Canada-Afghanistan International Development Policy

Introduction

Fragile states have become prominent within international security development as well as diplomacy landscapes. Notably, over one billion people live within the borders of the countries that are considered failed and fragile countries¹. The concentration of population in fragile nations has contributed to major challenges of the economy, security, and governance in respective countries². Since the events of 9/11 and increased terrorist attacks globally, policymakers in the international sphere have focused their interest on the stabilization of fragile states³. Notably, various factors such as social and economic inequalities, lack of democracy, and exclusion contribute to the fragility of a nation.

Canada is one of the countries that have initiated cooperation with Afghanistan with the focus on state-building, improving human rights, developing infrastructures, economic resiliency, enhance democracy and institutions⁴. Notably, lack of adequate infrastructural, social, economic, and political development in Afghanistan is associated with inappropriate involvement of local communities by the state⁵. The paper will focus on the international community engagement with indigenous populations and their local governments to initiate and implement development projects.

Literature Review

In the past decades, Canada has formed partnerships with the international community to strengthen security and enhance development in Afghanistan. Notably, before the Canadian engagement with the Afghanistan government and other foreign authorities in 2001, the country had experienced 30 years of turbulence as a result of civil war, Soviet occupation, ideological conflicts, as well as extreme poverty⁶. The Afghanistan government was known for oppressing its citizens while providing a conducive environment for terrorist groups such as the Al-Qaeda that led to further destruction of the country⁷.

The economy and security of the country had collapsed, therefore putting the lives of its people and neighboring states at risk. In addition to this, the poverty level in the country was rising yearly, hence making its citizens the most impoverished globally⁸. Nonetheless, Canada, in collaboration with other international communities, has worked tirelessly to ensure that the country enjoys economic growth and a peaceful environment that are necessary for developmental activities and governance.

Additionally, the engagement between Afghanistan and Canada is beyond the conventional war in which armed forces are deployed. Canada has been in the forefront to ensure that the country has recovered from its former failed status through the establishment of a legitimate governance system, economic opportunities, the enhanced rule of law and security, and admission to quality essential services⁹. Moreover, the fight against terrorism in 2006 was spread beyond Kabul, the Afghanistan capital city, for the purposes of building a strong security foundation and development across the entire nation¹⁰.

Canada assumed Kabul’s leadership for two years under the International Security Assistance Forces or ISAF to bring stability and reconstruction to the collapsed economy. In addition, Canada enacted numerous laws concerning its military and development strategy to improve its role in the fragile state¹¹. Canada’s government’s goals were to ensure that Afghanistan gets a working constitution to spearhead economic growth, respect for human rights, democratic governance, and delivery of core services¹². Furthermore, the country needed humanitarian assistance for its vulnerable population, including internally displaced people, returnees, and refugees.

The priorities to ensure reconstruction of Afghanistan spearheaded by Canada and other international communities was vital for achieving political reconciliation, the building of schools, roads, and industries. In 2006, the government of Afghanistan released the Afghanistan National Development Strategy and Afghanistan Combat to initiate development priorities and projects as identified by the international community¹³. Furthermore, Afghanistan in 2008 announced its five-year development plan that covered a broad sector of security, economic and social improvement, and expansion of democracy.

It is worth noting that the aforementioned priorities were established to ensure that the country achieved measurable progress to enable improvement of life quality within Afghanistan’s borders. Targets and benchmarking were set in June 2008 by the Government of Canada to assist the country in implementing the new strategies¹⁴. Moreover, the set targets served as key points in which both governments would assess the level of progress in Afghanistan. Canada deployed 120 skilled civilians and 2950 soldiers to aid in the restoration of security, train the local population, and build infrastructures that are needed to ensure the prosperity of the fragile state¹⁵. Notably, the environment to implement new strategies in relation to the international community in Afghanistan was not only dangerous but daunting, given the level of insecurity and political instability.

