{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03763440860215054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.005376344086022, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Levelling the playing fields & embedding illusions: ‘post‐conflict’ discourse & neo‐liberal ‘development’ in war‐torn Africa

The World Bank's booklet Post‐Conflict Reconstruction: The Role of the World Bank suggests that in its eyes the ravages of war‐torn Africa present international financial institutions with an opportunity to create ‘market friendly’ opportunities on the levelled playing fields assumed by ‘post‐conflict’ discourse. As well as downplaying the conflict‐laden and complex aspects of post‐war situations, the illusion of peace and ordered government encouraged by ‘post‐conflict’ language allows the traditional humanitarian side of the ‘relief and (neo‐liberal) ‘development’ continuum in post‐war situations to be obliterated. Thus, the World Bank and similar agencies are able to enter the killing fields even during conflict to lay the seeds — or ‘embed’, to use a reversal of Polanyian perspectives — of individual property rights and other aspects of neo‐liberal economic, social and political good governance. Perspectives from ‘social capital’ discourse also buttress this view. Such ideologies coincide with and justify the diminishing material resources allocated to a more traditional humanitarian agenda for post‐war reconstruction, as well as sidelining alternatives.