| Summary/Abstract |
The World Bank has asserted a dominant role in post-conflict peacebuilding and during war itself. This article critiques the World Bank’s evolving approach to war and peace through both a qualitative analysis of recent strategic documents and a case study of the Bank’s engagement in Ukraine during the war in Donbas. I identify three prominent themes that inform the World Bank’s evolving strategy for engaging in conflict-affected conditions, which may impact the possibilities for peace, whether conceptualized as negative, positive or a feminist peace. First, the rhetorical importance of governance is concretized to emphasize business solutions to economic and political problems; second, the conflict-affected population is reimagined in terms of human capital, emphasizing entrepreneurship and resilience; and third, private capital is presented as a saviour. I argue that, in practice, these imperatives lead to a further withdrawal of the state when social assistance and protection are most needed, the instrumentalization of the conflict-affected populace as receptacles of resilience and vassals of economic growth, and an emphasis on private capital as the principal social group to the exclusion of real people. I conclude by questioning whether World Bank reforms during conflict can positively contribute to peace.
|