Reconstruction Teams:
Improving Effectiveness (Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School, 2007).
Sikkink, Kathryn. The Justice Cascade : How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics.
1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011.
Snyder, Jack L. From Voting to Violence : Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. 1st ed. New
York: Norton, 2000.
St Laurent, J.,A. (2013). Building partner capacity: Key practices to effectively manage department
of defense efforts to promote security cooperation United States Government Accountability
Office. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1373466303?accountid=12702
Suri, Jeremi, Liberty’s Surest Guardian: American Nation-Building From the Founders to Obama.
New York: Free Press, 2011.
TheFuture of S/CRS – What’s in a Name? Journal of International Peace Operations Volume 6,
Number 5 –March-April, 2011. Posted by Heather Price.
Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: A.D. 990 -1990 (Cambridge, MA: Basil
Blackwell, 1990).
Ubaldi,John, Jose Piedra, and Mark Kline. "Reorganize Marine Corps Civil Affairs: Being Prepared for
Contingencies." Marine Corps Gazette 92, no. 10 (Oct 2008, 2008): 62-65.
Understanding Counterinsurgency : Doctrine, Operations and Challenges. Cass Military Studies.
United States Army, F.M. 27-5 Military Government (1940).
United States. "National Security Presidential Directive / Npsd-44." White House, Washington DC:
Reprinted by Federation of American Scientists, December 7, 2005 United States. Congress.
Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Stabilization and Reconstruction : Building Peace in a
Hostile Environment : Hearing before the
Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth
Congress, First Session, June 16, 2005. S. Hrg. ; 109-236.
United States. General Accounting Office. Issues in Implementing International Peace Operations
[Electronic Resource].
United States. Government Accountability Office. Legal Services Corporation [Electronic Resource] :
Governance and Accountability Practices Need to be Modernized and Strengthened : Report to
Congressional Requesters.
United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. "JP 3-57 Civil Military Operations." Washington DC, 11 September
2013.
Wells, Donald A. The Laws of Land Warfare : A Guide to the U.S. Army Manuals (Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press, 1992)
Wolfe, Robert. Americans as Proconsuls : United States Military Government in Germany and Japan,
1944-1952. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984.
Wuestner, Scott G., and Army War College (U.S.). Building Partner Capacity/Security Force
Assistance : A New Structural Paradigm. The Letort Papers. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2009.
Yates, Lawrence A. The U.S. Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005. Fort
Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006.
Yossi Shain and Juan J. Linz, Between States: Interim Governments and Democratic Transitions
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995
Ziemke, Earl F. The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, Army Historical Series
(Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, 1975; 1990)
2. Stakeholder Analysis
In the design meeting on September 18, the team explored the question “who is the client”? A
humanitarian perspective might name the host nation civilian as the client; however, the civil affairs
are needed because military force has been used in as an expression of foreign policy. In previous
work, I have built upon the conceptualization of policy and force set out by Carl Von Clausewitz.
Carl Von Clauswitz described war as a continuation of policy by other means. The decision to use
military force implies a transition in which a mode of policy gives way to a mode of force. Policy
implies a general direction for state action. In war the state takes up arms and military as opposed
to civilian instruments are the locus of movement. Post-conflict military operations are concerned
with a return transition, in which the mode of force gives way to a mode of policy. The transition
from force to policy can be understood in this light as the natural reciprocal of the transition from
policy to force.
When a nation uses military force—whether in war or operations other than war—its leaders have
done so in order to promote the national interest. War is then the continuation of politics by other
means: “We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy,” wrote Clausewitz, “but a true
political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means.”[1] This
definition is to remind leaders that force is not an end in itself. In addition, the formulaic
conceptualization of war and politics generates conceptual relationships including an authoritative
relationship between military and civil realms, and a definitive relationship between force and
policy instruments.
The relationship between policy and force is easily conceived as a continuum from diplomacy (or
policy) to war (or force). The progression from a mode of policy to a mode of force begins with less
coercive expressions of foreign policy such as transmission of a diplomatic note. It escalates with
suspension of trade or aid; general sanctions might be organized. It goes further when force is
threatened or employed. Its ultimate form is interstate war that engulfs entire societies mobilized
for its ends. It is also conceivable that a foreign power might attempt to push backward along the
continuum, using instruments short of war to change conditions so that the use of force is not
required to achieve policy goals.[2] Figure 2 depicts a progression from policy to force according to
the perspective of an intervening state:
Figure 2
Clausewitzian Continuum
policy
force
Military forces in war seek to control territory. However, when a nation’s armed forces successfully
take territory by force, these armed forces do more than grab real estate: they take and in some
form they hold that real estate. Even amid a political settlement such as a negotiated truce or peace
agreement, troops are present in foreign theaters until withdrawal. The effective control of
territory by these military forces, by definition, constitutes a form of rule, however benign or
temporary. Unless the territory is uninhabited, or the use of force was so destructive as to create a
wasteland, indigenous populations are a factor in both the taking and holding of this territory.
Foreign troops that control territory assume a quasi-political role with regard to the civilian
population. At this time, military personnel are obligated under the international law of occupation
as expressed in The Hague and Geneva Conventions, to protect civilians. Unless military forces seek
to annex or indefinitely administer this territory, their next concern is for an exit strategy.
Intervening military forces that had perhaps sought to displace a foreign regime may now switch
tasks, to ensure the safety of a new one. The transition to local self-rule conceptually involves a
transition from a mode of destruction to one of restoration. This return transition transforms the
Clausewitzian continuum depicted earlier. As illustrated in Figure 3, the return transition implies a
circular relationship in the Clausewitzian formulation of war as a continuation of policy by other
means—a Clausewitzian Loop. This transition is not only one of rule; it is also a transition from war
to other modes of politics.
Figure 3
Clausewitzian Loop
As the loop is completed, policy instruments are changed, so that the job of the military is done and
local nationals again govern the site. Two transitions are then involved in a successful military
intervention:
1.
The forceful insertion of troops in foreign territory marks a transition from policy to force.
2.
Post-conflict military operations mark a transition from force to policy.
In the first transition, the initiator of armed intervention shifts from a non-military foreign policy
mode to a warfighting mode. Although policy must continue to guide military action, the
imperatives of war tend to increase the discretion of military as opposed to civilian leaders.
Meanwhile, the target of armed intervention shifts from a mode of self-rule to a mode of
subordination to foreign control.
In the second transition, the intervening power shifts from a warfighting mode to a stabilization
mode, troop exit and normalization of diplomatic relations. Military forces during interventions
have a complex task to implement national policy while at the same time accommodating the needs
of the target peoples for order or even governance. Reconstruction or construction of a functioning
society becomes a concern for military leaders seeking to consolidate military operations and
depart. Meanwhile, the target of armed intervention shifts from a mode of subordination to foreign
control to restoration of self-rule. However, the new mode of policy is not the same as the mode
that preceded military intervention. The helix configuration, as in figure 4, illustrates the process.
Figure 4
Helix Configuration of Policy and Force
The helix configuration illustrates the ultimate predominance of policy, and the complex challenge
for military commanders who must implement it. As an intervention progresses, military forces
shape and also must adapt to new conditions in the policy environment. Military intervention to
create or support a friendly regime depends upon non-military processes for the mission to bear
fruit. Intervening troops seek to win indigenous, or host-country civilian cooperation to establish
order and depart, as quickly as they are able. Intervening forces hope to establish a friendly regime
capable of self-defense, however, the regime may continue to rely on the intervening military
forces for public order and service provision for some time. In sum, the cyclical nature of war and
peace sets the context for a civil dimension to military operations.
The design meeting grappled with the stakeholders, political and military, foreign and domestic,
with many perspectives: national, organizational, humanitarian. We recognized the political
purposes of the use of force. We developed the following goals:
 sustainable peace
 protection/resilience
 security and development
 consistent with US foreign policy goals
Clausewitz, On War. See in particular Book One: On the Nature of War, “Chapter One What
is War? War is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means,” p.87.
