Laudable, ahistorical and overambitious: Security Sector Reform meets state formation theory.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the conceptual development and practice of SSR within the framework of theories of state and state formation. This involves highlighting the importance of contextual understanding - both in terms of understanding the operational context in the existing structures of host states, as well as understanding the historical and theoretical complexities in social engineering. Using theories of state and state formation to inform the field of SSR is significant as it brings SSR closer to the existing discourses of state-building and post-conflict peace-building, as well as provides a theoretical foundation for such activities. The useful merger of development and security created the concept of SSR. The concept now needs an injection of state formation theory to be further developed.Although considerable advances have been made in our understanding of the processes of nation-building and SSR, we argue that the dominant formulations, as expressed in handbooks, strategic documents and policy formulations, need to be problematized in two respects. First, substantial parts of the literature, handbooks and official documents are characterized by a reliance on social engineering and on "methods" to effect complex socio-political transformations, a belief underpinned by a lack of contextual understanding of the aims (state-building) as well as the operative environments (target countries). Second, attempts to provide a rich context have focused on the processes of conflict prior to intervention, the conduct of intervention itself and on its aftermath. While this is important, we argue that more attention should be given to existing structures of state, society and polity in order to understand the possibilities of success of state-building and SSR. The processes of SSR are laudable and present important steps towards more holistic conceptions of security and international development. However, the findings of this paper cautions against having too high expectations on the possibility of SSR fulfilling its goals of creating states that are both stable and democratic and accountable. Instead, we should distinguish carefully what level of ambition is realistic for each specific project depending on local circumstances. A contextual understanding based on existing state-, society- and polity structures enable the design of better benchmarks and objectives as well as more realistic policies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]