This statement--from the International Crisis Group's November 2012 report on the Cote d'Ivoire--seems wrong. Not 100% wrong perhaps, but deeply flawed.
The clear priority given to the promotion of strong economic growth to reduce unemployment and poverty is welcome, but it cannot be a substitute for political gestures dedicated to national reconciliation.
Perhaps economic growth cannot fully "substitute" for "political gestures" towards reconciliation, but I imagine that it is by far the more important of the two. I don't mean to understand the importance of political gestures, but I believe that statements such as these can grossly overstate their importance, and that this is a flaw in many discussion of IR theory.
File this under, "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."