The international community established that Afghanistan needed strong and effective security forces of their own to ensure the security of the country. Afghanistan National Police, as well as National Army, we’re well-equipped and trained with the help of international missions. Notably, two objectives were developed by Canada between 2008 to 2011, which involved doing joint operations to eliminate insurgents and mentor local security forces¹⁶. It is important to note that the joint operations that comprise of international security agencies, Canadian civilian police helped in improving the capabilities of the Afghanistan national security forces in their duty to ensure the security of people within Kandahar¹⁷.

Furthermore, Canada’s two objectives involve maintaining law and order in major districts of Kandahar and sustaining a relatively secure environment¹⁸. The number of trained soldiers increased from 50,000 in 2008 to 175 000 in 2019¹⁹. The increased capabilities and the performance of the army in the country have created an opportunity for other economic activities and ensure the local community’s safety, thanks to the Canadian Forces.

Canada also helped the country to construct modern roads through Commander Contingency Fund. The organization provided resources to the Afghanistan government to construct roads that were needed to facilitate the free movement of people and goods²⁰. Local priorities were established through the collaboration of village residents and the formed task force, which helped in fostering trust between the people and the national government. The construction efforts in Afghanistan involved numerous projects such as the building of wells, mosques, local markets, solar-powered lighting, and roads²¹.

Furthermore, the international community recognized the importance of an effective justice system, which led to the training of justice officials, constructions of courts such as Arghandab District Courthouse, the office of the attorney general, and improved information technologies²². Canada also sponsored more than 20 workshops in the city of Kandahar to promote knowledge concerning legal rights, particularly to the female population²³. Despite considerable investments by the government of Canada and other international communities in Afghanistan, there are numerous challenges that persist as far as economic and social, and political development is concerned.

Poverty and inequality have increased steadily over the past few years in Afghanistan. The country is ranked among the poorest nations across the world, with 31% of its citizens living below the poverty level²⁴. Notably, 35% of the total population in Afghanistan depends on humanitarian aids to survive²⁵. Furthermore, many people are unable to access better healthcare facilities, food and nutrition, and education systems. Children and women consist of 86% of all the people who depend on foreign aids²⁶.

It is the ordinary citizens in the country who feel the pressure of the underperforming economy as they lack even the most basic services from their government²⁷. The majority of the people who live above the poverty line are also at risk of getting back into the poverty bracket in the future if necessary measures are not taken to increase job opportunities.

Level of Public Engagement with the National Government

Afghanistan’s government should consider new approaches as far as their development initiation and implementation are concerned. Moreover, the revenue mobilization has improved in recent years with a growth of 7.3 in 2019²⁸. World Bank Date revealed that the country’s revenues stand at 10% in relation to the GDP²⁹. However, the budgeting process is facing severe challenges, hence leading to delay and lack of proper investment in the most sensitive areas in the country. For instance, MPs are believed to ask for bribes from the executive to approve the national budget, which has led to the loss of billions of dollars in the process³⁰. The nature of the budgeting process is extremely centralized, therefore reducing the roles of provinces and legislature very weak and prevent or delay the development of state capacity at the local level.

It is important to note that Afghanistan’s national budget comprises of external and core budget. The internal budget is divided into the development budget as well as the operational budget. Furthermore, the Afghanistan government is responsible for financing the operational budget through the use of its own generated revenue³¹. On the other hand, the development budget is mainly financed by international donors³². The external budget also consists of official development aid, and the donors use the channel to ensure that the money is not used wrongly or free from corruption³³. External budgeting is usually channeled through various trust funds; however, some are given to assists in the national budget.

The province and district administrations have a limited stake in the budgeting process and are subject to the national government³⁴. The ministry of finance does budget preparation and allocation of finance with little or no consultation to the district and province administrations³⁵. Notably, the finance ministry often overrules the decisions or suggestions from the grassroots levels of governance and does not consult local people before deciding on matters concerning budgeting.

Revenues are collected in the sub-county region; however, the money is taken to the national government for further distribution to different ministries and arms of governments. The centralized nature of budgeting allocation and decision-making has derailed numerous efforts to improve development at the local or village level due to inequality of resource distribution³⁶. Furthermore, service providers at the local levels are often under severe constraints of resources with low rates of budget implementation.

