Roger Mac Ginty
• Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Manchester
• Editor, Peacebuilding journal
• Editor Rethinking Political Violence book series
• Principal Investigator, ESRC project on Peacekeeping Data
• Co-investigator, ESRC seminar series on intervention
• Co-investigator Carnegie project on everyday peace indicators
* Program Chair, Peace Studies Section ISA
blog: rogermacginty.com
Selected recent books include:
SAGE Major Work on Peacebuilding (2014) (edited)
Rutledge Handbook on Peacebuilding (2013) (edited)
International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance (2011) (monograph)
Selected recent journal articles include:
R. Mac Ginty 'Everyday Peace: Bottom-up and local agency in deeply divided societies' Security Dialogue - forthcoming.
S. Pogodda, O. Richmond, N. Tocci, R. Mac Ginty and B. Vogel (2014) 'Assessing the impact of EU governmentality in post-conflict countries: pacification or reconciliation?' European Security. Online first.
S. Pogodda, R. Mac Ginty and O. Richmond (2014) ‘Intimate yet dysfunctional? The relationship between governance and conflict resolution in India and the European Union’, Conflict, Security and Development 14(1): 33-59.
R. Mac Ginty (2014) ‘Why do we think in the ways that we do’, International Peacekeeping, online first.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘Hybrid Governance: The case of Georgia’, Global Governance, 19, 443-61.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘Look who’s talking: Terrorism, dialogue and conflict transformation’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 6(1): 216-223.
P. Firchow and R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘Reparations and Peacebuilding: Issues and controversies’, Human Rights Review, First view, online, 10 pages
R. Mac Ginty and O.P. Richmond (2013) ‘The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace’, Third World Quarterly, 34(5): 763-83.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘The transcripts of peace: Public, hidden or non-obvious?’ Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, First view, online, 9 pages.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) 'Indicators + : Everyday Peace Indicators' Evaluation and Program Planning.
R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Routine Peace: Technocracy and Peacebuilding', Cooperation and Conflict, forthcoming.
R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Between Resistance and Compliance: Non-participation and the liberal peace', Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 6(2): 167-87.
R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Seeing War' (Book Review Essay), Geopolitics, 1-6
S.Y. Lee and R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Context and Postconflict Referendums' Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, 18(1): 43-64.
R. Mac Ginty (2011) ‘Review Article: Whatever happened to politics and economics?’, International Peacekeeping, 18(1): 110-113.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'Hybrid Peace: The interaction between top down and bottom up peace', Security Dialogue 41(4): 391-412.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'Warlords and the liberal peace: State-building in Afghanistan', Conflict, Security and Development 10(4): 573-595.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'Social Network Analysis and Counterinsurgency: A counterproductive strategy?', Critical Studies on Terrorism 3(2): 209-227.
R. Mac Ginty and C.S. Hamieh (2010) 'Made in Lebanon: Local participation and indigenous responses to development and post-war reconstruction', Civil Wars 12(1-2): 47-64.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'No War, No Peace: Why so many peace processes fail to deliver peace', International Politics, 47, pp. 145-62.
R. Mac Ginty, (2009) 'The liberal peace at home and abroad', British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11: 690-708.
C.S. Hamieh & R. Mac Ginty (2009) ‘A very political reconstruction: Governance and reconstruction in Lebanon after the 2006 war’, Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management 33(3).
K. Liden, R. Mac Ginty and O. Richmond (2009) ‘Introduction: Beyond Northern Epistemologies of Peace: Peacebuilding reconstructed?’ International Peacekeeping 16(5): 587-98. Part of a special issue edited by Liden, Mac Ginty and Richmond.
C. Gormley-Heenan and R. Mac Ginty (2008) ‘Ethnic outbidding and party modernization: Understanding the Democratic Unionist Party’s electoral success in the post-Agreement environment’, Ethnopolitics 7(1): 43-61.
R. Mac Ginty (2008) ‘Indigenous peacemaking versus the liberal peace’, Cooperation and Conflict.
R. Mac Ginty (2007) ‘Reconstructing post-war Lebanon: A challenge to the liberal peace’, Conflict, Security and Development 7(3): 457-82.
R. Mac Ginty & P. du Toit (2007) ‘A disparity of esteem: Relative group status in Northern Ireland after the Belfast Agreement’, Political Psychology, 28(1): 13-31.
R. Mac Ginty (2004) ‘Looting in the context of violent conflict: A conceptualization and typology’, Third World Quarterly 25(5): 857-870.
