Fluent Essays

Post an initial statement that explains the perspectives of the NNGOs, Kazakh NGOs, and the Kazakh government. Address the following topics:Explain whether it is possible for either the NNGO or the SNGO to be apolitical.Explain the challenges of the NGO as described in Luong & Weinthal (1999).Explain what you think donors and the involved NGOs should do to improve the relationships discussed in the article.Your initial post should not exceed 400 words.References:The NGO Paradox: Democratic Goals and Non-Democratic Outcomes in KazakhstanI chose this article because the authors explore the effects of donor conditions on SNGOs and present strategies that can be used to cope with the limitations. Luong, P. J., & Weinthal, E. (1999). week2_lecture4.pptx Unformatted Attachment Preview KAZAKHSTAN “NORTHERN” NGOS & “SOUTHERN” NGOS PROBLEMATIC LANGUAGE: NORTH? SOUTH? WEST? EAST?  There is no conceptually clean “Global North” or “Global S o u t h ” j u s t a s t h e r e i s n ow c o n c e p t u a l l y c l e a n “ We s t ” o r “East”.  T h e r e i s a c a te g o r y o f c o u n t r i e s w h i c h a r e O E C D c o u n t r i e s ( s e e L e c t u r e f r o m We e k 1 ) a n d a m a j o r i t y o f c o u n t r i e s w h i c h a r e n ot ye t O E C D m e m b e r s .  Not all OECD members sit in the geographic “North” on t h e wo r l d m a p . Au s t r a l i a a n d N e w Z e a l a n d a r e n ot a b l e examples.  N ot a l l O E C D m e m b e r s a r e p a r t o f w h a t i s c o n s i d e r e d t h e “ We s t ” ( l a r g e l y C h r i s t i a n , we a l t hy, d e m o c r a t i c , m a r ke t l i b e r a l ) . J a p a n a n d Ko r e a a r e n ot a b l e e x a m p l e s .  S o m e O E C D m e m b e r s a r e c o n s i d e r e d p owe r f u l b u t n ot p a r t o f e i t h e r t h e O E C D o r t h e We s t . Ru s s i a i s a n example.  S o m e n o n - O E C D m e m b e r s h ave t h e s e c o n d ( o r wo r l d ’ s l a r g e s t , d e p e n d i n g o n d e fi n i t i o n ) l a r g e s t c o u n t r y b u t a r e n ot p a r t o f t h e O E C D o r t h e We s t . C h i n a i s a n e x a m p l e .  S o m e n o n - O E C D m e m b e r s a r e d e m o c r a t i c , m a r ke t - l i b e r a l a n d C h r i s t i a n b u t a r e n ot we a l t hy e n o u g h to b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a n O E C D c o u n t r y. PROBLEMATIC LANGUAGE: NORTH? SOUTH? WEST? EAST? Despite such problems, we need a way to distinguish between … those NGOs which are located in the developed world and frequently interact with their home government’s donor agencies and … those NGOs which are located in developing countries, have a government which is not a donor, and often receive foreign aid from other governments.  For simplicity purposes, let us call the first group “ Northern NGOs (NNGOs)” and the second group “ Southern NGOs (SNGO)” while acknowledging that although Japan and Korea have Korean or Japanese NGOs (NNGOs) who fit our definition, most academic literature has focused on NNGOs outside of either country. EXAMPLE: KAZAKHSTAN  The Kazakhstan case focuses on environmental NGOs.  Article Finding: LNGOs (Local NGOs from Kazakhstan) while growing in number due to Western funding concurrently faced a political system which was increasingly more restrictive. Instead of encouraging LNGOs to advocate for environmental protection in a country with multiple oil deposits and other environmental concerns, the reality was that WNGOs (Western NGOs), donor organizations, foreign oil companies, and foreign companies were hindering rather than helping LNGOs encourage environmental protection.  Prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan had few environmental movements.  With the Cold War over and the Kazakh people freed to create their own state, grassroots environmental movements would be the first to take advantage.  The fall of the Soviet Union allowed Western NGOS, previously unable to easily contact LNGOs, an opportunity to increase their contact and as a consequence, to funnel monies to the LNGOs. KAZAKH EXPERIENCE: LNGOS  W i t h t h e f a l l o f t h e S o v i et U n i o n , t h e r e w a s a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e s i z e ( l a r g e - s c a l e ) p r o te s t m o v em e n t s w i t h a n i n c r e a s e i n s m a l l e r s i z e N G O s .  L N G O s b e c a m e a p o l i t ic a l .  L N G O s f o c us e d o n g l o b al i s s u e s , n o t l o c a l ( e . g . n o t e n c o u r a g in g s t r o n g e r l o c al e nv i r o n m e n t al p r o te c t io n s o r l o c al l y p r o te s t in g o i l d ev e l o p me n t a c t i v i t i e s )  L N G O s f o c us e d o n g l o b al i s s u e s t h a t r e s o n a te w i t h d o n o r s ( e . g . b i o d i v e r s i t y o r d e s e r t i fic a t i o n ) a n d n o t l o c a l i s s u e s . B y e m b r ac i n g g l o b a l i s s u e s , t h ey f e l t m o r e a b l e to a t t r a c t f o r e i g n f u n d i n g . Fu n d i n g l e d to c o n t i n u e d L N G O e x i s te nc e i n Kazakhstan.  