Security and Development Nexus

Introduction

In political science, the “security and development nexus” refers to the growing awareness that security and development are interconnected rather than separate concerns. Instead of treating them as isolated fields, scholars and policymakers have begun to explore how each influences the other. The basic idea is that insecurity—such as violence, war, or crime—can disrupt economic and social progress, while poverty, inequality, and lack of infrastructure can make communities more vulnerable to conflict and instability.

This concept gained traction in global discussions after the Cold War and particularly following the attacks of September 11, 2001. As the international community began to understand the root causes of conflict more deeply, attention turned to the ways that fragile institutions, poor governance, and economic stagnation can feed into cycles of violence.

The evolution of the nexus

Originally, development and security were handled as entirely separate agendas. Development focused on improving living conditions through things like education, healthcare, and economic growth—primarily the work of aid organizations and economists. Security, meanwhile, was traditionally centered on defending national borders, preventing war, and responding to military threats.

However, this divide began to erode in the 1990s, when a wave of civil wars and internal conflicts—like those in Rwanda, the Balkans, and Somalia—demonstrated that underdevelopment, weak states, and inequality were often at the heart of violence. These weren’t just military crises; they were also political and economic breakdowns.

The rise of global terrorism reinforced this point. Governments began to realize that long-term peace and global security depended not just on armies and counterterrorism, but also on promoting governance, opportunity, and stability in vulnerable regions.

As a result, international organizations like the UN, the World Bank, and NATO started to adopt a more integrated approach. Security and development became seen as mutually reinforcing, not separate endeavors.

Fragile states: where insecurity and underdevelopment collide

The connection between security and development becomes especially clear in fragile or failing states. These are countries where the government is unable—or sometimes unwilling—to provide basic services, enforce laws, or protect its people. In these places, both development and security are severely compromised.

Afghanistan is one example. Following the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, international efforts focused not only on military operations, but also on building institutions, promoting democracy, and delivering aid. The rationale was that long-term peace would depend on helping Afghanistan become a functioning state, not just eliminating threats.

Other regions in Africa and the Middle East show similar patterns. Where poverty, corruption, and weak governance persist, conflict and violence often follow. In turn, that instability makes economic growth and human development nearly impossible, creating a feedback loop.

Human security: a shift in perspective

A major shift in how we think about this nexus came with the idea of “human security.” First introduced in a 1994 UN Human Development Report, this concept expanded the meaning of security. Instead of focusing only on protecting states, it emphasized protecting individuals from threats like hunger, disease, displacement, and violence.

Under this view, a person is not truly secure unless they have access to food, shelter, education, and political freedom. Development becomes a form of security—not just charity, but a necessary step toward peace and stability.

This broader framework challenges older, military-focused definitions of security. It encourages governments and international actors to focus on healthcare, education, equality, and community resilience as part of their peacebuilding efforts.

International interventions

Modern interventions in conflict zones increasingly combine military action with development efforts. This “comprehensive approach” is now a common strategy in places affected by war, civil unrest, or terrorism.

For instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, international coalitions tried not just to defeat insurgent groups, but also to rebuild schools, train police forces, and support elections. Peacekeeping missions—especially those led by the UN—now include helping with reconstruction, facilitating humanitarian aid, and promoting reconciliation.

However, these interventions come with major challenges. Outside actors lack cultural understanding or push overly Western models of governance. There are also concerns about whether such efforts are truly sustainable once foreign forces leave.

Still, the fact that development and security are now routinely combined in international missions shows how central the nexus has become in shaping global policy.

Development aid and security goals: useful or problematic?

In recent years, development aid has often been used to support national and international security agendas. Donor countries may prioritize giving aid to governments that are allies in counterterrorism efforts or that help control migration. In this way, aid becomes a tool for achieving strategic objectives, not just a means to reduce poverty.

This blending of goals has sparked debate. On one hand, it can bring more funding to regions in need and align development with broader stability efforts. On the other hand, it can distort priorities. Aid might go to governments with poor human rights records simply because they serve a security interest.

This raises ethical concerns. If local communities see aid agencies as part of foreign security agendas, they may become targets—or lose trust in what those agencies are trying to do.

Local actors: the role of communities, NGOs, and non-state forces

While national governments and international institutions play big roles in the security-development nexus, non-state actors are just as crucial. In many fragile regions, local communities, civil society groups, and even armed factions fill in the gaps left by the state.

NGOs (non-governmental organizations), for instance, often deliver essential services like healthcare, education, or food assistance. In some areas, armed groups act like de facto governments, enforcing rules and providing protection—sometimes with local support, other times through coercion.

Local governance—whether formal or informal—can either ease tensions or deepen divisions, depending on how power is used and shared. Community-based peacebuilding efforts can succeed where top-down strategies fail, especially when they’re culturally relevant and inclusive.

Climate change and migration

Today, climate change and large-scale migration are putting new stress on the relationship between development and security. These global challenges are forcing governments to think differently about how to build peace and resilience.

Environmental degradation, droughts, floods, and rising sea levels, can destroy crops, force people to leave their homes, and spark competition over resources. This is especially dangerous in regions already facing poverty or weak governance. Climate-driven disasters may not directly cause war, but they can worsen existing tensions and trigger instability.

Migration, too, has become politically charged. As people flee war, poverty, or climate-related hardships, receiving countries often see them through a security lens. At the same time, the departure of skilled workers from struggling nations can hurt those countries’ chances for development.

These pressures are pushing the security-development nexus in new directions. They highlight the need for long-term, sustainable strategies that consider economic, environmental, and human factors all at once.