The centralized budgeting structure has impacted negatively on service delivery, especially at subnational levels³⁷. The local population’s need is not reflected in the decisions that the ministry of finance often takes since the state assumes that they have the ability to make good decisions on behalf of all citizens³⁸. The state lacks an appropriate system that can facilitate effective consultation with the local public to enhance development projects at the lowest level³⁹. As a result, resources fail to reach many areas to ensure that all parts of the country get an equal share of the budget to improve social and economic infrastructures.

Several attempts to improve public engagement in the budgeting and allocation process have failed to materialize. In 2007, the state initiated the provincial budgeting process with the aim of enabling effective reforms in the entire process, however the policies to empower local administration to contribute to the national development plans failed⁴⁰. Central ministries were unable to decentralize some of their functions to the provincial and district levels, leading to the failure to include the local community in their development process⁴¹.

Nevertheless, the efforts to establish provincial development plans failed due to a lack of proper coordination as well as poor communication between the two sets of administration bodies⁴². It is important to note that centralized initiation and coordination of many projects have failed to align with needs that are critical to some local populations.

Current Consultation Process of Canada In Their Fund Allocation to Afghanistan

Notably, Canada understands that Afghanistan is not only a fragile but also a weak state that needs stabilization efforts to enable the government to function properly without the assistance of foreign aids. Moreover, the country is governed by the help of foreign advisors, troops, and donations, an indication that it cannot sustain its internal affairs without assistance⁴³. As noted earlier, the government of Canada has played a critical role to ensure that the fragile state is rescued from collapsing and empowered to manage internal development ranging from political, social, and economic space⁴⁴.

Canada has taken the initiative to review the state of the nation to provide a clear roadmap on the priorities that must be addressed to help the country attain full stabilization, sovereignty, and ownership⁴⁵ Afghanistan currently lacks sustainable economic growth, unequal distribution, and access to resources, production and trade of narcotics with severe armed conflicts over the past three decades.

The primary objective as far as the Canadian government is concerned is to strengthen and improve Afghanistan state institutions and machinery to enable smooth service to deliver to the local population. Canada, in collaboration with other international communities, has been in the country for over ten years; however, Afghanistan still experiences increased insurgency⁴⁶. Additionally, institutions that are established to provide the most basic needs, such as health, security, and justice, are performing poorly. The Afghanistan police and army are not sufficient enough to maintain law and order within its borders even after investments of billions in the organization.

Notably, in 2019 Canada committed to increasing its budgetary allocation in Afghanistan to initiate more development projects and ensure gender equality⁴⁷. Canada has proposed $ 463 million towards peacebuilding among conflict-affected states or FCAS.⁴⁸ The initiative, as planned by the government of Canada, will ensure poverty elimination and empowerment of women in fragile states.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Afghanistan has numerous development priorities; however, the need for infrastructure is particularly acute. It is only a third of the population that is connected to the power system, while the majority lack the necessary energy to help advance their development initiatives.

The country is unable to generate sufficient resources that are required to sustain its development objectives, and domestic resources are also limited. Public participation in the budgeting process should be strengthened to ensure their challenges in different regions are solved. Canada is the leading donor in Afghanistan, has the responsibility to ensure the country is stable in terms of economic, social, and political development. Many resources and strategies are needed to ensure effective coordination and communication between the central government and provincial and district administration for the purposes of equitable allocation and distribution of resources.