R. Mac Ginty (2004) ‘Unionist political attitudes after the Belfast Agreement’, Irish Political Studies 19(1): 87-99.
Address: [email protected]
• Editor, Peacebuilding journal
• Editor Rethinking Political Violence book series
• Principal Investigator, ESRC project on Peacekeeping Data
• Co-investigator, ESRC seminar series on intervention
• Co-investigator Carnegie project on everyday peace indicators
* Program Chair, Peace Studies Section ISA
blog: rogermacginty.com
Selected recent books include:
SAGE Major Work on Peacebuilding (2014) (edited)
Rutledge Handbook on Peacebuilding (2013) (edited)
International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance (2011) (monograph)
Selected recent journal articles include:
R. Mac Ginty 'Everyday Peace: Bottom-up and local agency in deeply divided societies' Security Dialogue - forthcoming.
S. Pogodda, O. Richmond, N. Tocci, R. Mac Ginty and B. Vogel (2014) 'Assessing the impact of EU governmentality in post-conflict countries: pacification or reconciliation?' European Security. Online first.
S. Pogodda, R. Mac Ginty and O. Richmond (2014) ‘Intimate yet dysfunctional? The relationship between governance and conflict resolution in India and the European Union’, Conflict, Security and Development 14(1): 33-59.
R. Mac Ginty (2014) ‘Why do we think in the ways that we do’, International Peacekeeping, online first.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘Hybrid Governance: The case of Georgia’, Global Governance, 19, 443-61.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘Look who’s talking: Terrorism, dialogue and conflict transformation’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 6(1): 216-223.
P. Firchow and R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘Reparations and Peacebuilding: Issues and controversies’, Human Rights Review, First view, online, 10 pages
R. Mac Ginty and O.P. Richmond (2013) ‘The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace’, Third World Quarterly, 34(5): 763-83.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) ‘The transcripts of peace: Public, hidden or non-obvious?’ Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, First view, online, 9 pages.
R. Mac Ginty (2013) 'Indicators + : Everyday Peace Indicators' Evaluation and Program Planning.
R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Routine Peace: Technocracy and Peacebuilding', Cooperation and Conflict, forthcoming.
R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Between Resistance and Compliance: Non-participation and the liberal peace', Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 6(2): 167-87.
R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Seeing War' (Book Review Essay), Geopolitics, 1-6
S.Y. Lee and R. Mac Ginty (2012) 'Context and Postconflict Referendums' Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, 18(1): 43-64.
R. Mac Ginty (2011) ‘Review Article: Whatever happened to politics and economics?’, International Peacekeeping, 18(1): 110-113.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'Hybrid Peace: The interaction between top down and bottom up peace', Security Dialogue 41(4): 391-412.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'Warlords and the liberal peace: State-building in Afghanistan', Conflict, Security and Development 10(4): 573-595.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'Social Network Analysis and Counterinsurgency: A counterproductive strategy?', Critical Studies on Terrorism 3(2): 209-227.
R. Mac Ginty and C.S. Hamieh (2010) 'Made in Lebanon: Local participation and indigenous responses to development and post-war reconstruction', Civil Wars 12(1-2): 47-64.
R. Mac Ginty (2010) 'No War, No Peace: Why so many peace processes fail to deliver peace', International Politics, 47, pp. 145-62.
R. Mac Ginty, (2009) 'The liberal peace at home and abroad', British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11: 690-708.
C.S. Hamieh & R. Mac Ginty (2009) ‘A very political reconstruction: Governance and reconstruction in Lebanon after the 2006 war’, Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy and Management 33(3).
K. Liden, R. Mac Ginty and O. Richmond (2009) ‘Introduction: Beyond Northern Epistemologies of Peace: Peacebuilding reconstructed?’ International Peacekeeping 16(5): 587-98. Part of a special issue edited by Liden, Mac Ginty and Richmond.
C. Gormley-Heenan and R. Mac Ginty (2008) ‘Ethnic outbidding and party modernization: Understanding the Democratic Unionist Party’s electoral success in the post-Agreement environment’, Ethnopolitics 7(1): 43-61.
R. Mac Ginty (2008) ‘Indigenous peacemaking versus the liberal peace’, Cooperation and Conflict.
R. Mac Ginty (2007) ‘Reconstructing post-war Lebanon: A challenge to the liberal peace’, Conflict, Security and Development 7(3): 457-82.
R. Mac Ginty & P. du Toit (2007) ‘A disparity of esteem: Relative group status in Northern Ireland after the Belfast Agreement’, Political Psychology, 28(1): 13-31.
R. Mac Ginty (2004) ‘Looting in the context of violent conflict: A conceptualization and typology’, Third World Quarterly 25(5): 857-870.
