• The Atlantic burden-sharing debate - widening or fragmenting?

      Chalmers, Malcolm G. (2002)
      The Atlantic burden-sharing debate during the early part of the twenty-first century is shaping up to be very different from those of NATO's first fifty years. The resources needed for direct defence of western Europe have fallen sharply, and further cuts are possible. The gradual strengthening of European cooperation means that the EU is becoming an actor in its own right in many international regimes. Debates about which countries are pulling their weight internationally are also taking into account contributions to non-military international public goods¿financing EU enlargement, aiding the Third World, reducing emissions of climate-damaging pollutants. In this new multidimensional debate, it becomes more apparent that states that contribute more to one regime often do less than most in another. Germany, for example, is concerned about its excessive contribution to the costs of EU enlargement, but it spends considerably less than France and the UK on defence. European countries contribute three times as much as the United States to Third World aid, and will soon pay almost twice as much into the UN budget. Yet they were dependent on the US to provide most of the military forces in the 1999 Kosovo conflict, and would be even more dependent in the event of a future Gulf war. This widening of the burden-sharing debate contains both dangers and opportunities. It could lead to a fragmentation of the Atlantic dialogue, with each side talking past the other on an increasing number of issues, ranging from global warming to Balkan peacekeeping. In order to avoid such a dangerous situation, the US and European states should maintain the principle that all must make a contribution to efforts to tackle common problems, whether it be through troops in Kosovo or commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet there should also be some flexibility in defining who does how much. The preparedness of some countries to lead, by doing more, will be essential if international cooperation is to have a chance to work.
    • The Economic Costs and Benefits of UK Defence Exports.

      Chalmers, Malcolm G.; Davies, N.; Hartley, K.; Wilkinson, C. (2009-11-25)
      This study examines the economic costs and benefits to the UK of a 50 per cent cut in UK defence exports from the average level of 1998 and 1999. The net impact on the government budget is estimated to he an ongoing loss of between around L40 million and L100 million a year: around 0.2-0.4 per cent of the total UK defence budget. In addition, there is estimated to be a one-off net adjustment cost, spread over five years, of between L0.9 billion and L1.4 billion. A further more speculative adjustment cost (estimated at around L1.1billion) could result if the loss of income associated with the `terms-of-trade' effect were also included. In terms of the wider debate about defence about defence exports, the results of this study suggest first that the economic effects of the reduction in defence exports are relatively small and largely one-off, and secondly that the balance of arguments about UK defence exports should be determined mainly by non-economic factors.
    • Evaluation of the Conflict Prevention Pools: Portfolio review

      Austin, Greg; Chalmers, Malcolm G. (Department for International Development, 2004)
      P1. The purpose of the Portfolio Review is to describe the programmes and associated activities that are being evaluated. Since its main purpose is descriptive, it draws heavily on existing official documents as appropriate. It should be noted that Her Majesty¿s Government (HMG) has not previously commissioned a comprehensive overview of the Conflict Prevention Pools (CPPs) from the perspective required for the Evaluation. Though various forms of overview of each of the two CPPs have been prepared, the purposes and therefore the content of these have been different from the purpose at hand. P2. This brief `analytical history¿ of the Conflict Pools will provide an account of how and why the CPP¿s have developed in the way that they have. The Portfolio Review does not aim to provide the analytical framework for meeting the key objectives of the evaluation, as set out in the Terms of Reference (ToRs). This has been done in the Inception Report, and this Portfolio Review should not be read in isolation from the Inception Report. P3. The Portfolio Review provides a description of the CPPs, their funding, their projects, and their administrative processes to a level of detail appropriate to the purposes of the Evaluation and the agreed length of the document. For a document of this length (a planned 20 pages plus annexes) to address a program of more than 600 million operating in some 100 countries, and involving the interests of five separate departments of state in the UK, not to mention significant other stakeholders outside the UK, difficult choices about the scope and detail of material to be included had to be made. As we crystallize our priorities for what to include in the final version of the Portfolio Review, given the constraints of length, we would invite comments as to further material that could be included. P4. The Portfolio Review has involved London-based research, including interviews with officials as well as review of documentary sources. This work has included collection of preliminary information on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of current programming effectiveness and administration. In respect of existing CPP activities, it supplements the Inception Report as a guide to the authors of the case studies. For the Portfolio Review, we interviewed some 25 officials across five departments. The main purpose of interviews in the Portfolio Review stage was to support the effort of getting down on paper, for the first time, a comprehensive description, with an appropriate level of consistency, of all of the purposes, all of the key processes, and all of the activities of the CPPs.
    • Evaluation of the Conflict Prevention Pools: Synthesis report.

      Austin, Greg; Brusset, E.; Chalmers, Malcolm G.; Pierce, J. (Department for International Development, 2004)
      P1. The Conflict Prevention Pools (CPPs) are a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Department for International Development (DFID) mechanism for funding and managing the UK¿s contribution towards violent conflict prevention and reduction. The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool (ACPP) covers sub-Saharan Africa while the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) covers the rest of the world. The CPPs were established by Her Majesty¿s Government (HMG) in April 2001, following a government-wide review of UK conflict prevention work in 2000. The rationale behind the CPPs is that by bringing together the interests, resources and expertise of FCO, MOD and DFID, greater effectiveness can be achieved.
    • Spending to save: Is conflict prevention cost-effective.

      Chalmers, Malcolm G. (University of Bradford, 2005)
      The objective of this study is to provide an evidence base concerning the costs and benefits of conflict prevention (CP) activities (defined as those activities undertaken primarily to reduce the risk of conflict), compared with those of engaging after large-scale conflict has begun.
    • Spending to save: Prospective case studies.

      Chalmers, Malcolm G. (University of Bradford, 2005)
      This case study considers the relative costs of conflict prevention and post-crisis intervention for Sudan during the period 2004-2018.
    • Spending to save: Retrospective Case Studies.

      Chalmers, Malcolm G. (University of Bradford, 2005)
      The key questions to be addressed in this study are: ¿ with the benefit of hindsight, what conflict prevention `packages¿ could the international community have designed in order to minimise the probability of the conflicts that actually took place? ¿ how much would have been saved if these packages had been implemented, given reasonable estimates about their costs, compared with the actual cost of conflict and post-conflict intervention. The first section provides a background to the conflicts. This is followed by an assessment of the levels of resources that the international community has committed to the Western Balkans since 1991. The third part of the study provides two hypothetical scenarios for CP interventions that might have restrained conflict from breaking out. These CP packages are then costed and an assessment of their probability of success is made.
    • Spending to save? The cost-effectiveness of conflict prevention.

      Chalmers, Malcolm G. (Routledge, 2007)
      While the general argument that it is easier and more cost-effective to prevent conflicts before the outbreak of violence has considerable attraction, a rigorous approach to estimating the cost and benefits of this policy is still lacking. The objective of this study is to contribute to the development of such an approach. The project involves six case studies, three retrospective (the Western Balkans, Afghanistan, and Rwanda) and three prospective (Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and southern Sudan). Its main conclusion is that targeted programmes of conflict prevention are (or would have been) significantly cheaper than cure.