Abstract
This thesis interrogates the concept of localisation in development and peacebuilding, examining why it has remained stalled in practice despite its prominence in global reform agendas. Although widely endorsed, localisation has produced limited shifts in power, decision-making, and ownership on the ground. The study asks how localisation might be reimagined from within, grounded in the lived realities and relational systems of the Solomon Islands.
Drawing on twenty-three tok stori-informed dialogues with national, provincial and local government officials, civil society representatives, youth leaders, and community practitioners, the research employs a relational and reflexive methodology informed by Pacific knowledge traditions and intersectional power analysis. This approach challenges conventional research hierarchies and recentres epistemologies of place, generating empirically grounded insights into how power, legitimacy, and authorship are negotiated within hybrid governance systems.
The findings reveal persistent asymmetries in funding and decision-making yet also highlight quiet forms of resistance, hybrid legitimacy, and everyday agency. Participants reframed localisation not as a technical reform but as a cultural and political project rooted in trust, time, and collective authority. Their perspectives show that transformative localisation can emerge from within, rather than being imposed from above.
Building on these insights, the thesis advances the Local Equity Nexus (LEN) as a Solomon Islands-informed framework for flipping localisation. LEN strengthens existing governance systems, centres intersubjective legitimacy, and redistributes authorship of development processes across four interrelated domains: Aid Architecture, Cultural and Relational Governance, Psychosocial Recognition, and Intersectional Inclusion, with Local Agency at its core.
The study offers a grounded Pacific contribution to global debates by demonstrating that localisation’s ambiguity can be generative when reframed through relational ethics and hybrid governance. It invites a shift from rhetorical reform toward relational and solidaristic practice, reimagining development and peacebuilding with and through communities.