[2] I owe this insight to Davis Bobrow. His idea is echoed in a report on civil military operations
in El Salvador which concludes that “civil military operations is an area in which proper actions [1]
- taken early -- can help prevent an insurgency from developing beyond its latent and
organizational stage.” Max G. Manwaring and Courtney Prisk, “Civil Military Operations in El
Salvador,” (Quarry Heights, Panama: United States, Southern Command, February 17, 1988), p.
29. This notion presumes effective timing and action of intervention. Often, what State
Department official Todd Greentree calls the “democratic contradiction” is in effect. As
explained by Donald Snow, “outsiders are unlikely to become adequately sensitive to internal
problems until they reach a critical stage at which they are highly visible and troublesome to deal
with.” Donald M. Snow, National Security: Defense Policy for a New International Order 3rd
ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), p. 227.
Black: All
Red: Provision of Essential Services
Green: Stewardship of State Resources
Blue: Political Moderation and Accountability
Purple: Civic Participation and Empowerment
Academic Institutions (US)
· Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law (Stanford University)
http://cddrl.stanford.edu
· Center for International Security and Cooperation (Stanford University)
http://cisac.stanford.edu
·
Program in Democracy and Governance (Georgetown University)
http://government.georgetown.edu/cdacs
·
Governance Project, CDDRL (Stanford University)
http://governanceproject.stanford.edu
· Center on International Conflict and Negotiation (Stanford University)
http://www.law.stanford.edu/organizations/programs-and-centers/stanfordcenter-on-international-conflict-and-negotiation-scicn
·
Center for Deliberative Democracy (Stanford University)
http://cdd.stanford.edu/
·
Program on Poverty and Governance, CDDRL (Stanford University)
http://governance.stanford.edu
·
Center for Effective Global Action (UC Berkeley)
http://cega.berkeley.edu
·
Development Impact Lab (UC Berkeley)
http://dil.berkeley.edu
Academic Institutions (Non-US)
·
Quality of Government Institute (University of Gothenburg, Sweden)
http://www.qog.pol.gu.se
Government Organizations (US)
·
US Agency for International Development (Washington, DC)
http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-governance
· US Department of State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
(Washington, DC)
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/index.htm
·
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (Washington, DC)
http://www.ndi.org
Government Organizations (Non-US)
·
Australian Agency for International Development (Australia)
http://aid.dfat.gov.au
·
Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (Afghanistan)
http://mrrd.gov.af/en
·
Department of Social Welfare and Development (Philippines)
http://www.dswd.gov.ph
·
National Solidarity Programme (Afghanistan)
http://www.nspafghanistan.org
Non-Governmental Organizations (US)
·
Asia Foundation (San Francisco)
http://asiafoundation.org
· Urban Institute Center on International Development and Governance
(Washington, DC)
http://www.urban.org/center/idg
·
Center for Global Development (Washington, DC)
http://www.cgdev.org
·
Democracy International (Bethesda)
http://democracyinternational.com
·
Participatory Budgeting Project (Brooklyn)
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/
·
Carter Center (Atlanta)
http://www.cartercenter.org
·
Freedom House (Washington, DC)
http://www.freedomhouse.org
Non-Governmental Organizations (Non-US)
·
Transparency International (Germany)
http://www.transparency.org
·
Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (Netherlands)
http://www.nimd.org
International Organizations
·
United Nations: Department of Political Affairs
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa
·
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
http://www.unrisd.org
·
United Nations Development Programme: Democratic Governance
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/democraticgovernance/ove
rview.html
·
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
http://www.osce.org
·
World Bank Institute: Governance
http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/topic/governance
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
BG Cosentino, National War College, National Defense University
James Fishkin, Stanford University
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Clare Lockhart, Institute for State Efffectiveness
4. December IPR Report-out
While the topic of governance was included in nearly all discussion throughout the IPR, the session
in which Stanford Communication Professor James Fishkin spoke on deliberative democracy started
a very thoughtful discussion on what military support to governance would resemble. Specifically,
at length, participants discussed how to transpose the expert dialogue, as found in deliberative
polling, to battlespaces in which Civil Affairs operates, where experts on any particular subject may
be few and far between. Additionally, from a legal and moral standpoint, we discussed how can Civil
Affairs proffer options to a community without simultaneously imposing cultural standards foreign
to that area. Neither of these issues were unanimously resolved, though the basic mechanics of
truly understanding the human terrain, as in the case of deliberative polling, can certainly be
incorporated into the Assessment phase of Civil Affairs operations.
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
The next steps for the governance team involves both desk research and outreach. The stakeholder
analysis identified many organizations relevant to the research effort. During the January IPR we
will reach out to stakeholders at NDU and elsewhere in Washington.
The governance IPR is currently scheduled to take place at NPS in February. That is too soon.
Recognizing that governance is the umbrella competency, this should be the final topic.
The PSOTEW will include a governance panel. Several governance questions are in the PSOTEW call
for papers, for example, How can governance innovation support resiliency? What is the role of
gender in governance practices?
6. Enabling Technologies
Governance is one of the richest areas for enabling technologies. Social media, data storage, web
portals, communications technologies and mapping all provide tools for administration of
governance, mobilization of peace constituencies, and articulation of interest.
C. RULE OF LAW (Melanne / Margalynne)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
2. Stakeholder Analysis
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
4. December IPR Report-out
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
The RoL sector team has identified a number of invitees for the Sector IPR (note: for some offices,
more than one name is listed (e.g., Director and operational experts), but we anticipate only one or
possibly two will attend). Several invitees are from areas beyond Washington DC, including
internationals. If possible, an unclassified video conference capability may be set up for remote
participants (e.g., NDU can accommodate this – it has been done for previous conferences, linking
in participants from Geneva, Germany, Brussels, Haiti, etc.).
