The first section looks at the implications of conflict for aid effectiveness and selectivity. We argue that, while aid is generally effective in promoting growth and by implication reducing poverty, it is more effective in promoting growth in post-conflict countries. We then consider the implications of these findings for donor selectivity models and for assessment of donor performance in allocating development aid among recipient countries. We argue that, while further research on aid effectiveness in post-conflict scenarios is needed, existing selectivity models should be augmented with, inter alia, post-conflict variables, and donors should be evaluated on the basis, inter alia, of the share of their aid budgets allocated to countries experiencing post-conflict episodes. We also argue for aid delivered in the form of projects to countries with weak institutions in early post-conflict years. The second section focuses on policies for donors operating in conflict-affected countries. We set out five of the most important principles: (1) focus on broad-based recovery from war; (2) to achieve a broad-based recovery, get involved before the conflict ends; (3) focus on poverty, but avoid ‘wish lists’; (4) help to reduce insecurity so aid can contribute more effectively to growth and poverty reduction; and (5) in economic reform, focus on improving public expenditure management and revenue mobilisation. The third section concludes by emphasising the fact that there is no hard or fast dividing line between ‘war’ and ‘peace’ and that it may take many years for a society to become truly ‘post’-conflict’. Donors, therefore, need to prepare for the long haul.