R. Mac Ginty (2004) ‘Unionist political attitudes after the Belfast Agreement’, Irish Political Studies 19(1): 87-99.
Address: [email protected]
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Books by Roger Mac Ginty
Papers by Roger Mac Ginty
constructions that go beyond scalar or measurable time. The various constructions of time merge, coexist, and impinge on each other to form hybrid conceptualisations and practices of
time. This paper concentrates on what are probably the two most important conceptualisations of time in relation to peace processes: political time and sociological time. Political time
pertains to formalised concepts of time that are often constructed and maintained by military and political elites. It may include dates for elections, the timing of ceasefires, or deadlines for peace negotiations. Sociological time refers to non-elite concepts of time that may revolve around the everyday activities of family life, work, and cultural pursuits
Pax In Nuce was established by a group of scholars in the UK, but is not aligned with any one institution or person. It is a site for debate, argument and the floating of ideas.
The site was established out of frustration at the high pay-walls erected by commercial academic publishers. These pay-walls mean that many academic articles are only available to those who are affiliated with (well-funded) academic libraries. This goes against the notion of academic freedom, and we hope that Pax In Nuce can help circumvent the privatisation of knowledge and help with the sharing of ideas and opinions. We welcome contributions from anyone – whether articles or responses to articles. Submit to [email protected]
http://paxinnuce.com/
Peacebuilding is open to quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and particularly welcomes submissions that are prepared to challenge orthodox views and add new empirical insights into scholarly debates. For example, we are interested in submissions from a post-colonial perspective of peace and order, or utilising ethnographic methodologies able to highlight subaltern voices, positionalities, and local claims in the context of hybridity and related power-relations. Contributions from the ‘subjects’ of peace processes, peacebuilding, etc., as well as theoretical and methodological innovations (for example creative, critical and ethnographic work, whether on or in conflict-affected societies, or on donors and international actors) are particularly welcome.
The editors are interested in how dominant ‘peace’ paradigms produce political subjectivity, and how this is responded to by their recipients. Rethinking approaches to peace is particularly crucial if this area of study is to move beyond its current liberal or neoliberal position. Peacebuilding periodically includes reports and field notes on the work of major donors and peacebuilding organisations. We publish collective discussion pieces that decentre and challenge dominant knowledge on peace and conflict studies, and promote new, critical alternatives on peacebuilding.
has sparked growing interest in their peace- there is sufficient consistency across either
building approaches. This paper compares actors’ governance interventions to even
the objectives and effects of the EU’s and
speak of a distinct ‘strategy’ or ‘governance
India’s engagement in different conflict
culture’. It illustrates the close relationship
contexts within and alongside their
between governance and conflict response
borders. It examines whether their practices
initiatives but finds that the relationship is
of conflict resolution or peace-building strive
for more than conflict management or often dysfunctional.
reforms of political and economic frameworks instead of the geopolitical context or
the underlying power asymmetries that fuel conflict. They follow a liberal pattern
often associated with northern donors and the UN system more generally. The EU’s
approach diverges from prevalent governance paradigms mainly in its engagement
with social, identity and socio-economic exclusion. This article examines the EU’s
‘peace-as-governance’ model in Cyprus, Georgia, Palestine and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
These cases indicate that a tense and contradictory strategic situation may arise
from an insufficient redress of underlying conflict issues.
not achieved. It also asks ‘where do we go from here?’ The article surveys an agenda for future
research and can also be read as a rebuttal of some recent literature that has attempted to shut
down the liberal peace debate. The article opens with a quick recap of the bases of the critique of
the liberal peace. It then outlines the ‘achievements’ of the debate and examines the failings and
oversights of the original critique. Questions are raised about the epistemology and terms of the
debate, and of the ability of critical intellectual projects to break through the material power held
by mainstream intellectual and policy actors. In its final substantive section, the article asks ‘where
next for the critique of the liberal peace?’ We conclude by highlighting avenues of research that
might be fruitfully explored.
constructions that go beyond scalar or measurable time. The various constructions of time merge, coexist, and impinge on each other to form hybrid conceptualisations and practices of
time. This paper concentrates on what are probably the two most important conceptualisations of time in relation to peace processes: political time and sociological time. Political time
pertains to formalised concepts of time that are often constructed and maintained by military and political elites. It may include dates for elections, the timing of ceasefires, or deadlines for peace negotiations. Sociological time refers to non-elite concepts of time that may revolve around the everyday activities of family life, work, and cultural pursuits
Pax In Nuce was established by a group of scholars in the UK, but is not aligned with any one institution or person. It is a site for debate, argument and the floating of ideas.