USG:
Jane Stromseth, Deputy Office of Global Criminal Justice, Department of State; co-author of Can
Might Make Rights: Building the Rule of Law after Military
Interventions; StromsethJE@state.gov
Robert Vasquez, JAG Officer on assignment to State Department’s Office of Global Criminal
Justice; Vasquezrp@state.gov
Kelly Uribe (USAID-DOD/OSD; transitional police); Kelly.Uribe@osd.mil
Andrew Solomon, Rule of Law expert; former Brookings, American Society of International Law;
asolomon@usaid.gov, andrewsolomon@gmail.com
COL Eric Haaland (DOD/OSD CEW); Eric.Haaland@osd.mil
Rod Fabrycky, DOD/OSD – NATO; transitional police; Rodney.Fabrycky@osd.mil
Eric Rosand, Senior Advisor, Department of State Counterterrorism; RosandEA@state.gov
Michele Greenstein, Director (Acting) INL CAP, Department of State; GreensteinMA@state.gov
Walter Redman, Senior Police Advisor, Department of State, INL/CAP; RedmanW@state.gov
Jenny Murphy, Senior Justice Advisor; MurphyJW@state.gov
Robert Kravinsky, DOD/OSD; robert.kravinksy@osd.mil
Merry Archer, Department of State Political Military Bureau; ArcherMA@state.gov
Faye Ehrenstamm, Director (Acting) OPDAT, DOJ; Faye.S.Ehrenstamm@usdoj.gov
R. Carr Trevillian IV, Director ICITAP, DOJ; robert.trevillian@usdoj.gov
Thomas L. Dorwin, Justice and Security Legal Advisor DOJ OPDAT (and former JAG);
Thomas.Dorwin@usdoj.gov
J. Terry Bartlett, DOJ-ICITAP, 29 years of experience in Corrections; terry.bartlett@usdoj.gov,
BartlettJt@state.gov
Denver Fleming, Assistant director special Operations at DOJ-ICITAP;
Denver.Fleming@usdoj.gov
George Huber, Justice and Security Legal Advisor; former Deputy Chief of Staff, United Nations
Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK); former Head of the Political
Coordination and Reporting Office, United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo
(UNMIK); george.huber@usdoj.gov
John Kelly, NDU, Professor of National Security Studies, ACSS; Associate Dean Emeritus; retired
Colonel, U.S. Army Reserves; John.Kelly@ndu.edu
Dr. David Tretle, NDU- National War College Acting Dean; tretlerd@ndu.edu
Ambassador James Foley, National War College Interim Commandant; former State Department
Senior Coordinator for Iraqi Refugee; U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the United
Nations in Geneva; and Deputy Director of the Private Office of the NATO Secretary General
in Brussels; James.Foley@ndu.edu
William (Bill) Aseltine, Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS);
aseltinew@diils.dsca.mil
Chris Hartley and Helen Bowman, JAG Postgraduate School/ Rule of Law Handbook;
Christopher.m.hartley.mil@mail.mil, Helen.e.bowman2.fm@mail.mil
Roberto (Bobby) Bran, USMC; roberto.bran@usmc.mil
International/ Multilateral/ Intergovernmental:
Sheelagh Stewart, Director, UNDP Governance and Rule of Law; sheelagh.stewart@undp.org
(New York)
Robert Pulver, Chief UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Criminal Law and Judicial
Advisory Service, Office for Rule of Law and Security Institutions; Pulverr@un.org
Mark Downes/ Victoria Walker, International Security Sector Advisory Team (ISSAT) of the
Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of the Armed Forces (Geneva);
v.walker@dcaf.ch, mdownes@dcaf.ch
NATO: James Appathurali, Appathurali.james@hq.nato.int (Brussels)
NATO: Claus Hoeegh-Huldberg; hoeegh-guldberg.claus@hq.nato.int (Brussels –phone in)
Marcos Nicoli; mnicoli@worldbank.org
Andrea Testa; atesta@worldbank.org
Christina Biebesheimer; CBiebesheimer@worldbank.org
Varun Gauri, Economist-Rule of Law overlap; judicial rulings on human rights, grievance redress
in basic service delivery; vgauri@worldbank.org
Alexander-Louis Berg; lb262@georgetown.edu, aberg2@worldbank.org
Andras Vamos-Goldman, Director, Justice Rapid Response (JRR); a.vamosgoldman@justicerapidresponse.org (Geneva)
Civil Society/ Private Sector/ Academia
Colette Rausch, Director Rule of Law Center of Innovation, USIP; crausch@usip.org
Louis Aucoin, Professor Tufts University; former Program Officer in the Rule of Law Program,
United States Institute of Peace (2000-2003); founder of The Mekong Delta Regional Law
Center promoting judicial collaboration; former Deputy Special Representative in Rule of
Law for Liberia and Legal Advisor to Haiti’s Minister for Justice; Louis.Aucoin@tufts.edu
Rachel Kleinfeld, founding CEO and President of the Truman Security Project and author of
Advancing Rule of Law Reform Abroad; rkleinfeld@ceip.org
Michelle Hughes, Chief, Global Strategy at The Internet Bar Organization, former Senior Policy
and Program Advisor, Rule of Law and Security Sector Reform, J7, and former Senior
Advisor - Rule of Law and Security Sector Reform, NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan;
michelle.hughes@cox.net
Rosa Brooks, Georgetown University School of Law Professor , former Counselor to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy and Special Coordinator for Rule of Law and Humanitarian
Policy; brooks.rosa@gmail.com
Paul Williams, President and co-founder of the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG);
pwilliams@pilpg.org
Rob Boone, Director of the American Bar Association Rule of Law Iniatitve (ABA ROLI);
Rob.Boone@americanbar.org
Chuck Tucker, Major General (Ret.); Executive Director World Enterprise Institute; former
Program Director International Development Law Organization (IDLO);
ctucker@weinstitute.org, ctucker417@yahoo.com
Allen S. Weiner, Stanford University Law Professor; former Department of State Assistant Legal
Advsior; aweiner@stanford.edu
Thomas Umberg, private sector attorney and former California State legislator;Colonel in the
Army Reserve; former Co-Chair of the State Department’s Public Private Partnership for
Justice Reform in Afghanistan; Chief, Anti-Corruption, North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Training Mission–Afghanistan (NTM–A)/Combined Security Transition Command–
Afghanistan; tumberg@kruzlaw.gov
Eric Jensen, Director, Rule of Law Program and Affiliated Faculty Member at the Center on
Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at the Freeman Spogli Institute for
International Studies at Stanford University (FSI); egjensen@stanford.edu
Susan Farbstein, Harvard Human Rights Law Clinic, Transitional Justice and Rule of Law expert;
sfarbstein@law.harvard.edu
Sandra Hodgkinson, Vice President, Chief of Staff of DRS Technologies; former director of the
Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice, Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq;
sandra.lynn.hodgkinson@gmail.com
David Gordon, Principal Subject Matter Expert Rule of Law at General Dynamics Information
Technology; former Rule of Law Program Director, US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological
Operations Command; David.Gordon@gdit.com
Robert Buergenthal , Landesa Director of Global Programs; former Programs Director IDLO;
Senior Rule of Law Advisor World Bank Group; OSCE; and USAID; forrmb@yahoo.com
David Crane, Professor Syracuse University College of Law and Maxwell School; former Chief
Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone; dmcrane0617@yahoo.com;
dmcrane@law.syr.edu
John Ferejohn, Professor on Rule of Law (law and political science); Islamic Law, NYU, Yale
University and Stanford University; John.ferejohn@nyu.edu
Brita Madsen, Rule of Law- Gender – Human Rights expert, Project Coordinator, Rule of Law
Training Program at the Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF); former Senior
Expert on human rights and justice in the External Monitoring System of the EU’s
Development Cooperation in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Caucasus; former Project
Coordinator for the establishment of the Office of Police Ombudsman at the Afghanistan
Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) (Germany); b.madsen@zif-berlin.org
Angelic Young, Senior Coordinator, Resolution to Act, Institute for Inclusive Security; former
Senior Police Advisor, Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement; angelic_young@inclusivesecurity.org
6. Enabling Technologies
D. SECURITY (Jon)
What constitutes a safe and secure environment?
What are the best references on this sector?
How does a safe and secure environment mesh with the other sectors?
Who are the experts for safe and secure environments (do not assume militaries are primary)?
What would a graduate level course/curriculum for safe and secure environments look like?
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
Safe and secure environments are a subset of the Civil Security discipline. Homeland integration
considers the domestic side of safe and secure environments. Here, safe and secure environments
will focus on the international aspects.
Safe and secure environments are sine qua non for the other sectors to work.
Safe and secure environments transcend post-hostilities phases of operations; they are necessary
for all stabilization (US doctrinal definition) operations as well as requisite phases of homeland
defense, strategic, and major combat (US doctrinal definitions) operations.
A safe and secure environment is the critical challenge for so-called hybrid/complex operations
characteristic of so-called Irregular/Unconventional/Fourth Generation warfare. Nothing will work
if this sector fails.
The literature on safe and secure environments is both vast and vague: it appears to be considered
more an assumption of military risk than a topic of necessary thought, theory and study. For
example, consider the USIP organization: much disciplinary focus on conflict
management/prevention and rule of law – nothing on safe and secure environments. A similar
problem exists in UN doctrine and publications.
2. Stakeholder Analysis
pending
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
Concurrent with the literature problem, experts are both everywhere and nowhere. It would
appear that anyone who has thought/wrote about/acted in post-hostilities operations is an
expert. This is a problem that has affected strategic planning: anyone who plans considers
himself/herself a strategic planner – but, of course, this is a false logic. The challenge is identify
true safe and secure environment expertise.
4. December IPR Report-out
n/a
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
The greatest challenge is obtaining the necessary focus for the safe and secure environment sector
to be addressed in any meaningful way.
The first focal effort is to develop a current and meaningful bibliography. Associated with this effort
also should be development of a literature review. Both of these need to be complete, at least in
draft, by February 2014.
