This research takes a mixed method approach, primarily using political economy analysis (PEA) and within case study comparison. Both the case study method and PEA are frequently used by international organizations to explore the effect of their own peacekeeping forces on the local community, and evaluate the effectiveness of programs and development aid (Carnahan, 2006; Cowan, 2012; del Castillo, 2008; DfID, 2009; Durch, 2004). Case studies are particularly suitable for this reseach because they facilitate understanding of the interelationship of enviromnental and social systems, allowing the researcher to ‘unpack’ meaning, as well as examine causal relationships and describe ranges of applicability for those causal mechanisms in context (Ng & Hase, 2008; Piekkari & Welch, 2011), and within social processes from empirical data when little suitable literature and knowledge exists (Yin, 2012 ). Likewise PEA is specifically useful to understand the relationships between key stakeholders, both individuals and groups concerning the distribution and acquisition of power, or the “rules of the game” (Hudson & Leftwich, 2014:9).
According to Yin (2003) and Campbell (2010), the case study method offers a depth of study within a bounded system over time, providing a “thick description” of phenomena in context (Campbell, 2010:174), and is well suited for a single or small number of examples (small – n) to be studied in their environment, within a complex context, and where the observer has little or no control of the environment (Yin, 2003; Yin, 2012; Buttolph-Johnson, 2005). Within case comparison further allows the comparison of phenomenon within the case, increasing its
57
explanatory capabilities through examination of similarities, differences and patterns across (sub)cases (Campbell, 2010:174) as exogeneous factors are more closely controlled.
This research begins with a preliminary hypothesis informed by desk work and uses a
standardized procedure to gather data described later in this section; uses multiple sources and documents, and it examines communities with and without military bases in geographically disparate locations. These facilitate cross referencing and improves the validity of the gathered information (Bell, 1993). Interviews and observation techniques borrowed from ethnography provide historical and cultural context, however, the ethnographic method itself is not a significant contributor to analysis. A list of interview subjects is provided as Annex 1.
Political Economy Analysis is a process which can be used to assemble a portrait of actors and forces in the post-conflict environment. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) provides a broad definition of political economy analysis as it is to be used in this research:
Political economy analysis is concerned with the interaction of political and economic processes in a society: the distribution of power and wealth between different groups and individuals, and the processes that create, sustain and transform these relationships over time. 4
This research takes a ‘Livelihoods Approach’ to political economy analysis, as this approach is oriented “to the meso-and local level … it is grounded in the people’s own perspectives, and how the totality of economic, political, social and cultural factors affects people’s lives” (Collinson, 2003:4). The Livelihoods Approach also better explains post conflict economies,
4Political Economy Analysis expands upon earlier Drivers of Change studies that were developed to challenge assumptions and provide better understanding of the local centripetal and centrifugal forces in context and therefore better able to address underlying concerns and facilitate more appropriate development solutions. In this research, PEA assists study of these forces specifically between the bases and local community.
58
particularly interrealtion of coping and shadow or parallel economies. Political Economy Analysis therefore provides an additional tool to examine in what ways the presence of a military base affects the local community. Coupled with the ‘thick description’ of the case study including interviews with locally hired staff, local businesses and community leaders; and, governmental and non-governmental organization studies, the political economy analysis of the post conflict environment can illustrate the ways military bases influence interests, incentives and constraints at the local level and provide insights toward enduring and sustainable peacebuilding. Hence, the political, social and economic factors of the three communities of interest, Ferizaj, Prizren and Gjakova, are examined to ascertain whether, and in what ways, the military base influences its’ surrounding community. This research therefore, helps to fill a wide gap in knowledge, and contributes to post-conflict studies and International Relations theory.
3.3 Case Study Selection
The Republic of Kosovo5 (Kosovo) is one of the newest states globally. As of the 2011 census, Kosovo’s population was approximately 1.8 million, with an overall ethnic Albanian majority of just over 92% (ASK, 2012).6 Ethnic Serbs accounted for 5.3%, and all other minorities combined are estimated at 2.7% (Brunborg, 2002)7. According to the World Bank, Kosovo’s population grew at a rate of 0.86% in 2012 (Bank, 2012), and thus these proportions are likely to be nearly identical at the end of the research period in 2016.
Prior to its unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008, Kosovo was the
southernmost province of Serbia, and historically among the poorest regions in the Balkans. Particularly during the Cold War period, the predominantly ethnic Albanian province of Kosovo
5The Republic of Kosovo has not been fully recognized by all of 193 UN members, including Serbia, from which it declared independence in 2008. As of late 2015, 108 of 193 countries have formally recognized Kosovo’s independence.
6 The 2011 Census was boycotted by Serbs in northern Kosovo, especially in vicinity of Mitrovica, and in southern Kosovo by Serbs and Roma, resulting in a population of 1.5 and 1.1% respectively, therefore, previous data are used. 7Bromberg’s 2002 population figures of 5.3% Kosovo Serb and 2.7% for all others identifying neither Albanian or Serb are used in place of the official 2011 percentages