Description
As the 20th anniversary of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda approaches, we see heightened interest in the question of how to implement the agenda more effectively, particularly through widely adopted National Action Plans (NAPs). According to much of this policy advice, good WPS policy (and NAPs in particular) should be participatory, results-based, measurable and coordinated. In this paper, I will analyse these neoliberal ideals of effective policy by exploring specific (and mundane) practices and artefacts through which they are performed, namely participatory workshops, log-frames, indicators and intra-agency coordination mechanisms. Drawing inspiration from the work of Pierre Bourdieu, I will consider what types of common sense these practices of governance generate and how they effectively police the boundaries of the WPS field. I argue that the neoliberal logic of WPS NAPs chooses its priorities through the language of rationality, accountability and teamwork and as such excludes many injustices that cannot be framed in the language of consensus and results. Furthermore, these practices help solidify a shared ‘common sense’ of what effective action would look like and as such actively polices the boundaries of what is acceptable within the field of WPS.