The second effort should be to cast a wide net to identify interested and true experts. The
proposed sector workshop for May, 2014 may be the best venue for this. Prior to that, the PSOTEW
meeting provides an opportunity to gather papers/presentations. [KG1]
The third focal effort, to be addressed sometime post-sector workshop, perhaps by the end of June
2014, is development of a syllabus for a sector course/curriculum. This product is empirically based
on what developed from the prior two efforts. Note well here: there is no existing theory base for
development of a course of instruction in this subject, just a hodgepodge of material from a diverse
set of disciplines and organizations. What is necessary is both a substantive and pedagogical theory
foundation to support instruction on safe and secure environments.
Fourth and finally, because of all the aforementioned, this sector should prove a vital and fruitful
area for research and publication in the post-project timeframe. The IMSG can become a critical
organization for the promotion of such research, and the integration of results from that research
into its curriculum.
E. ECONOMY / SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (Maria)
During the first quarter of the project, the Economy / Sustainable Development sector team has
engaged in meetings with the military sponsor team and MSG project team members to work on
mission details, assess competencies and interrelationships among themes, and coordinate
expected outcomes and timeframes with sponsor. The sector team has participated in weekly
meetings of the project team and subteams, and meetings at NPS, Fort Bragg, and Stanford
University as part of project design and interim program reviews. The team prepared for the
December IPR and has started preparations for the March PSOTEW community launch.
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
For the literature review, the sector team has scanned and pre-selected bibliographic items and
established content categories, relevance and annotation of anchor literature. Work has included
preparation and literature review of main debates, work on annotated bibliography (update,
evaluate, select, read, review, incorporate feedback), and sketching a initial category selection. We
have coordinated and trained on integrated and shared bibliographic software, conducted
individual and theme research of original content, identified potential concepts for academic
journal placement, and scanned current literature, critiques, debates, conferences, and other media
to identify gaps and relevance and salience of content. The following is a preliminary bibliography
gathered for research in this sector.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Collier, Paul "Natural Resources, Development and Conflict: Channels of Causation and Policy
Interventions," (Washington: World Bank, 2003)
Bobbitt, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, (NewYork: Anchor, 2002)
___________, Terror and Conscent: The wars of the 21 century
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, (NewYork: W.W. Norton &
Co., 1999)
____________, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition, (New York:
Penguin Group, NY, 2005)
____________, The World Until Yesterday: What Can we Learn from Traditional Societies, (New
York: Penguin Group, NY, 2012)
Kaldor, Mary; Karl, Terry Lynn; Said, Yahia, eds, Oil Wars, (London: Pluto Press, 2007)
Karl, Terry Lynn The Paradox of Plenty, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997)
Michael Lewis, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, (New York: W.W. Norton, 2003)
Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, (New York: Penguin Books,
2008)
Perkins, John, Confesions of an Economic Hit Man, (San Francisco: Berret-Koehler, 2004)
Ross, M. L.,"The political economy of the resource curse". World Politics 51 (2): 297–322.
Ross, Michael (2006). "A Closer Look at Oil, Diamonds, and Civil War". Annual Review of Political
Science 9: 265–300
Thucydides, Robert B. Strassler Ed., The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the
Peloponnesian War, (New York: Touchstone, 1998)
BUSINESS ECONOMICS
Acs, Zoltan J. “Small Business Economics: A Global Perspective.” Challenge 35, no. 6 (1992): 38–44.
Davis, Steven J., John Haltiwanger, and Scott Schuh. “Small Business and Job Creation: Dissecting
the Myth and Reassessing the Facts.” Business Economics 29 (1994): 13–13.
Porter, Michael E. “The Adam Smith Address: Location, Clusters, and the‘ New’ Microeconomics of
Competition.” Business Economics 33, no. 1 (1998): 7–13.
Schwartz, Hugh. Rationality Gone Awry?: Decision Making Inconsistent with Economic and Financial
Theory, 1999. http://nabe-web.com/publib/be/990393.pdf.
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Bardhan, Pranab. Land, Labor, and Rural Poverty: Essays in Development Economics. Columbia
University Press, 1984.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kokSfD1Y5v4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=develop
ment+economics&ots=av195pFwyf&sig=RODyPiOdFooM-ydirhn9NBKISOY.
Hirschman, Albert O. “The Rise and Decline of Development Economics.” Essays in Trespassing:
Economics to Politics and Beyond 1 (1981): 24.
Lal, Deepak. The Poverty of Development Economics. mit Press, 2000.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pYxw96EHDpEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=devel
opment+economics&ots=ch5pjgqueC&sig=VjO6ZlZwSWWSvOkhzsVDSBYnq14.
Meier, Gerald M. “Leading Issues in Development Economics.” Leading Issues in Development
Economics. (1964). http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19651802210.html.
Pearce, David William, Edward B. Barbier, and Anil Markandya. Sustainable Development:
Economics and Environment in the Third Wordl. Earthscan, 1990.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=03NeLzVsC8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=development+economics&ots=I2ybNiP1tW&sig=132Mb0T7s6gXYcz
GCWzz7PVNAYI.
Rao, Pinninti K. Sustainable Development: Economics and Policy. Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20001807469.html.
Ray, Debraj. Development Economics. Princeton University Press, 1998.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GKr5RxWT4uAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=develo
pment+economics&ots=r4oLDo_qhs&sig=NHU286cedUwcrIOAWIZ_1K-oWOM.
EXPEDITIONARY ECONOMICS (conflict economics, peace economics, and security economics)
Karam, Azza. “Expeditionary Economics: Enabling Stabilization and Growth or Risking Cultural
Collateral Damage?” In Conference on Expeditionary Economics: Towards and Doctrine for
Enabling Stabilization and Growth, West Point, February, 15–17, 2011.
http://relooney.fatcow.com/NS4053e/Kauffman-Expeditionary_11.pdf.
Looney, Robert. “Entrepreneurship and the Process of Development: A Framework for Applied
Expeditionary Economics in Pakistan.” Available at SSRN 2027512 (2012).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027512.
Patterson, Rebecca, and Jonathan Robinson. “The Commander as Investor: Changing CERP
Practices.” PRISM 2, no. 2 (2011): 115–125.
Patterson, Rebecca, and Dane Stangler. Building Expeditionary Economics: Understanding the Field
and Setting Forth a Research Agenda. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2010.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1710010.
Peterson, Jeff, and Mark Crow. “Expeditionary Economics: Towards a Doctrine for Enabling
Stabilization and Growth.” In Conference on Expeditionary Economics: Towards and Doctrine
for Enabling Stabilization and Growth, West Point, February, 15–17, 2011.
http://relooney.fatcow.com/NS4053e/Kauffman-Expeditionary_8.pdf.
Riegg, Nicholas H. “Implementing Expeditionary and Entrepreneural Economics: Iraq and
Afghanistan.” Entrepreneurship and Expeditionary Economics: Towards a New Approach to
Economic Growth Following Conflict or Disaster (2010).
Schake, Kori. “Operationalizing Expeditionary Economics.” Entrepreneurship and Expeditionary
Economics: Towards a New Approach to Economic Growth Following Conflict or Disaster
(2010). http://www.relooney.info/SI_Expeditionary/0-Expeditionary_2.pdf#page=201.
Schramm, Carl J. “Expeditionary Economics: Spurring Growth after Conflicts and Disasters.” Foreign
Aff. 89 (2010): 89.
FINANCE AND MACRO-ECONOMICS
Alesina, Alberto, Enrico Spolaore, and Romain Wacziarg. Economic Integration and Political
Disintegration. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w6163.
Ffrench-Davis, Ricardo. Reforming the Reforms in Latin America: Macroeconomics, Trade, Finance.
Macmillan, 2000. http://www.networkideas.org/featart/may2002/Latin_America.pdf.
Krugman, Paul. “How Did Economists Get It so Wrong?” New York Times 2, no. 9 (2009): 2009.
Rodrik, Dani. Trade, Social Insurance, and the Limits to Globalization. National Bureau of Economic
Research, 1997. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5905.pdf.
———. Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments? National Bureau of Economic
Research, 1996. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5537.