L N G O s f o c us e d o n e nv i r o n m e n t al i n f o r ma t i o n / e d uca t i o n , n o t a d v o c a c y.  L N G O s f o c us e d o n g r a n t - m a k i n g a n d n et w o r k i n g , n o t a d v o c a c y. KAZAKH EXPERIENCE: WNGOS  W N G O s f u n d e d L N G O s v i a s m a l l g r a n t s / tec h ni c a l s u p p o r t .  W N G O s h e l p w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t io n / d i s s em i n a t i o n .  W N G O s te a c h d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g te c h n i q u e s to L N G O s to h e l p c o m m u n i t ie s a d d r e s s t h e i r o w n e nv i r o nm e n t a l p r o b l em s .  W N G O s te a c h h o w to w r i te g r a n t s a n d c r e a te n et w o rk s . Key O b s e r va t i o n : L N G O s w e r e m o r e f o c us e d o n e d u c a t io n a n d o u t r e ac h g l o b a l ly t h a n a ny a c t i v i s m a t h o m e . I f yo u f o c us o n a n i s s u e l i ke b i o d i v e r s i t y, yo u c a n g a i n f u n d i ng f r o m a d o n o r, s t i l l t a l k e nv i r o nm e n t a l i s s u e s , b u t p e r h a p s av o i d a c o n f r o n t a t io n w i t h l o c a l p o l i t ic a l e l i te . O r i f c r i t i ca l o f g o v e r n m e n t p o l i cy, t h e n t h r o ug h a n ew s l et te r f o r t h e i n te r n a t io n a l c o m mun i t y r a t h e r t h a n d i r ec t l y to t h e e l i te . O b s e r ve : D e m o cr a c y a s “ w o rk i n p r o g r e s s ” ; to p - 2 0 o i l p r o d u c e r w o r l d w id e ; s t r a te g ic p o s i t i o n b et w e e n Ru s s i a a n d C h i n a ; c o n fl i c t a m o n g e nv i r o nm e n t a l p r o tec t i o n a n d e n c o u r a g in g o i l p r o d uc t io n f o r e c o n o m ic g r o w t h a n d h o p e t h a t o i l r ev e n u e s a r e u s e d f o r e c o n o m ic g r o w t h . COUNTERPRODUCTIVE? OR NO?  Are these WNGO and LNGO efforts counterproductive ? ▪ Author says “yes” because… ▪ (a) focusing on biodiversity is not solving local environmental problems, local water or sewage problems; ▪ (b) WNGO funding has not lead to an increase in civil society because many of the newer LNGOs have few members, have no wide political support, and thus, must be reliant on donor funds. Without a membership paying dues, how can you survive? ▪ In other words, is local political support not necessary if your LNGO is successful at writing grants or getting funding. Who really supports your goals ? ▪ Think about this also in the context of my oft -mentioned case on AusAID funding for the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre.  There was a spinning off of new NGOs but their sizes are getting smaller and smaller.  The leaders are within the same network of people. There is actually a perverse incentive: why expand your membership if in doing so, it dilutes your few resources?  New groups are created as each leader hopes to get access to the funds. In other words, environmentalism not being used to improve the environmental but instead to obtain donor resources.  So are the NGOs there to strengthen or deepen civil society (as hoped for by the WNGOs )? Or to create new groups in the hopes of start -up funds? Where is environmental protection in all of this? KAZAKH LNGO PROBLEMS Broader LNGO Problems 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Local distrust, a remnant of Soviet -era between government and citizenr y. Legal code restricting NGO political activity but then saying that citizens have right to engage on environmental activities. Limited democratization Restrictions on press freedom Restrictions on political mobilization.  Do local political problems reinforce LNGO dependency on foreign donor s? Do these local political problems explain why LNGOs desire foreign access?  In addition, might donor s provide the funds that local Kazakh member s do not provide, people unused to paying member ship fees, and/or do not have the funds to do so?  Might the impor tance of the Kazakh energy sector also par tially explain why Kazakh LNGOs are hesitant to encourage a “green” energy sector? WNGO PROBLEMS IN KAZAKHSTAN Broader WNGO problems 1. 2. 3. Do WNGOS reflect their donor s? USAID → WNGO → LNGO. Are the WNGO programs constrained by the goals and objective of USAID? Even if the WNGO was not funded by a foreign donor (USAID or other wise), will the WNGO face Kazakh -speci fic constraints in encouraging environmental reform? WNGOs face uphill battle for public interest and space when foreign corporate interests more prominent than NGO interests . This can include when foreign companies hold local public meetings (a traditional NGO strategy) to discuss their work and to gain suppor t. From the WNGO and LNGO per spective, such meetings can be considered as co -opting environmental NGOs.  Overall, and despite donor, WNGO, ideas, the countr y’s environmental and social problems were less mediated through LNGOs or domestic institutions as in a democracy than international actor s and organizations.  If true, then what is our normative judgment? Is this OK? Why or why not? ... Purchase answer to see full attachment