Morten Bøås

Building tax systems in fragile states. Challenges, achievements and policy recommendations

This report systematises and analyses existing knowledge on taxation in fragile states. Efforts to support domestic revenue mobilisation in conflict situations require a different approach and other means than in the more stable developing countries. On that basis, the study discusses possible entry points for Norwegian support to domestic revenue mobilisation in ways that may contribute to strengthen state-building and improve government legitimacy. Complexity, limited experience and security concerns suggest that one should be cautious to adopt bilateral technical assistance programmes of the kind implemented in other developing countries. Instead, the study argues in favour of engagement via multilateral institutions, including multi-donor trust funds and other forms of pooled resources. The report recommends nine entry points for Norwegian support to taxation in fragile states: 1. Do no harm 2. Safeguard donor coordination, but ensure a certain humility 3. Support customs administration 4. Capacitate management and taxation of natural resources 5. Support the United Nations Tax Committee 6. Improve taxpayer-tax administration relations 7. Remember the sub-national tax system 8. Support civil based organisations 9. Develop research capacity

Rival priorities in the Sahel – finding the balance between security and development

The G5 Sahel initiative goes some way to make up for the lack of supranational coordination in the troubled Sahel region. If moulded in the interests of development, it could bring about positive change. But the initiative risks becoming yet another excuse to get more ‘boots on the ground’, if external stakeholders place too much emphasis on fighting terror and stopping migration.

The limits of technocracy and local encounters: The European Union and peacebuilding

This article is the conclusion to a special issue that examines the European Union (EU), peacebuilding, and “the local.” It argues that technocracy—particularly EU technocracy—shapes the extent to which local actors can hope to achieve ownership of externally funded and directed peace support projects and programs. Although some actors within the EU have worked hard to push localization agendas, a number of technocracy linked factors come together to limit the extent to which the EU can truly connect with the local level in its peace support activities. While the EU and other international actors have invested heavily into capacity building in conflict-affected contexts, the EU’s own capacity has not necessarily been built to address the scalar problem of accessing the local in ways that are meaningful.

Working Paper: Comparing the EU’s Output Effectiveness in the Cases of Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali

This part of the overall report (Deliverable 7.1) on the EU’s crisis response in Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali compares the findings of three comprehensive cases-studies. The analytical focus is on the output dimension of EU policy-making that is the output of decision-making of the policy-making machinery in Brussels. Thus, the analysis is confined to the choices and decisions made regarding the EU’s problem definitions, policy goals, strategies and instruments – both on a strategic and operational level; thus policy implementation or impact will be analysed as next steps in following project reports (D 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4).

Comparing the EU’s Output Effectiveness in the Cases of Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali

Working paper on implementation of EU crisis response in Mali

This paper offers a critical review of the EUTM and EUCAP in Mali, arguing that this is another example of international interventions that may be well-intended, but that end up producing very mixed results on the ground. One reason for this is the gaps between intentions and implementation and between implementation and local reception/perceptions. Whereas the first gap points to mismatches between EU policy intentions and what effect the implementation of these policies actually have (see for example Hill 1993), the latter gap reveals the inability of an international actor to both understand how key concepts such as ‘security sector reform’ and ‘border management’ are understood on the ground as well as translating its own policies and Brussels’ developed mandate into policies that makes sense for people on the ground (Cissé, Bøås, Kvamme and Dakouo 2017).