GENDER ECONOMICS
Benería, Lourdes. “Toward a Greater Integration of Gender in Economics.” World Development 23,
no. 11 (1995): 1839–1850.
Benería, Lourdes, Günseli Berik, and Maria Floro. Gender, Development, and Globalization:
Economics as If All People Mattered. Routledge New York, 2003. http://orton.catie.ac.cr/cgibin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=SIBE01.xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion=mfn=0
32097.
Elson, Diane. “Gender-Aware Analysis and Development Economics.” Journal of International
Development 5, no. 2 (1993): 237–247.
Jacobsen, Joyce P. The Economics of Gender. Vol. 631207279. Blackwell Malden, MA, 1998.
http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?ouvrage=1787966.
Mackintosh, Maureen. “Gender and Economics: The Sexual Division of Labour and the
Subordination of Women.” (1981). http://www.popline.org/node/425964.
Nussbaum, Martha C., and Jonathan Glover. Women, Culture, and Development: A Study of Human
Capabilities: A Study of Human Capabilities. Oxford University Press, 1995.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jhLgdK84Ll8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Gender+e
conomics&ots=GbJiHfpJFe&sig=A4I6TaiExL_lEgz2GWrrr1XBKTw.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECONSTRUCTION
Berke, Philip R., and Thomas J. Campanella. “Planning for Postdisaster Resiliency.” The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 604, no. 1 (2006): 192–207.
Chang, Stephanie E., and Nobuoto Nojima. “Measuring Post-Disaster Transportation System
Performance: The 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Comparative Perspective.” Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35, no. 6 (2001): 475–494.
Davidson, Colin H., Cassidy Johnson, Gonzalo Lizarralde, Nese Dikmen, and Alicia Sliwinski. “Truths
and Myths about Community Participation in Post-Disaster Housing Projects.” Habitat
International 31, no. 1 (2007): 100–115.
Ingram, Jane C., Guillermo Franco, Cristina Rumbaitis-del Rio, and Bjian Khazai. “Post-Disaster
Recovery Dilemmas: Challenges in Balancing Short-Term and Long-Term Needs for
Vulnerability Reduction.” Environmental Science & Policy 9, no. 7 (2006): 607–613.
Johnson, Cassidy. “Strategic Planning for Post-Disaster Temporary Housing.” Disasters 31, no. 4
(2007): 435–458.
Leitmann, Josef. “Cities and Calamities: Learning from Post-Disaster Response in Indonesia.” Journal
of Urban Health 84, no. 1 (2007): 144–153.
Munnell, Alicia H., and Leah M. Cook. “How Does Public Infrastructure Affect Regional Economic
Performance?” In Is There a Shortfall in Public Capital Investment? Proceedings of a
Conference, 1990. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=839830.
North, Carol S., Betty Pfefferbaum, Pushpa Narayanan, Samuel Thielman, GRETCHEN McCOY, Cedric
Dumont, Aya Kawasaki, Natsuko Ryosho, and Edward L. Spitznagel. “Comparison of PostDisaster Psychiatric Disorders after Terrorist Bombings in Nairobi and Oklahoma City.” The
British Journal of Psychiatry 186, no. 6 (2005): 487–493.
Oliver-Smith, Anthony. “Successes and Failures in Post-Disaster Resettlement.” Disasters 15, no. 1
(1991): 12–23.
INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS
Coase, Ronald. “The New Institutional Economics.” The American Economic Review 88, no. 2 (1998):
72–74.
Coase, Ronald H. “The New Institutional Economics.” Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte
Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 140, no. 1 (1984): 229–
231.
Commons, John R. “Institutional Economics.” The American Economic Review (1931): 648–657.
Furubotn, Eirik G., and Rudolf Richter. Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the
New Institutional Economics. University of Michigan Press, 2005.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fYgfNXezQN8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=institutio
nal+economics&ots=D2W2AmDjxN&sig=-e7mJ1EUuPqqTXUiIZOVtjmg4Rg.
Harriss, John, Janet Hunter, and Colin Lewis. The New Institutional Economics and Third World
Development. Routledge, 2003.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OXM0omA15WQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=instit
utional+economics&ots=-fAs6zuWva&sig=g1mr7w3II_tYRb6n5i-EH2pQ27A.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. “The Approach of Institutional Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature
36, no. 1 (1998): 166–192.
Langlois, Richard. Economics as a Process: Essays in the New Institutional Economics. CUP Archive,
1989. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7c8AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=institutional+economics&ots=mie8iS2koA&sig=B_PDLOR
mVLSCUs4ygd0PRBm38Xk.
North, Douglass C. “The New Institutional Economics.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical
Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 142, no. 1 (1986): 230–237.
———. “The New Institutional Economics and Development.” EconWPA Economic History no.
9309002 (1993).
http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/sedef.akgungor/Current%20topics%20in%20Turkish%20Eco
nomy/north.pdf.
Williamson, Oliver E. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead.” Journal of
Economic Literature 38, no. 3 (2000): 595–613.
POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DEVELOPMENT
Bardhan, Pranab. “The Political Economy of Development in India: Expanded Edition with an
Epilogue on the Political Economy of Reform in India.” OUP Catalogue (1999).
http://ideas.repec.org/b/oxp/obooks/9780195647709.html.
Bates, Robert H. Toward a Political Economy of Development: A National Choice Perspective. Vol.
14. University of California Pr, 1988.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d4X_c883LSwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=politica
l+economy+and+development&ots=XIZ4YTx92M&sig=ehXgugoCvsNsZUstcIF6AT9_OoI.
Cumings, Bruce. “The Origins and Development of the Northeast Asian Political Economy: Industrial
Sectors, Product Cycles, and Political Consequences.” International Organization (1984): 1–40.
Dasgupta, Biplab. Structural Adjustment, Global Trade and the New Political Economy of
Development. Vol. 378. Zed books London, 1998. http://www.getcited.org/pub/100406589.
Gibson, Clark C., Krister Andersson, Elinor Ostrom, and Sujai Shivakumar. The Samaritan’s Dilemma:
The Political Economy of Development Aid. Oxford University Press Oxford, 2005.
http://www.dandelon.com/servlet/download/attachments/dandelon/ids/CH0015827293148
A143BAC12571180051A143.pdf.
Hart, Keith. The Political Economy of West African Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, 1982.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19836747808.html.
Hoogvelt, Ankie. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of
Development. JHU Press, 2001.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=856I7i5x9iQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=political+
economy+and+development&ots=QzL5rbIF_w&sig=CYOGOydXkZXsWk_FACaxdtr9uFE.
Kiely, Ray. The New Political Economy of Development: Globalization, Imperialism, Hegemony.
Palgrave macmillan, 2007.
Rai, Shirin M. Gender and the Political Economy of Development. Polity Press, 2002.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j7cEwoFy4nwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1969&dq=polit
ical+economy+and+development&ots=zeRrKTpksR&sig=YKhAyAtgI1ve3TCGdOOics8V5pE.
RISK AND RESILIENCE
Alexander, David. “Globalization of Disaster: Trends, Problems and Dilemmas.” Journal of
International Affairs-Columbia University 59, no. 2 (2006): 1.
Allenby, Brad, and Jonathan Fink. “Toward Inherently Secure and Resilient Societies.” Science 309,
no. 5737 (2005): 1034–1036.
Britton, Neil R., and Gerard J. Clark. “From Response to Resilience: Emergency Management Reform
in New Zealand.” Natural Hazards Review 1, no. 3 (2000): 145–150.
Coaffee, Jon. “Risk, Resilience, and Environmentally Sustainable Cities.” Energy Policy 36, no. 12
(2008): 4633–4638.
Coaffee, Jon, and David Murakami Wood. “Security Is Coming Home: Rethinking Scale and
Constructing Resilience in the Global Urban Response to Terrorist Risk.” International
Relations 20, no. 4 (2006): 503–517.
Flynn, Stephen E. “America the Resilient: Defying Terrorism and Mitigating Natural Disasters.”