Recommendations

1. Special allocation of resources is needed for the purposes of funding projects that are a priority to the regional and national cooperation, especially in the energy sector, trade, and transport connectivity. Such investments will enable a strong and prosperous economy in Afghanistan and ensure positive impacts on regional economic development, security, and peace.
2. Until Afghanistan achieves self-reliance, there will be a high risk associated with development setbacks and regression in several regions with its borders. The situation is worse with the decline of foreign donation in the country amidst the spread of COVID-19 in countries such as the United States that have been instrumental in restoring peace and stability. Furthermore, the 2018 Geneva Conference on Afghanistan has seen international development partners reducing their development engagement there, posing challenges to the future of the fragile state in relation to its economic stability. It is, therefore, necessary for the country to speed up political reconciliation plans and eliminate all forms of corruption, which deny the opportunity for economic and social development.
3. The development strategy used currently is not effective because it sidelines the input of the majority and improvement in critical sectors such as agriculture. Afghanistan can attain sustainable development if they change their collaboration mechanism with its citizens and include their views in decision making. There is a need to decentralize the key roles of different ministries to reach more people on the ground, especially in rural areas where the poverty rate stands at 55%⁴⁹. It will help in elevating the living standard of many villagers by providing employment opportunities and improve infrastructures.
4. Additionally, the process of budget preparation and allocation should accommodate the interest of the majority and not the few executive members. Formulation of policy that is clear and comprehensive to allow for provincial budgeting to ensure that public interest and needs are met at the lowest level. The policy should outline the responsibility and functions of local administration in the budgeting process. In addition to this, the law should strengthen communication and coordination between central-local authorities and central government to facilitate adequate disbarment of resources.
5. It is necessary to establish public finance management body comprised of civil society with powers to participate in the budgeting process and allocation to ensure that the demands of provinces are met. Civil society should have an active role in all the stages of budgeting, from the initial to the execution stage. It will ensure that needs of local people are aligned with the national budget. Additionally, the Afghanistan state should focus on need-based resources allocation to avoid wastage of limited resources in the country.

Bibliography

Ahmadzai, Saadatullah, and Alastair Mckinna. “Afghanistan Electrical Energy and Trans- Boundary Water Systems Analyses: Challenges and Opportunities.” Energy Reports, no. 4, (2018): 435-469.

Akhtar, Fazlullah, and Usman Shah. “Emerging Water Scarcity Issues and Challenges in Afghanistan.” In Water Issues in Himalayan South Asia, 1-28. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Alamyar, Mariam NA. “Emerging Roles of English In Afghanistan.” INTESOL Journal 14, no. 1, (2017).

Aliyev, Huseyn. “Precipitating State Failure: Do Civil Wars and Violent Non-State Actors Create Failed States?” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 9, (2017): 1973-1989.

Amin, Mohsin, And David Bernell. “Power Sector Reform in Afghanistan: Barriers to Achieving Universal Access to Electricity.” Energy Policy 123, (2018): 72-82.

Arat-Koҫ, Sedef. “17 Whose Transnationalism? Canada, “Clash of Civilizations” Discourse and Arab And Muslim Canadians.” Asian Canadian Studies Reader, (2017): 316.

Azeem, Mohammad, And Kalimullah Khan. “Low Execution Rate of Developmental Budget in Sectorial Ministries of Afghanistan: Causes and Remedies.” Management 2, no. 1, (2019): 1-19.

Azimi, Mohammad Naim, And Abdul Tawab Balakarzai. “Nation Building Through Higher Education System Resurgence in Afghanistan.” Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia, (2020): 1-22.

Bashardost, Zabehullah, And Jawida Ahmadi. “The Main Challenges of Public Management in Afghanistan and the Possible Solutions.” Journal of Social and Political Sciences 2, no. 4, (2019).

Call, Charles T. “The Lingering Problem of Fragile States.” The Washington Quarterly 39, no. 4 (2016): 193-209.

Collins, Jeffrey F. “Beyond Afghanistan: An International Security Agenda for Canada Ed. By James Fergusson And Francis Furtado.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 31, no. 2, (2018): 239-240.

Decillia, Brooks. “But It Is Not Getting Any Safer!”: The Contested Dynamic of Framing Canada’s Military Mission in Afghanistan.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne De Science Politique 51, no. 1, (2018): 155-177.

Edgar, Alistair. “Beyond Afghanistan: An International Security Agenda for Canada By James Fergusson And Francis Furtado.” International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 72, no. 4, (2017): 584-587.

