This book explores a critical question: in the wake of identity-based violence, what can internal and international peacebuilders do to help "deeply divided societies" rediscover a sense of living together? In 2016, ethnic, religious, and sectarian violence in Syria and Iraq, the Central African Republic, Myanmar, and Burundi grab headlines and present worrying scenarios of mass atrocities. The principal concern which this volume addresses is "social cohesion" - relations within society and across deep divisions, and the relationship of individuals and groups with the state. For global peacebuilding networks, the social cohesion concept is a leitmotif for assessment of social dynamics and a strategic goal of interventions to promote resilience following violent conflict. In this volume, case studies by leading international scholars paired with local researchers yield in-depth analyses of social cohesion and related peacebuilding efforts in seven countries: Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Nepal, Nigeria, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka
AbstractUnder what conditions do barriers to women's mobilization erode or emerge across various stages of civil war? The article draws upon evidence from three cases of civil war: Nepal (1996–2006), Colombia (1964–2016), and Rwanda (1990–1994). Comparative analysis of the escalation, peacemaking, and recovery process in each case reveals that the mechanisms shaping the erosion and emergence of barriers to women's mobilization are highly interactive across all three stages of conflict. In particular, the study highlights three concepts that are essential for understanding whether or not barriers to women's mobilization continue to erode after civil war: (1) institutional tokenism, (2) social friction, and (3) capacity to govern patriarchal backlash. This study of pathways for women's mobilization during civil wars has important implications for the study of the interactive relationship between formal and informal institutions, and research on long‐term peacebuilding efforts designed to ameliorate deeply embedded structural and cultural violence.
The growth of mass unemployment and concerns about crime in industrialised countries have been paralleled by an increasing preoccupation of policymakers with social exclusion. A key feature of the social exclusion discourse has been its emphasis on paid work as a mechanism of integration. The author outlines how ex-offenders are excluded from the labour market. The consequences for crime and implications for policy focused on the New Deal are also discussed. The key findings are that exclusion is as much a social and political phenomenon as an economic one. Consequently, the focus of the New Deal on reinforcing immediate labour-market attachment by enhancing individual employability is unlikely to succeed in reintegrating ex-offenders through work. The central challenge for policy remains the tackling of inequality in the labour market.
The persistence and pervasiveness of long-term unemployment across Europe has led to a renewed interest in active labour-market policies by policymakers. In the United Kingdom the new government has recently announced its proposals for the 'New Deal' aimed at getting young people (aged 18–24 years) and the long-term unemployed into work. This has stimulated a growing debate about the effectiveness of such policies. The author contributes to that debate by discussing the findings of a recent evaluation of the National Development Programme undertaken for the Employment Service.
Bilateral and multilateral donors are increasingly focusing on strengthening social cohesion in efforts to build and sustain peace in conflict-affected societies. What does promoting social cohesion mean with respect to international engagement? This policy brief provides an overview of the "social cohesion" approach, explains how it applies to conflict-affected and fragile contexts, and introduces a typology of common interventions. It discusses the added value of taking a social cohesion approach to development and peacebuilding practice, as well as challenges policymakers and practitioners may encounter when using it. Social cohesion can be understood as positive relations among individuals and groups (the horizontal dimension) and between society and the state (the vertical dimension). While fostering, rebuilding or sustaining cohesion are challenges for any society, they are particularly difficult in conflict settings where divisions fuel violence and violence reinforces divisions. We argue that taking a social cohesion approach in divided, conflict-affected societies offers several advantages. First, it has the potential to focus intervention on less tangible aspects of conflict – drawing attention to overlooked grievances and bringing tensions between groups and the state into focus. Second, it helps integrate a peacebuilding lens in a broad variety of policy spaces. Third, it helps policymakers to integrate citizen perspectives into development strategies and to focus on the provision of quality peace for all citizens. Taking a social cohesion approach, however, also brings challenges. It may be sensitive for external actors to address social grievances, identity-based divisions and power relations. Dominant groups may feel threatened in their position of power and push back against these attempts, or tensions among historically marginalised groups may cause friction. Donors may experience backlash against programmes that directly address sensitive topics. At the same time, if the intent is to take a transformative approach to building social cohesion, it may be difficult for donors to maintain a neutral stance. Social cohesion programmes may risk increasing tension in the short term, but to restore inter-group trust and state legitimacy over the long term, it might be necessary to confront and accept tension. Reflecting on the potentials and pitfalls of strengthening social cohesion in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, we suggest that policymakers and practitioners should:Think politically. Fostering social cohesion may initially appear less political or less contentious than peacebuilding, but it inevitably involves engaging politics, as well as identity and power dynamics. Securing donor support for "apolitical" social cohesion programming may at first appear to be advantageous, but this perception risks overlooking power relationships, politicised grievances, hierarchies and other salient dimensions of social structure (e.g., class dynamics). Expect pushback. The social cohesion approach has the potential to interrupt powerful political and economic structures that link social and political identities (e.g., ethnicity, class and gender) to power, status and public goods. Donors should expect overt and covert pushback and contention and be prepared to encounter the stickiness of informal institutions Work across multiple dividing lines. Strengthening in-group trust and cooperation may negatively affect out-group relationships and overall social cohesion. Fostering social cohesion in the wake of violent conflict requires networks to address multiple social divisions. Large coalitions that cut across race, ethnicity, gender, class and generation are notoriously difficult to form and sustain, yet essential for building sustainable peace.
