Livelihoods, conflict and aid programming: is the evidence base good enough?

Area of Science:

• Development Studies
• Peacebuilding Research
• Conflict Resolution

Background:

• Aid-funded livelihood interventions in conflict-affected areas aim for dual outcomes: material welfare and peacebuilding.
• The effectiveness of these interventions in achieving both goals is frequently debated.
• Existing rhetoric suggests a transformative potential that requires empirical validation.

Purpose of the Study:

• To review the effectiveness of various livelihood promotion interventions in conflict-affected settings.
• To assess the quality and reliability of empirical evidence supporting these interventions.
• To provide policy guidance on effective livelihood promotion strategies in fragile contexts.

Main Methods:

• Systematic literature review of livelihood promotion interventions (e.g., job creation, microfinance).
• Analysis of evaluation methodologies and datasets to assess evidence quality.
• Identification of conflation between program outputs and actual impacts.

Main Results:

• High-quality empirical evidence on the effectiveness of livelihood interventions in conflict zones is scarce.
• Many evaluations inadequately report methodologies and data, hindering reliability assessment.
• A tendency to confuse program outputs with demonstrable impacts was observed.

Conclusions:

• The evidence base for livelihood interventions in conflict settings is weak and unreliable.
• A more restrained and nuanced approach is needed when implementing and evaluating these programs.
• There is a critical need for improved research standards and transparent reporting in this field.