Fahimi, Abdullah, And Paul Upham. “The Renewable Energy Sector in Afghanistan: Policy and Potential.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 7, no. 2, (2018): E280.

Gillani, Dayyab. “Federal Iraq And Unitary Afghanistan: A Comparative Analysis of Plural Societies 1.” Journal of Political Studies 27, no. 1, (2020): 59-71.

Khan, Saleha. “The Securitization of Development and Its Impact on Peacebuilding: A Study of Canadian Mission in Afghanistan.” 2020.

Khan, Waqas, Ajmal Khan, And Abdul Khaliq Shinwari. “Challenges, Opportunities, And Role of Financial Institutions in Development of Financial System of Afghanistan; A Thematic Analysis Approach.” Kardan Journal of Economics and Management Sciences 1, no. 1, (2018): 33-44.

Kraemer, Richard. “Afghanistan: Missteps in Reconstruction.” In Research Handbook on Post-Conflict State Building. Edward Elgar Publishing. Phys. Rev. 47, (2020): 777-780

Lagassé, Philippe, And Patrick A. Mello. “The Unintended Consequences of Parliamentary Involvement: Elite Collusion and Afghanistan Deployments in Canada And Germany.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20, no. 1, (2018): 135-157.

Lagassé, Philippe, And Stephen M. Saideman. “Public Critic or Secretive Monitor: Party Objectives and Legislative Oversight of The Military in Canada.” West European Politics 40, no. 1, (2017): 119-138.

Lagassé, Philippe. “Parliament and The War Prerogative in The United Kingdom and Canada: Explaining Variations in Institutional Change and Legislative Control.” Parliamentary Affairs 70, no. 2, (2017): 280-300.

Landriault, Mathieu. “Post-Afghanistan Syndrome? Canadian Public Opinion on Military Intervention Abroad After the Afghanistan Mission.” Peace Research 50, no. 2, (2018): 57-118.

Lang, Eugene. “The Politics of War: Canada’s Afghanistan Mission, 2001–14 By Jean-Christophe Boucher And Kim Nossal.” (2018): 492-494.

Mansfield, David. “(Mis) Understanding the Intersection Between Development Policies and Data Collection: Experiences in Afghanistan.” International Journal of Drug Policy 58, (2018): 157-165.

Massie, Justin, And Benjamin Zyla. “Alliance Value and Status Enhancement: Canada’s Disproportionate Military Burden Sharing in Afghanistan.” Politics & Policy 46, no. 2, (2018): 320-344.

Mcconnon, Eamonn. Risk and The Security-Development Nexus: The Policies of the US, The UK, and Canada. Springer, 2018.

Morrison-Métois, Susanna. “Responding to Refugee Crises: Lessons from Evaluations in Afghanistan As A Country of Origin.” OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers 40, (2017). Web.

Murtazashvili, Jennifer. “Pathologies of Centralized State-Building.” PRISM 8, no. 2, (2019): 54-67.

Najimi, Bashirullah. Gender and Public Participation in Afghanistan: Aid, Transparency and Accountability. Springer, 2018.

Naziri, Malalai, Ariel Higgins-Steele, Zelaikha Anwari, Khaksar Yousufi, Karla Fossand, Sher Shah Amin, David B. Hipgrave, and Sherin Varkey. “Scaling Up Newborn Care in Afghanistan: Opportunities and Challenges for The Health Sector.” Health Policy and Planning 33, no. 2, (2018): 271-282.

Nogueira, Joao Pontes. “From Failed States to Fragile Cities: Redefining Spaces of Humanitarian Practice.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 7, (2017): 1437-1453.

Orwenjo, Daniel Ochieng, Ed. “Political Discourse in Emergent, Fragile, And Failed Democracies”. IGI Global, 2016.

Pain, Adam, And Danielle Huot. “Challenges of Late Development in Afghanistan: The Transformation That Did Not Happen.” Asian Survey 58, no. 6, (2018): 1111-1135.

