Fluent Essays

Select two definitions of the term NGO from this week’s readings or video lectures.Compare the two definitions with respect to how well they apply to the five types of NGOs.Write your definition of the term NGO.Include an explanation of your reasoning behind your NGO definition. Be sure to substantiate your reasoning with references to the readings or video lectures.Your paper should not exceed 500 words.helpful references:World Culture in The World Polity: A Century of International Non-Governmental OrganizationBoli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1997).Grassroots Movements as Transnational Actors: Implications for Global Civil SocietyBatliwala, S. (2002).Faith in Development: Coping with ParadoxINTRAC. (2010). week1_lecture1.pptx week1_lecture2.pptx week1_lecture3.pptx Unformatted Attachment Preview Kim Moloney, Ph.D.  Government  Corporate  Media  Civil Society  Within civil society, some groups focus domestically, some focus internationally.  This course is concerned with the civil society actors who do work in other countries and in particular, developing countries. In the last half of our course, we will narrow our focus even further and focus on the problems faced by NGOs in humanitarian crises.  What is a “developing country”? We can use the World Bank’s income grouping as our guide. ▪ According to the World Bank, 75 economies are considered “high income” with a GDP per capita > $12,746 per year, see: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-andlending-groups ▪ Of these 75 economies, 31 are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). You can learn more about the OECD here: http://www.oecd.org/about/ ▪ Within the “developing country” category, there are three sub-categories. According to the World Bank, 55 economies are considered “upper-middle income” with a GDP per capita between US$4,126 to $12,745; 50 economies are considered “lower-middleincome” with a GDP per capita between US$1,046 to $4,125; and 34 economies are considered “low-income” with a GDP per capita of <$1,045.  In our readings, you will see several phrases which can be considered interchangeable with the “civil society” phrase. This includes third sector, voluntary sector, or global civil society.  Within this third sector, our authors often mix the following organizational descriptions. We will address a majority of those organizations in a moment. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Grassroots Organizations Charities Social Movements Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs)  common with USAID Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs) Humanitarian Organizations Interest Groups Pressure Groups Lobbying Organizations  Article 71 ▪ “The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organizations and, where appropriate, with national organizations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.”  Fundamental Difference Spelled-Out in the UN Charter: ▪ Higher status of “participation without vote” specialized agencies (e.g. UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF) and NGOs who might be “consulted.” ▪ NGOs should not have the same rights of participation as government observers and specialized UN agencies. ▪ In 1950, the UN clarified its stance via a “Statute on Arrangements for Consultation with Non-Government Organizations”. This statute was modified again in 1968 and in 1996.  NGO: “an independent voluntary association of people acting together on a continuous basis, for some common purposes, other than achieving government office, making money or illegal activities”  International NGO Examples: Red Cross, Transparency International, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Oxfam (www.oxfam.org) , World Vision (www.wvi.org) , Catholic Relief Services (www.crs.org) , Doctors Without Borders (www.doctorswithoutborders.org )  There are many more. According to the Union of International Associations, there are more than 58,000 NGOs, worldwide. See: http://www.uia.org 1. They are independent from government control 2. They do not seek to challenge government as a political party 3. They are self-governing (equipped to control their own activities) 4. They are organized (possess some institutional reality) 5. They do not make a profit 6. They are often voluntary (at least in part) 7. They are not engaged in criminal activities 8. They are not engaged in violent activities  Do not get this confused. An NGO is not an international organization (IO) aka international governmental organization (IGO).  An IO tends to have the following traits: ▪ Institutionalization of enduring multilateral relations; ▪ Routinized interactions by state members; ▪ Explicit methods of decision-making within organizations; ▪ Enduring bureaucratic structures; and ▪ Evidence of organizational independence from other IOs.  Formal IO Definition: “entities created with sufficient organizational structures and autonomy to provide formal, ongoing, multilateral processes of decisionmaking between states, along with the capacity to execute the collective will of their member (states)” (Diehl and Frederking, 2010, p. 15).  