The Politics of Measurement in the Age of Localization: Comparing “Top-Down” versus “Bottom-Up” Metrics of Reconciliation

Abstract How should we measure reconciliation after conflict when trying to achieve localization? This article examines a fundamental tension in international aid: the push for localization—the idea that aid is more effective when it is driven by communities themselves—versus the growing reliance on global metrics to assess progress. While international organizations and national governments use Global Performance Indicators and similar standardized metrics to evaluate complex phenomena like reconciliation, these “top-down” approaches often clash with the realities of the goals of localization. Using Colombia’s peace process as a case study, we compare two national-level, standardized reconciliation barometers with a subnational, community-generated barometer. We find that standardized top-down indicators facilitate comparison, but often fail to capture local priorities. In contrast, bottom-up metrics generated through participatory methods provide context-specific insights that reflect more of the complexity of everyday experiences. At stake is a broader struggle over power in the peacebuilding field. While localization aims to center communities in aid processes, the proliferation of global and national metrics reinforces the authority of international and state institutions, shaping which voices and experiences count in reconciliation efforts. This dynamic ultimately hinders the effective localization of aid, as top-down metrics prioritize institutional agendas over local needs.