Poole, Nigel, Habiba Amiri, Sardar Muhammad Amiri, Islamudin Farhank, And Giacomo Zanello. “Food Production and Consumption in Bamyan Province, Afghanistan: The Challenges of Sustainability and Seasonality for Dietary Diversity.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 17, no. 6, (2019): 413-430.

Qazizada, Yalda, Mr. Waheedullah Afghan, And Nassir Ul Haq Wani. “Challenges of Good Governance in Afghanistan: An Introspection for Sustainable Development.” (Thesis. Kardan University, 2016).

Rahmani, Hizbullah, And Aznah Nor Anuar. “Challenges and Resolutions for Sustainable Domestic Wastewater Management in Kabul City, Afghanistan.” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) 9, no. 1, (2018).

Ruhani, Mohammad Azeem, And Kalimullah Khan. “Low Execution Rate of Developmental Budget in Sectorial Ministries of Afghanistan: Causes and Remedies.” Management 2, no. 1, (2019): 35-47.

Saideman, Stephen M. “What the Afghanistan Mission Teaches Canada.” International Journal 72, no. 1, (2017): 131-141.

Salama, Peter, And Ala Alwan. “Building Health Systems in the Fragile States: The Instructive Example of Afghanistan.” The Lancet Global Health 4, no. 6, (2016): E351-E352.

Sana, Mohammad Zia. “Common Distributed Data Storage for Higher Education Management Information System in Afghanistan.”.

Thorpe, Holly, And Megan Chawansky. “Gender, Embodiment and Reflexivity in Everyday Spaces of Development in Afghanistan.” Gender, Place & Culture, (2020): 1-27.

Tuckey, Sarah Christine. “Gendering Canada’s Whole-Of-Government Approach? Militarized Masculinity and The Possibilities of Collaboration in The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team.” (PhD diss., The University of Ottawa, 2019).

Van Houte, Marieke. “Back to Afghanistan: Expectations and Challenges Between Development and Reintegration.” Migration & Integration 8—Dialog Zwischen Politik, Wissenschaft Und Praxis, (2019): 141-57.

Vincent, Sam. “Navigating Local Authority and Community-Driven Development in Afghanistan.” Lessons for Peace. Web.

Wegner, Nicole. “Discursive Battlefields: Support (Ing) The Troops in Canada.” International Journal 72, no. 4, (2017): 444-462.

Zeigermann, Ulrike. “Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: A Promising Approach for Human Security in Fragile States.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 15, no. 3, (2020): 282-297.