Foreign Affairs (2008): 2–8.
Furedi, Frank. “Fear and Security: A Vulnerability-Led Policy Response.” Social Policy &
Administration 42, no. 6 (2008): 645–661.
Killian, Beverley. “Risk and Resilience.” A Generation at Risk (2004): 40.
McAdam-Crisp, Jacqueline L. “Factors That Can Enhance and Limit Resilience for Children of War.”
Childhood 13, no. 4 (2006): 459–477.
Pei-Jun, Shi. “Theory and Practice on Disaster System Research in a Fourth Time [J].” Journal of
Natural Disasters 6 (2005): 000.
Renn, Ortwin, and Katherine D. Walker. Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the
IRGC Framework. Vol. 1. Springer, 2007. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Z-
3IN309cLAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=risk+and+resilience+in+civil+affairs&ots=U3OdyDd5A&sig=1P8bvnd0Kw_ajH6s52E8vTmDFcc.
Schoon, Ingrid. Risk and Resilience: Adaptations in Changing Times. Cambridge University Press,
2006.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rJhwdkcJPBwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=risk+an
d+resilience+in+civil+affairs&ots=pqWeV0TEwO&sig=voRoRGzP8YaUZhlldUuLnVDOZh0.
Smith, Denis, and Moira Fischbacher. “The Changing Nature of Risk and Risk Management: The
Challenge of Borders, Uncertainty and Resilience.” Risk Management 11, no. 1 (2009): 1–12.
Tanner, Thomas, Tom Mitchell, Emily Polack, and Bruce Guenther. “Urban Governance for
Adaptation: Assessing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Asian Cities.” IDS Working Papers
2009, no. 315 (2009): 01–47.
Tidball, Keith G., and Marianne E. Krasny. “From Risk to Resilience: What Role for Community
Greening and Civic Ecology in Cities.” Social Learning towards a More Sustainable World
(2007): 149–64.
SOCIAL ECONOMY
Borzaga, Carlo, and Jacques Defourny. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. Routledge, 2001.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GMu4fLkMV4wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=social+
economy&ots=6_qNxLL1Tq&sig=uCsQB7fqbLOzibcaWCtTIwiHW5I.
Bowen, Howard Rothmann. Toward Social Economy. Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.
http://www.getcited.org/pub/101688886.
Defourny, Jacques, and Patrick Develtere. “The Social Economy: The Worldwide Making of a Third
Sector.” Social Economy North and South (1999): 17–47.
Kay, Alan. “Social Capital, the Social Economy and Community Development.” Community
Development Journal 41, no. 2 (2006): 160–173.
Kotz, David M., Terrence McDonough, and Michael Reich. Social Structures of Accumulation: The
Political Economy of Growth and Crisis. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EMAiVs23XBcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=social+e
conomy&ots=WbkxWdxIkN&sig=SwqQB8iJ65CoXKPs7gPiraGZMrM.
Moulaert, Frank, and Oana Ailenei. “Social Economy, Third Sector and Solidarity Relations: A
Conceptual Synthesis from History to Present.” Urban Studies 42, no. 11 (2005): 2037–2053.
Procacci, Giovanna. “Social Economy and the Government of Poverty.” The Foucault Effect: Studies
in Governmentality (1991): 151–168.
Razavi, Shahra. “The Political and Social Economy of Care in a Development Context.” Gender and
Development Programme Paper no. 3 (2007).
http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/developpement/shared/developpement/cours/E763
/Razavi_Care.pdf.
Rifkin, Jeremy, and Ellen Kruger. The End of Work. Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1996.
http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%202005.pdf.
Sayer, Andrew, and Richard Walker. The New Social Economy: Reworking the Division of Labor.
Blackwell Cambridge, MA, 1992.
http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?id=RAAWLSAX3SOOWQ.
Scott, Allen J. Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global
Resurgence of Cities: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global Resurgence of Cities. Oxford
University Press, 2008. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TCUaDf41HIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=social+economy&ots=CJ1z6_N4AB&sig=icfWzX3Qj92YJyJzbQdD
Zi7LrDQ.
Van Til, Jon, and Foundation Center. Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Changing Social
Economy. Foundation Center New York, 1988. http://www.getcited.org/pub/102688299.
Wagner, Richard E. Mind, Society, and Human Action: Time and Knowledge in a Theory of SocialEconomy. Vol. 29. Routledge, 2010.
URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Agyeman, Julian, Robert Doyle Bullard, and Bob Evans. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an
Unequal World. The MIT Press, 2003.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=I7QBbofQGu4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Urban+
and+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=If2_KoquTc&sig=ttaQFmbGiwXTIorPkjxmY
1FgVk0.
Bayat, Asef. “Un-Civil Society: The Politics of The’informal People’.” Third World Quarterly 18, no. 1
(1997): 53–72.
Esser, Josef, and Joachim Hirsch. “The Crisis of Fordism and the Dimensions of a
‘postfordist’regional and Urban Structure.” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 13, no. 3 (1989): 417–437.
Hall, Peter, and Mark Tewdwr-Jones. Urban and Regional Planning. Routledge, 2010.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LFLydtcQf54C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Urban+an
d+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=f1UAscI4sT&sig=Xw8bwLYSsLr6GwfclWSsyJmKGQ.
Keating, Michael. “Regions and International Affairs: Motives, Opportunities and Strategies.”
Regional & Federal Studies 9, no. 1 (1999): 1–16.
MacLeod, Gordon, and Mark Goodwin. “Reconstructing an Urban and Regional Political Economy:
On the State, Politics, Scale, and Explanation.” Political Geography 18, no. 6 (1999): 697–730.
———. “Space, Scale and State Strategy: Rethinking Urban and Regional Governance.” Progress in
Human Geography 23, no. 4 (1999): 503–527.
Malecki, Edward. “Jockeying for Position: What It Means and Why It Matters to Regional
Development Policy When Places Compete.” Regional Studies 38, no. 9 (2004): 1101–1120.
McLoughlin, J. Brian. “Urban & Regional Planning: A Systems Approach” (1969).
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/handle/2042/30156.
Pierre, Jon. Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience. Palgrave
Macmillan, 1998.
Purcell, Mark. “Urban Democracy and the Local Trap.” Urban Studies 43, no. 11 (2006): 1921–1941.
Satterthwaite, David, and Cecilia Tacoli. The Urban Part of Rural Development: The Role of Small and
Intermediate Urban Centres in Rural and Regional Development and Poverty Reduction. Vol. 9.
IIED, 2003.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ywHHMUGzwv8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Urban
+and+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=Umri7xNHcL&sig=u5H5OTKFXrV7yxEVgdO-njt7NU.
Stock, Robert. Africa South of the Sahara: A Geographical Interpretation. Guilford Press, 2012.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VYae4_3VI2wC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Urban+a
nd+Regional+Development+for+Civil+Affairs&ots=dsRcEIDZGg&sig=JGCVuzwDYGmUi3f5Nb2N
Pn9ZtRA.
Waddell, Paul. “UrbanSim: Modeling Urban Development for Land Use, Transportation, and
Environmental Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68, no. 3 (2002): 297–
314.
Other bibliographies include: conflict economics, environmental economics, resource curse, and
collapse, change (De Soto, Castells, etc.).
2. Stakeholder Analysis
The sector team has initiated stakeholder identification and its dynamic relations (as presented in
the December 2013 IPR), identifying current debates in the following areas: development, risks and
resilience; energy-water-food nexus; regional and urban development tensions and dependencies;
and transformations and challenges.
