The idea that peace is the absence of war has left peacebuilders spending decades trying to prove a negative: “We did this thing, and then violence didn’t happen.”
This concept of what “success” is for peace, and the ensuing logic of how to measure it, has shaped peacebuilding funding proposals, programs, evaluations, and careers. But in a world defined by complex systems, polycrises, and persistent injustice, this definition of success is not only woefully inadequate, it’s a major impediment to fund work that actually matters. Work that is actually successful.
To live in a world where peace is a force for thriving rather than just surviving, we need to think bigger. In this final piece of the series, I explore three shifts that can redefine how we pursue peace, and how we know when we’ve succeeded.
- Defining success in peacebuilding as expansive and generative
- Why our current attribution and accountability mindset is stifling innovation
- Measuring what matters
