Kapstein - Aid and Stabilization in Afghanistan

Causal relationships between projects and outcomes, possiblity of reverse causation or many of the omitted variables
Authoritative and quantitive studies impossible
modest improvements over time, massive regional variation
violence remains and few programs have had significant impact on it
world bank administered national soldiarity program (NSP)
substantial evidence that USAID stabilization programs in had small but positive short term impacts
long term impacts unclear
dynamic “hot” conflict environments makes measurement very difficult
unclear correlation between violence and aid
almost all studies show the effects are short term and transitiory
- for both civilian and military led projects

That physical security itself is a key determinant of successful program implementation, and sustainability complicates assessments of the independent impact of development aid on security as an outcome. 4 This is particularly salient when considering how integrated many potential insurgents were in the general community. Indeed, broader studies find that humanitarian assistance in conflict settings does not have uniform effects and that the impact of violence on changes in civilian attitudes depends on whether the perpetrator is viewed as part of their in-group.

literature is diveided on the desirability of short term vs long term
- short term pros
  - sets up foundations to build upon
  - easier to manage
  - less prone to corruption
  - large programs split into many small projects is useful
    - national soldiarity program (NSP)
- short term cons
  - breeds dependency
  - fails to address structural problems
    - tends to replace government capacity rather than grow it
- large projects
  - inflated expectations
  - largely failed and suspectiable to corruption and violence
military presense is useful for establishing basic security parameters, but diminishing returns around