Endogenous capacities to address shocks and stressors (e.g. drivers of conflict and fragility) in ways that minimally (adaptively) mitigate the effects of conflict and more maximally (transformatively) uproot drivers and foster new or revitalised structures and systems that support peace.

(Conceptualisation draws upon McCandless, Erin and Graeme Simpson. 2015 (June). “Assessing Resilience for Peace-building – Executive Summary.” Geneva: Interpeace & Sida. https://www.interpeace.org/resource/assessing-resil-ience-for-peacebuilding-executive-summary-of-discussion/)

Overt drivers of conflict that are disputed in the policy arena nationally, over time, that are agreed by the main political parties and that resonate with most, if not all, of the population. They are ideally reflected in formal agreements or mechanisms. Examining CCIs enables analysis of how the state and society at different levels engage the conflict issues and how they adapt.

(Policy attention on addressing root causes is growing and the notion of addressing grievances is experiencing a revival thanks to the United Nations and World Bank Pathways for Peace report. An approach focused on CCIs allows for engagement of both, but with a focus on tangible, more neutral expressions of conflict issues that can be examined in the context of agreements and policies.)

Hybridity reflects the heterogeneity and diversity involving mixed institutional systems and political orders or even social contracts with competing rules and claims authority, power and legitimacy that co-exist, overlap and interact, reflecting mixes of Western, indigenous, formal and informal traditions. These can be international (i.e. United Nations and other external peacebuilding or military), national or local community mixed systems and structures. Part and parcel of state-formation and statebuilding processes and development processes globally, hybridity is not only in everyday life, but also in the structures and institutions that shape how society is organised. Leaders may have positions of power and authority in one, two or more systems simultaneously or sequentially, while citizens may relate to two or more systems, moving between them strategically and negotiating their sometimes contradictory obligations.

A consensus between political elites on the underlying rules of the game. Often achieved through contestation, negotiation and compromise, political settlements are ongoing political processes of interaction (that can include, i.e. bargains and peace agreements) between key elite figures and groups and between elites and the wider array of interests in society, to define and challenge the nature of their relationships. They involve the interplay of formal institutions and informal understandings and arrangements that shape governance and development outcomes.

This draws on Rocha Menocal, Alina (2017). “Political Settlements and the Politics of Transformation: Where Do ‘Inclusive nstitutions’ Come From?” Journal of International Development 29, no. 5: 559-575, who draws on numerous other scholars to develop this conceptualisation. It also draws on Di John, Jonathan and James Putzel. 2009. Political Settlements Issues Paper. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre (GSRDC). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.

Forms of ‘everyday’ (or quotidian) social contract-making are daily-life forms of interaction at any level, across social, political and economic realms, that can include norms (i.e. Ubuntu), mores (i.e. zakat), and actions or practices (the use of social media, land occupations or other forms of social movements).

While this concept is often equated simply with ‘local’ peacebuilding, in this study it refers to both: a) the everyday at any level, including at the elite level, e.g. what elites actually do outside the formal agreements; and, b) the everyday at local levels. The concept enables a fuller examination of the degree to which the social contract is societally ‘owned’.

The formal and informal ties and interactions, characterised by attitudes, norms and behaviours, that bring and hold members of society (actors, groups and institutions) together horizontally (across citizens, between groups) and vertically (in the relations between citizens/groups and the state) and across domains of i) trust and respect, ii) belonging and identity and iii) participation.

Adapted from Chan, Joseph, Jo-Pong To and Elaine Chan. 2006. “Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research.” Social Indicators Research 75 (January): 290.

The project is working with the recent (2016) twin UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions (A/RES/70/262 and S/RES/2282) conceptualisation that sustaining peace “should be broadly understood as a goal and a process to build a common vision of society, ensuring that the needs of all segments of the population are taken into account, which encompasses activities aimed at preventing the outbreak, escalation, continuation and recurrence of conflict, addressing root causes, assisting parties to conflict to end hostilities, ensuring national reconciliation, and moving towards recovery, reconstruction and development, and emphasising that sustaining peace is a shared task and responsibility that needs to be fulfilled by the government and all other national stakeholders […].”