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
The sector team established working contact with the following organizations/individuals:
 Atlantic council- Matt Burrows (NIC report)
 Notre Dame - Viva Bartkus (Business on the Front Lines)
 World Economic Forum- Andrew Bishop (Global Risk Report)
 CNA- Resilience work-team
 University of Geneva- David Esposito, Remi Baudoui- Security studies, Alexander HedjaziEnvironmental regimes
 Geneva Center for Security Policy- Selmo Cikotic (former MOD Bosnia)
 DCAF- A.Torres-Gender studies and economic impact
 French Development Agency: Patrick Willot
 US-EBI- Andrew Paterson –energy and environment expert
 ILO, WTO, SDBC, USAID, USDOE
4. December IPR Report-out
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
The sector team has started to enlist specialists for Economy/Social panels, select potential
locations, and prepare for economic sustainability/social well-being work session. We have started
to interview and discuss topics with pre-selected potential experts for thematic panels and area
specialists.
6. Enabling Technologies
F. SOCIAL WELL-BEING (Marc)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
Pending, available Dec 26.
2. Stakeholder Analysis
Social well-being includes a broad concern with well-being and quality of life, and specific focus on
several institutional domains including education, health, and refugee resettlement. We have
initiated stakeholder identification within the Civil Affairs community, with relevant research and
policy colleagues and with lead partner agencies that are fundamental to mission accomplishment
and desired end states. The stakeholder focus introduces several relevant research
considerations: 1) Differences of language and meaning across practitioner communities, 2) the
challenge to reconcile near-term and long-term intervention standards and strategies, and 3) the
persisting effects of cross-sector coordination experiences.
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
The challenge in this sector is to review the broad debates occurring in the component domains
about specific questions of expertise, capacity, modes of delivery, all with an eye to understand
how to explore how to couple CA current and potential capacity with the sector needs.
 Civil affairs professionals with substantial experience in the field
 Research academics including Deborah Gibbons (NPS), Susan Hocevar (NPS), Peter Walker
(Tufts), as well as research staff at major University Centers and also research agencies like
RAND that have considerable policy research expertise to contribute
 Individuals with professional expertise in relevant domains, who also have prior CA
professional experience (e.g., James Sosnicky, SEAF).
4. December IPR Report-out
The December IPR was notable for the opportunity to engage across the project themes/sectors
and to have sustained discussion with the whole research team, with Sponsor and his team, and
with other CA professionals. We acquired a much better sense of the capacity needs to deliver on
the project, and also the value of these integrated meetings.
We engaged in two sustained work periods, in midst the other activities and sessions. In the first
one, we compiled information on the variety of standards and intervention modes used by different
stakeholders to evaluate social well-being, and specifically to consider resource minimums to
support minimal human well-being. This discussion benefited from several perspectives, and then
carried over into several informal sessions with the CA professionals and others. The second one
focused on issues in the SWB material to broader applications like systems thinking, building
organizational systems for delivery, ‘theories’ of action and practice communities, frameworks and
model from technology and social innovation. The point here is to engage the specific content
domain with available concept frameworks that will allow us to think beyond creating existing
organizational systems (e.g., bureaucratic ministries or social technologies like a ‘hospital’) and
instead make use innovative and related.
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
We have settled on early April dates for the IPR, following the sessions at the PSOTEW. Our work is
in parallel with the Economic development/Sustainability project theme, and we will likely
coordinate for both the briefing session and the PSOTEW, pending conference approvals. For the
PSOTEW, we have identified themes of ‘translational research’, that is research that explores and
codifies research insights for policy and practitioner use as relevant to the assess and innovate
themes of the meeting.
6. Enabling Technologies
The work of the social well-being domain is one of the most vibrant for experiments with enabling
technologies in the broder civilian world - in mobile health, ed tech, and the broad space around
refugees and humanitarian/disaster responses. The kinds of simple, self-reinforcing design tools
that our GSID team colleagues have introduced are relevant. There are also many other options to
use mapping and other crowdsource-based tools to improve mission effectiveness. We are
reaching out to colleagues and former students who are active in these spaces, with an eye to learn
from them and also to incorporate relevant platform insights into our research and policy
recommendations.
G. HOMELAND INTEGRATION (Paula)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
My work to compile bibliography and assemble relevant research over the first months of the
project yields two surprising findings: What I have discovered in the past several months is (1) a
noticeably thin literature about the concept of the military’s role in homeland defense; and (2) a
complete misunderstanding of what it is /might possibly be. My proposed workplan develops these
initial findings.
Please note the publication dates on many of the articles in my bibliography. They are a stark
reminder that many of the questions we are grappling with today have been asked for almost a
century—and we have yet to settle on answers, or even the terms of the debate. This situation may
not benefit from a workshop with many presenters and views, that may not yield concrete output
that would benefit the IMSG. Therefore I propose a more structured approach for this topic.
I propose to continue to expand the literature review, and organize it into discrete areas. This in
turn will serve as the basis of a concrete research agenda that incorporates the multitude of areas
covered by homeland integration. The landscape of Homeland defense integration ranges from the
obvious--visible operations during situations such as Katrina and Rita- to the unimaginable-how to
distribute food/medicine during a quarantine, or after a cyber attack that renders the infrastructure
that supports “just in time” delivery inoperable for a significant amount of time.
2. Stakeholder Analysis
Key stakeholders for the Homeland Integration sector include:
 FEMA
 Department of Homeland Security
 State, Local County and Tribal Governments
 Department of Justice
 Additional components of the National Response Plan as needed
3. Key Participants / Points of Contact
Key points of contact for this sector include the following:
 MG Peter Aylward (Ret) USANG
 Col. Thomas Womble, US Army National Guard National Security Affairs Fellow Hoover
Institute Stanford University
 Lt Col Jeffrey Voice
 BG Michael McDaniel (ret) Professor at Cooley Law School
 Lt Gen Chipman
 Dr. Larry Morgan, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
 Jeanne Lin, DHS
 Senator John W Warner
4. December IPR Report-out
After much reflection, I am going to suggest an alternative to a multiday workshop. Although I
frequently joke about being the ”orphan” (or the “free radical”) of this group, I must admit that it is
a serious observation. The other five “petals “have been developed and socialized across the
universe of practitioners/stakeholders.
The focus of the work will to continue to interview practitioners-at both the strategic and
operational levels-as well as scholars. I reaped great rewards from the discussion on Thursday
afternoon with the other leads. It benefited enormously from the input of serving CA officers, who
were quick to point out the gaps between what we believed to be in place, based on our readings of
the doctrine, and what actually existed. The deliverable is to develop the outline of another petal,
incorporating such areas as strategic communications: managing crisis and political challenge, and
military response in complex catastrophes (or “beyond Katrina”) The end result would be a
substantial multi-topic annotated bibliography, as well as a policy paper outlining the way ahead for
the IMSG to think about homeland defense.
5. Preliminary Planning: Sector IPR and PSOTEW
As I was composing the next phase of work, I realized that this area has different needs to develop
as a research and policy focus. There is a thin scholarly substantive literature to draw from, several
thesis documents and think tank reports, and much media/pundit commentary. Scholars have not
to date shown interest exploring the area. This may be a result of the prevailing view that “Posse
Comitatus begins with ‘No’”, when indeed, there are 26 exceptions to PC in existing law. Indeed,
one focus literature for the project is the legal and policy legacy of Posse Comitatus: origins,
variant claims, and a new reading for policy. This is also the reason I draw from a variety of existing
literatures to attempt to define the research agenda.
6. Enabling Technologies
No perspectives on the topic of enabling technologies for the Homeland Integration sector at this
time.
H. 38G CERTIFICATION (Marc / Charles / Herman)
1. Preliminary Literature Review / Bibliography
A 2010 RAND study concluded, “it is impossible to calculate precise needs for functional
specialists. Given the relatively small size of the numbers involved, we do not include them in our
demand calculations. Rather, we provisionally accept as valid the number of authorized slots for
functional specialists—624.” (xvi)
38G Approaches
1. 1st Model Function-based
a.
Task specific - METL
2. Proficialization of CA
.
actors/jurisdiction (IMSG model)
a.
expertise (Bragg model)
3. 2nd Model - Jurisdiction (Abbott)
.
expertise (who gets to codify it, monopolize it)
i.
tacit knowledge vs explicit knowledge
ii.
values
iii.
claim disinterested
iv.
relationship to client: tension between close proximity/lots of feedback (but those
folks don’t have high status) vs those who have greater distance/higher status
v.
what are experiences of occupational groups that were successful?
a.
