The security-development nexus as risk management: a multiple-donor case study of the coordination of security and development in US, UK and Canadian policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last twenty years has seen calls for greater coordination between security and development policy, based on assumptions of the interconnectedness of security and development. Since 9/11 and the War on Terror (WoT), the national security of Western states has been added to this relationship. This research seeks to understand this dimension of development aid contributing to donor national security: as part of mainstream development policy, over an extended period of time and across multiple donors. This is done through content and discourse analyses of donor policy documents complemented with interviews with key informants in donor development agencies and fieldwork interviews in Ethiopia and Kenya. This case study approach: looks at a time period from the late 1990s to 2012 to capture the merging of security and development both pre and post-9/11; looks at the US, the UK and Canada to separate out the differences between donors approaches; looks at both the development and security policy of these donors to capture any influence development has on security in addition to security influencing development; and looks at how these donors have dealt with security in their development programmes in Ethiopia and Kenya. From this it is argued that in the security-development nexus, development aid is expected to manage long-term risks to the national security of donors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".