Etravirine (ETV) has been approved for use in treatment‐experienced patients based on results of the Duet clinical trials [1]. Less experience exists with ETV in earlier stages of treatment. ETV has a favorable genetic barrier, lipid profile, and little associated CNS toxicity. These characteristics make ETV attractive as a switch strategy for simplification and/or management of side effects. A retrospective chart review was conducted at a large urban HIV clinic in Toronto. All patients who were switched to ETV plus 2 nucleosides and whose viral load (VL) was <200 copies/ml at the time of switch were included. Maintenance of viral suppression, CD4 and lipid changes at 24 weeks and reason for switch to ETV are reported. Seventy‐three patients (67 male) were identified. Mean age was 46±10 and mean duration of HIV infection was 11.7±7.4 years. Switches were from efavirenz=29, atazanavir=23, lopinavir=16, other=5. Duration of prior regimen was long; median 195 weeks. CNS and GI intolerance were the most common reasons for switches. At the time of analysis, 63 patients had reached week 24. Three patients had discontinued ETV prior to week 24, 3 LTF/U, 4 had <24 weeks follow‐up. 92% (67/73) maintained VL suppression (ITT); failures were 6 patients who stopped/lost‐to‐follow‐up prior to week 24. On treatment, CD4 increased and lipid decreased changes as seen below. All patients who switched due to CNS side effects had subjective improvement.
Baseline Change from baseline to week 24 (OT, n=63) P value
CD4 (cells/mm3) 632±269 +49±137 <0.01
Total cholesterol (mmol/L) 4.76±1.11 −0.57±0.77 <0.01
HDL (mmol/L) 1.20±0.36 −0.05±0.21 0.06
LDL (mmol/L) 2.71±1086 −0.40±0.73 <0.01
Triglycerides (mmol/L) 2.06±1.86 −0.55±1.76 0.02
Switch to ETV plus 2 nucleosides maintained viral suppression, improved lipid profiles and improved side effect profile in this selected group of patients. 48 week f/u will be presented.
A need for multi-functional assessment tools evaluating trade-offs and co-benefits for various types of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) has been increasingly identified in recent years. Methodologically, concepts for a tool are presented which include quantifying the demand and potential for NBS to enhance ecosystem service (ES) provision, and linking ESs to readily quantifiable and legislatively-relevant environmental quality indicators (EQIs). The objective of tool application is to identify optimal NBS placement across a diverse set of socio-environmental indicators, whilst also incorporating issues of relative location of areas of implementation and benefit accrual. Embedded within the tool is the importance of evaluating outcomes in terms of economic benefits and of sustainable development goals. The concepts are illustrated with simplified examples, relating to the case of implementing urban forestry as an exemplar NBS. By summarising the knowledge base it is demonstrated that benefits of NBS are substantially scale-dependent in two main respects; those of extent and proximity to receptors. Evaluation tools should be capable of quantifying scale-dependence. The substantive importance of these considerations and how their dynamics vary between indicators and services is illustrated graphically through schematic functions. When developed, the tool should be used as a focus for consultation and co-design to pinpoint the size of NBS necessary to achieve a sufficient level of benefit for a particular receptor. This could be measured against target levels of benefit for each indicator, distinguishing between primary intended outcomes and those co-benefits or trade-offs that are secondary or unintended.