CA is in the middle of a contested space
.
skill of negotiating in between
4. 3rd Model
.
skillset not a functional skillset but a systems or process skillset
a.
challenge is to bridge research needs with immediate deliverable
Conundrum is:
BROAD few categories, lack of differentiation vs FINE many categories, empty cells
Professionalization is not a helpful framing for the problem. The weakness is the 38A.
38As build teams of 38Gs but 38As are not educated, and they are biased to tactics (see
RAND study 2010)
The health care analogy may not be helpful. What civil affairs do is build organizational
systems, build relations with professions. A better analogy may be the dream team for OJ
Simpson - cross examiner, visual, paperwork for appeal, evidentiary operations.
LTC Jeffrey Voice, 304th CA BDE, sketched out a concept for 38G expertise, shown in Figure xx. The
areas of concern here reflect sectors identified in the US Institute of Peace (USIP) Guiding Principles
(2009).
Figure xx. 38G Topology
There are a number of research questions/issues to address:
1. The elements within these “end states” are not the same as conditions as in USIP Guiding
Principles .
2. Are the End States the 38G ASI’s or do the elements listed above under each End State
become the ASI’s?
3. How do we handle elements that have impact across the continuum of end states or in
more than one?
4. There are general “cross cutting” elements not shown such as maintenance of physical
infrastructure, communications, information, etc.
5. Are we going to be able to recruit people with the commensurate civilian experience in
times of peace?
6. What’s the incentive for them to participate?
7. If we do find them, will they have the needed Mil background to be able to write Joint
Strategic Plans, understand Mil culture, Mil systems (CPOF, etc)?
8. Do we take an existing 38A who has been through ILE and educate/train them on strategic
thought, contacts, planning? For example, will a person with an economic background deep
enough to write plans to rebuild an economy a) be willing to leave their careers for an
extended period of time for training/deployment (pay cut, etc), and b) who is responsible
for recruiting or finding them?
2. Stakeholder Analysis
3. Data Collection and Analysis Planning
4. Key Participants / Points of Contact
5. December IPR Report-out
III. PROJECT MANAGEMENT: SCHEDULE AND COST STATUS
1. Project Tasks and Milestones
The project Gantt chart is shown in Appendix A. The chart identifies the major tasks, sub-tasks,
milestone dates, deliverables, and key project meetings. It is intended to guide the project and to
provide a basis for assessing progress, but is expected to change as necessary to align with growing
understanding of project requirements, evolving challenges, and unforeseen constraints. Changes in
the plan will be announced and discussed in the regular project team/sponsor meetings and the
plan will be updated accordingly.
2. Status of Funds
Through pay period ending 14 December 2013, the project team has expended 15.5% of project
funds. Table xx summarizes cumulative expenditures to date. Figure xx illustrates expenditures to
date, with respect to a linear spend plan over the period of performance of the project. This spend
plan will likely be adjusted as we progress toward award of a contract providing additional technical
contributions to the project.
Table xx. Cumulative Project Expenditures through 14 December 2013.
Category
Expenditure
Labor
$108,455
Travel
$16,554
Honoraria
$2,500
Equipment/Supplies
$0
Indirect Cost
$27,237
Total
$154,746
Figure xx. Project Expenditures through 14 December 2013.
3. Contracting
The project team is preparing a contractual package to announce for competitive bid. The contract
statement of work calls for academic research to address technical challenges of the MSG project.
The package is expected to be ready for contract office evaluation in January 2014, to be
announced for bid by February 2014. The goal is to have the contract awarded by May 2014, for
execution in the latter stages of the current work, extending the overall period of investigation and
providing additional intellectual capital for the effort.
Glossary of Acronyms
APAN
All Partners Access Network
ARCIC
Army Capabilities Integration Center
ASI
BDE
Brigade
CA
Civil Affairs
CCDR
Combatant Commander
CDDRL Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law
COIN
Counter-Insurgency
CPOF
Command Post of the Future
DOD
Department of Defense
HN
Host Nation
ILE
Instructional Learning Environment
IPR
Interim Program Review
IMSG
Institute for Military Support to Governance
MSG
Military Support to Governance
NPS
Naval Postgraduate School
PI
Principal Investigator
PKSOI
Peace Keeping and Stability Operations Institute
PSOTEW
Peace and Stability Operations Training and Education Workshop
RoL
Rule of Law
SE
Stable Economy
SG
Stable Governance
SSE
Safe and Secure Environment
SWB
Social Well-Being
US
United States
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
USASOC
United States Army Special Operations Command
USIP
United States Institute of Peace
References and Preliminary Bibliography (refer also to Sector
Summaries in Section II)
Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. "Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield."
Comparative political studies 40.2 (2007):170-195.
Coles, Harry L., and Albert K. Weinberg. Civil Affairs: Soldiers Become Governors. United States Army
in World War Ii. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the
Army, 1964.
Guttieri, Karen and Volker Franke. “Picking Up the Pieces: Are United States Officers Ready for
Nation Building?” Journal of Political and Military Sociology (forthcoming)
Guttieri, Karen and Jessica Piombo, editors. Interim Governments: Institutional Bridges to Peace and
Democracy? Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2008.
Guttieri, Karen. “Unlearning War: U.S. Military Experience with Stability Operations.” In
Organizational Learning in the Global Context, edited by Leann Brown, Michael Kenney and
Michael Zarkin. London: Ashgate, September 2006.
Guttieri, Karen. "Gaps at the Seams of the Dayton Accord: A Role Play Scenario." In Case 279 Pew
Case Studies in International Affairs. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy,
Georgetown University, 2005.
Gundersen, Jon et al., "Sharing the Space: A Study on Education and Training for Complex
Operations." Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace and Consortium for Complex
Operations, 2008.
Guttieri, Karen and Jessica Piombo (eds). Interim Governments Washington, DC: US Institute of
Peace Press, 2008.
Hicks, Kathleen and Christine Wormuth. "The Future of U.S. Civil Affairs Forces: A Report of the CSIS
International Security Program" CSIS, February 2009.
Moore, Gregory. "Research Methods for International Relations Studies: Assembling an Effective
Toolkit" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th
Chicago, Feb 28, 2007.
Ragin, Chales G. and Howard S. Becker. 1992. What Is a Case?: Exploring the Foundations of Social
Inquiry. University of Chicago Press.
Simon, H. A. 1973. The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4: 181-202.
Schram, Sanford F. and Brian Caterino, Making political science matter : debating knowledge,
research, and method. New York : New York University Press, 2006.
US Army HQDA ALARACT Message 161/2004, Implementation of Intermediate Level Education (ILE):
Officers may qualify for constructive or equivalent credit in lieu of ILE attendance based on
duty assignment history and past academic experiencesUS Office of the President, National
Security Presidential Directive / NSPD-44, “Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning
Reconstruction and Stabilization”, December 7, 2005
USAR CA Stabilization and Security Qualification course briefing, November 2008.
U.S. Department of State Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. "Essential
Task Matrix, 2005.”
U.S. Department of Defense. “Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction
(SSTR) Operations. Directive Number 3000.05.” November 28, 2005.
US Department of Defense Instruction 3000.05, "Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition,
and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations", September 16, 2009
US Department of Defense. "Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense."
edited by The White House. Washinton DC, January 2012.
US Institute of Peace. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction. United States Institute
of Peace Press. Washington, D.C. 2009.
US Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Joint Publication 3-07 Stability Operations." Washington DC, 29 September
2011.
US Joint Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council. "Civil Affairs DOTMLPF Change
Recommendation (Dcr) Actions." Washington DC: The Joint Staff, 1 December 2011.
Yates, Lawrence A. The U.S. Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005. Fort
Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006.
Appendix A. Project Gantt Chart
The task breakdown, milestones, deliverable, and schedules are laid out in Gantt chart format in the
following six figures.