The site was established out of frustration at the high pay-walls erected by commercial academic publishers. These pay-walls mean that many academic articles are only available to those who are affiliated with (well-funded) academic libraries. This goes against the notion of academic freedom, and we hope that Pax In Nuce can help circumvent the privatisation of knowledge and help with the sharing of ideas and opinions. We welcome contributions from anyone – whether articles or responses to articles. Submit to [email protected]
http://paxinnuce.com/
Peacebuilding is open to quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and particularly welcomes submissions that are prepared to challenge orthodox views and add new empirical insights into scholarly debates. For example, we are interested in submissions from a post-colonial perspective of peace and order, or utilising ethnographic methodologies able to highlight subaltern voices, positionalities, and local claims in the context of hybridity and related power-relations. Contributions from the ‘subjects’ of peace processes, peacebuilding, etc., as well as theoretical and methodological innovations (for example creative, critical and ethnographic work, whether on or in conflict-affected societies, or on donors and international actors) are particularly welcome.
The editors are interested in how dominant ‘peace’ paradigms produce political subjectivity, and how this is responded to by their recipients. Rethinking approaches to peace is particularly crucial if this area of study is to move beyond its current liberal or neoliberal position. Peacebuilding periodically includes reports and field notes on the work of major donors and peacebuilding organisations. We publish collective discussion pieces that decentre and challenge dominant knowledge on peace and conflict studies, and promote new, critical alternatives on peacebuilding.
has sparked growing interest in their peace- there is sufficient consistency across either
building approaches. This paper compares actors’ governance interventions to even
the objectives and effects of the EU’s and
speak of a distinct ‘strategy’ or ‘governance
India’s engagement in different conflict
culture’. It illustrates the close relationship
contexts within and alongside their
between governance and conflict response
borders. It examines whether their practices
initiatives but finds that the relationship is
of conflict resolution or peace-building strive
for more than conflict management or often dysfunctional.
reforms of political and economic frameworks instead of the geopolitical context or
the underlying power asymmetries that fuel conflict. They follow a liberal pattern
often associated with northern donors and the UN system more generally. The EU’s
approach diverges from prevalent governance paradigms mainly in its engagement
with social, identity and socio-economic exclusion. This article examines the EU’s
‘peace-as-governance’ model in Cyprus, Georgia, Palestine and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
These cases indicate that a tense and contradictory strategic situation may arise
from an insufficient redress of underlying conflict issues.
not achieved. It also asks ‘where do we go from here?’ The article surveys an agenda for future
research and can also be read as a rebuttal of some recent literature that has attempted to shut
down the liberal peace debate. The article opens with a quick recap of the bases of the critique of
the liberal peace. It then outlines the ‘achievements’ of the debate and examines the failings and
oversights of the original critique. Questions are raised about the epistemology and terms of the
debate, and of the ability of critical intellectual projects to break through the material power held
by mainstream intellectual and policy actors. In its final substantive section, the article asks ‘where
next for the critique of the liberal peace?’ We conclude by highlighting avenues of research that
might be fruitfully explored.
This article is a conceptual scoping of the notion and practice of everyday peace, or the methods that individuals and groups use to navigate their way through life in deeply divided societies. It focuses on bottom-up peace and survival strategies. The article locates everyday peace in the wider study of peace and conflict, and constructs a typology of the different types of social practice that constitute everyday peace. While aware of the limitations of the concept and the practice, the article argues that everyday peace can be an important building block of peace formation, especially as formal approaches to peacebuilding and statebuilding are often deficient. An enhanced form of everyday peace (everyday diplomacy) has the potential to go beyond conflict-calming measures to encompass more positive actions linked with conflict transformation. The article can also be read as an exploration of ‘the local’ and ‘agency’ in deeply divided societies. It provides a counterweight to accounts of conflict-affected societies that concentrate on top-down actors, formal institutions and conflict resolution ‘professionals’. The apparent ‘banality’ of the everyday challenges us to think creatively about perspectives and methodologies that can capture it.
NB: Please email at [email protected] if you would like a pdf of this article
This article unpacks the renaissance of interest in ‘the local’ in peace building. It pays increased attention to local dimensions of peace in a wider context of increased assertiveness by local actors as well as a loss of confidence by major actors behind international peace-support actors. The article sees the ‘local turn’ in peace building as part of a wider critical turn in the study of peace and conflict, and focuses on the epistemological consequences of the recourse to localism in the conceptualisation and execution of peace building. The local turn has implications for the nature and location of power in peace building. This article is largely conceptual and theoretical in nature but it is worth noting that the local turn is based on reactions to real-world events.
co-authored with Oliver P. Richmond
Email me on [email protected] if you would like a pdf copy.