Footnotes

1. Nogueira, Joao Pontes. 2017. “From failed states to fragile cities: redefining spaces of humanitarian practice.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. (7): 1437-1453.
2. Orwenjo, Daniel Ochieng, ed. 2016. “Political Discourse in Emergent, Fragile, and Failed Democracies”. IGI Global.
3. Aliyev, Huseyn. “Precipitating State Failure: Do Civil Wars and Violent Non-State Actors Create Failed States?” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 9, (2017): 1973-1989.
4. Call, Charles T. “The Lingering Problem of Fragile States.” The Washington Quarterly 39, no. 4 (2016): 193-209.
5. Salama, Peter, and Ala Alwan. 2016. “Building health systems in fragile states: The instructive example of Afghanistan.” The Lancet Global Health 4, no. (6): e351-e352.
6. Collins, Jeffrey F. “Beyond Afghanistan: An International Security Agenda for Canada Ed. By James Fergusson And Francis Furtado.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 31, no. 2, (2018): 239-240.
7. Wegner, Nicole. 2017. “Discursive battlefields: Support (ing) the troops in Canada.” International Journal 72, no. (4): 444-462.
8. Decillia, Brooks. “But It Is Not Getting Any Safer!”: The Contested Dynamic of Framing Canada’s Military Mission in Afghanistan.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne De Science Politique 51, no. 1, (2018): 155-177.
9. Khan, Saleha. “The Securitization of Development and Its Impact on Peacebuilding: A Study of Canadian Mission in Afghanistan.” 2020.
10. Massie, Justin, and Benjamin Zyla. 2018. “Alliance Value and Status Enhancement: Canada’s Disproportionate Military Burden Sharing in Afghanistan.” Politics & policy 46, no. (2): 320-344.
11. Saideman, Stephen M. 2017. “What the Afghanistan mission teaches Canada.” International Journal 72, no. (1): 131-141.
12. Lagassé, Philippe. 2017. “Parliament and the war prerogative in the United Kingdom and Canada: Explaining variations in institutional change and legislative control.” Parliamentary Affairs 70, no. (2): 280-300.
13. Wegner, Nicole. 2017. “Discursive battlefields: Support (ing) the troops in Canada.” International Journal 72, no. (4): 444-462.
14. Lagassé, Philippe, and Stephen M. Saideman. 2017. “Public critic or secretive monitor: Party objectives and legislative oversight of the military in Canada.” West European Politics 40, no. (1): 119-138.
15. Edgar, Alistair. “Beyond Afghanistan: An International Security Agenda for Canada By James Fergusson And Francis Furtado.” International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 72, no. 4, (2017): 584-587.
16. Morrison-Métois, Susanna. 2017. “Responding to Refugee Crises: Lessons from evaluations in Afghanistan as a country of origin.”
17. Alamyar, Mariam NA. “Emerging Roles of English In Afghanistan.” INTESOL Journal 14, no. 1, (2017).
18. Arat-Koҫ, Sedef. “17 Whose Transnationalism? Canada, “Clash of Civilizations” Discourse and Arab And Muslim Canadians.” Asian Canadian Studies Reader, (2017): 316.
19. Lagassé, Philippe, and Patrick A. Mello. 2018. “The unintended consequences of parliamentary involvement: Elite collusion and Afghanistan deployments in Canada and Germany.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20, no. (1): 135-157.
20. Landriault, Mathieu. 2018. “Post-Afghanistan syndrome? Canadian public opinion on military intervention abroad after the Afghanistan mission.” Peace Research 50, no. (2): 57-118.
21. McConnon, Eamonn. 2018. Risk and the Security-development Nexus: The Policies of the US, the UK and Canada. Springer.
22. Lang, Eugene. 2018. “The Politics of War: Canada’s Afghanistan Mission, 2001–14 by Jean-Christophe Boucher and Kim Nossal.”: 492-494.
23. Ahmadzai, Saadatullah, and Alastair Mckinna. “Afghanistan Electrical Energy and Trans- Boundary Water Systems Analyses: Challenges and Opportunities.” Energy Reports, no. 4, (2018): 435-469.
24. Pain, Adam, and Danielle Huot. 2018. “Challenges of Late Development in Afghanistan: The Transformation That Did Not Happen.” Asian Survey 58, no. (6): 1111-1135.
25. Mansfield, David. 2018. “(Mis) understanding the intersection between development policies and data collection: Experiences in Afghanistan.” International Journal of Drug Policy 58: 157-165.
26. Khan, Waqas, Ajmal Khan, And Abdul Khaliq Shinwari. “Challenges, Opportunities, And Role of Financial Institutions in Development of Financial System of Afghanistan; A Thematic Analysis Approach.” Kardan Journal of Economics and Management Sciences 1, no. 1, (2018): 33-44.