Do NGOs have influence? Should they have influence? What type of influence is “acceptable”? Is it “legitimate” for NGOs to have influence? Why or why not?  Are NGOs “democratic”? Should NGOs be democratic?  Who do NGOs represent? Does it matter? Should it matter?  Should we formalize our 58,000 NGOs into some global forum? What happens if we do? Do NGOs gain or lose their “cache” if they organize in such a fashion?  There is the perception that NGOs are often more “virtuous” than the state.  But your answer to the question on virtue may depend upon your perspective. Is an Islamic NGO virtuous? What about the National Rifle Association? Or the Unification Church?  And yet with all of this NGO diversity… there is a “new phenomenon – global public opinion – that is shaping the political agenda and generating a cosmopolitan set of norms and citizen demands that transcend national boundaries”… and thus, “enhancing civil society relations can also keep the United Nations in tune with global public opinion within individual countries – the ‘second superpower” – and enhance its legitimacy” (UN Report on UN Relations with NGOs, 2004, aka “Cardoso Report”)  Now that we have defined NGO, we’ll now look at the different types of civil society actors.  Do note that these “categories” are fluid and not fixed.  In fact, one can be an NGO and another category that follows.  Just know that for the purposes of our course, we’ll focus on the largest NGOs (often Western) who focus on international development and humanitarian issues.  Tends to pursue a goal which does not directly benefit themselves.  Such goal examples are human rights or environmental protection.  The goals are often subjective and pursue something abstract. ▪ Examples of Abstract Ideas in the Human Rights Arena: https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/  Example: Amnesty International is an NGO, which pursues an abstract goal (human rights) and often acts as a “pressure group” in certain environments ▪ Latest on AI and the US: https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/united-states-of-america/ ▪ Latest on AI and China: https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-thepacific/china/  Tends have a more economic focus, but not always. Committed to free enterprise. Represents businesses and engages the federal government (and the Congress) on the Commerce objectives.  The goals are often more objective, i.e. write a piece of legislation or modify a regulation.  Example: The US Chamber of Commerce is a powerful lobbying organization based in Washington DC with >3 million business members, see: https://www.uschamber.com/about-us/about-uschamber (~7 minute video)  Tend to be viewed as less hierarchical, more informal, more dynamic, more innovative than NGOs. This is the perception but the truth may be fuzzier.  Such movements, as known as grassroots movements, have no real “organization”. By organization, we mean formal structure, hierarchy, office location, paid staff, Board of Directors, methods of finance, and so on.  Social movements can evolve into formal NGOs.  Example #1: Egyptian Movement for Change (Kefaya)  Example #2: Occupy Movement  This movement (created in 2004) was central to Egypt’s “Arab Spring”. They were upset with regime selfindulgence, corruption, unemployment, and so on.  Subgroups were created like “Mothers for Change” or “Youth for Change”.  These movement actors exposed human rights violations, workplace violations, and began to protest.  As their protests expanded, the legitimacy provided to their efforts increased as more and more people joined their movement.  They took an “expose, propose, politicize” stance.  By January 2012, up a million protestors filled Cairo’s Tahrir Square.  During this period of intensive protest, Tahrir Square became like a working city. Hundreds of thousands sleeping there at night, daycare for protesting parents, volunteer doctors, creation of a radio station, and so on.  As one writer wrote, “The production and organization of a harmonious insurgent space the size of twenty football fields, filled with hundreds of thousands of people with political demands, and resisting ruthless state violence was possible through an extremely high spirit of determination, volunteerism, and cooperation with distinct anarchist overtones”.  People united against Mubarek, regardless of religion or class.  The flat organizational structure of the “organization” also help people feel they had a voice.  For more information, see: www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG778.ht ml  Often similar to a social movement but tends to be more localized. Like a social movement, its creation is more spontaneous and natural, and not led by a state or corporate actor.  Grassroots movements often help increase social movement capacity via training, canvassing, flyer creation and distribution, and so on.  Its power often arises out of its particular sense of justice, and the belief that ordinary people can influence people in powerful positions.  Its power comes from its people, and not from its money, expertise or relationship to a decision-maker.  