27. Fahimi, Abdullah, And Paul Upham. “The Renewable Energy Sector in Afghanistan: Policy and Potential.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 7, no. 2, (2018): E280.
28. Amin, Mohsin, And David Bernell. “Power Sector Reform in Afghanistan: Barriers to Achieving Universal Access to Electricity.” Energy Policy 123, (2018): 72-82.
29. Naziri, Malalai, Ariel Higgins-Steele, Zelaikha Anwari, Khaksar Yousufi, Karla Fossand, Sher Shah Amin, David B. Hipgrave, and Sherin Varkey. 2018. “Scaling up newborn care in Afghanistan: opportunities and challenges for the health sector.” Health Policy and Planning 33, no. (2): 271-282.
30. van Houte, Marieke. 2019. “Back to Afghanistan: expectations and challenges between development and reintegration.” Migration & Integration 8—Dialog Zwischen Politik, Wissenschaft Und Praxis: 141-57.
31. Akhtar, Fazlullah, and Usman Shah. “Emerging Water Scarcity Issues and Challenges in Afghanistan.” In Water Issues in Himalayan South Asia, 1-28. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
32. Qazizada, Yalda, Mr Waheedullah Afghan, and Nassir Ul Haq Wani. 2016. “Challenges of Good Governance in Afghanistan: An Introspection for Sustainable Development.”
33. Thorpe, Holly, and Megan Chawansky. 2020. “Gender, embodiment and reflexivity in everyday spaces of development in Afghanistan.” Gender, Place & Culture: 1-27.
34. Poole, Nigel, Habiba Amiri, Sardar Muhammad Amiri, Islamudin Farhank, and Giacomo Zanello. 2019. “Food production and consumption in Bamyan Province, Afghanistan: the challenges of sustainability and seasonality for dietary diversity.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 17, no. (6): 413-430.
35. Bashardost, Zabehullah, And Jawida Ahmadi. “The Main Challenges of Public Management in Afghanistan and the Possible Solutions.” Journal of Social and Political Sciences 2, no. 4, (2019).
36. Vincent, Sam. 2020. “Navigating Local Authority and Community-Driven Development in Afghanistan.
37. Ruhani, Mohammad Azeem, And Kalimullah Khan. 2019. “Low Execution Rate of Developmental Budget in Sectorial Ministries of Afghanistan: Causes and Remedies.” Management 2, No. [1]: 35-47.
38. Azeem, Mohammad, And Kalimullah Khan. 2019. “Low Execution Rate of Developmental Budget in Sectorial Ministries of Afghanistan: Causes and Remedies.” Management 2, No. (1): 1-19.
39. Sana, Mohammad Zia. 2019. “Common Distributed Data Storage for Higher Education Management Information System in Afghanistan.”
40. Gillani, Dayyab. “Federal Iraq And Unitary Afghanistan: A Comparative Analysis of Plural Societies 1.” Journal of Political Studies 27, no. 1, (2020): 59-71.
41. Azeem, Mohammad, And Kalimullah Khan. 2019. “Low Execution Rate of Developmental Budget in Sectorial Ministries of Afghanistan: Causes and Remedies.” Management 2, No. (1): 1-19.
42. Azimi, Mohammad Naim, And Abdul Tawab Balakarzai. “Nation Building Through Higher Education System Resurgence in Afghanistan.” Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia, (2020): 1-22.
43. Murtazashvili, Jennifer. 2019. “Pathologies of Centralized State-Building.” PRISM 8, No. (2): 54-67.
44. Rahmani, Hizbullah, And Aznah Nor Anuar. 2018. “Challenges and Resolutions for Sustainable Domestic Wastewater Management in Kabul City, Afghanistan.”.
45. Kraemer, Richard. 2020. “Afghanistan: Missteps in Reconstruction.” In Research Handbook on Post-Conflict State Building. Edward Elgar Publishing. Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780.
46. Najimi, Bashirullah. 2018. Gender and Public Participation in Afghanistan: Aid, Transparency and Accountability. Springer.
47. Zeigermann, Ulrike. “Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: A Promising Approach for Human Security in Fragile States.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 15, no. 3, (2020): 282-297.
48. Tuckey, Sarah Christine. 2019. “Gendering Canada’s Whole-Of-Government Approach? Militarized Masculinity and The Possibilities of Collaboration in The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team.” Phd Diss., University of Ottawa.
49. Azeem, Mohammad, And Kalimullah Khan. “Low Execution Rate of Developmental Budget in Sectorial Ministries of Afghanistan: Causes and Remedies.” Management 2, no. 1, (2019): 1-19.