Activities might include “Letters to the Editor” or canvassing or house parties on an issue, gathering signatures for a petition, set up information tables, phone banking, putting up posters, holding meetings, etc.  A grassroots movement can evolve into a widespread social movement or some other organizational form.  Generally focused on smaller-scale activities than a NGO.  NGOs are more likely to have a provincial or national focus. CBOs often cover a smaller area like neighborhoods or a town.  Often formed by the community it serves.  It will be much more reliant on voluntary contributions than a more established NGO. But this voluntary funding reliance is not an “always”. For example, here is a CBO in Miami-Dade County which was awarded a grant (FY13-14) to perform social service delivery within the country, see: www.miamidade.gov/grants/library/reports/fy-2013-2014-adopted-fundingcommunity-based-organizations.pdf .  Focus areas can be broad… from general welfare improvement to a neighborhood association. In the examples above, one is a food pantries for seniors aged 62 and over while the other is an organization focused on using dance as therapy.  Some are formally incorporated while others are smaller and more informal.  The relationship between faith and development is often uneasy. Donor governments are often hesitant to directly involve FBOs in their work. Sometimes the reason is legal (separation of church and state) or perhaps more informal such the reluctance to associate with a particular faith.  Due to their religious orientation, many FBOs violate the neutrality assumption of associational life.  FBOs often must be explicit on their “faith identity” and to discourage FBOs from wearing “different masks for different stakeholders”.  Examples: Catholic Relief Services (www.crs.org); Islamic Relief Worldwide (www.islamic-relief.org).  Many NGOs, CBOs, and FBOs also apply the more generalist term “charity” to their work.  Charities often focus on educational, religious, or other activities which serve the public interest or common good.  The definition of charity can vary by country. The impact is via regulation, tax treatment, practices, and so on.  You may be interested in perusing Charity Navigator, see: http://www.charitynavigator.org/ Kim Moloney, Ph.D. The following “generations” are not fixed. Nor are their time periods exclusive nor does it imply that a first-generation NGO cannot exist today. Many NGOs are “first generation” type organizations.  First Generation: Largely foreign (to the developing world) or first-world NGOs. Often service-oriented in welfare, volunteerism, and are ostensibly non-political (1860s to present). Early focus on their own countries and less on countries outside of their own. ▪ Example: Red Cross (www.ifrc.org). For the origins of the Red Cross, see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TpRymuoACs (~15 min) ▪ Example: Save the Children (www.savethechildren.org). For the origins of Save the Children, see: http://vimeo.com/1228390 (~2 min)  Second Generation: Both foreign (to the developing world) and local, developing world NGOs (late 1960s to present). Local, developing world NGOs try and overcome prior dependencies on foreign NGOs, and to help solve their culturally-specific or localityspecific needs. They might form cooperatives, organize peasants, help citizens challenge local elites. It is more “bottom-up” than the prior generation. Such groups may also become involved in more overt political campaigning.  Third Generation (again, 1960s to present) ▪ More focused on community organizing, mobilization, and coalition-building. Often influenced by Latin American liberation theology (and the Catholic Church). It is a moral reaction to poverty and social injustice. Often such NGOs worked to raise “critical consciousness” and to focus on mobilization or even overt political conflict. ▪ Many were left-leaning, but not all. You also had right-wing NGOs financed by local elites (often local businessman) who might fund, for example, an anti-communist group. ▪ Example: Left-leaning Landless Workers Movement (Brazil) or Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra (MST). At its height, this movement/organization was considered the largest in Latin America with approximately 1.5 million members (www.mst.org.br ). ▪ For MST history, see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3gKYvCR52Y (~30 min) or this combination of videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWjrTKuYsJg (~5 min) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjitiULIHPs (~10 min) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6_5G3YejPY (~10 min)  Fourth Generation (generally mid-to-late 1980s or later): ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪  In our post-1989 era, there have been efforts to coordinate all of this global NGO activity. NGOs can choose or not to become members of these associations. Examples: InterAction (www.interaction.org) in the US; NGO Council for Overseas Development Cooperation (KCOC) (www.ngokcoc.or.kr/english/index.php) in South Korea. Video on Interaction (~2 min): www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIaEcKbumX4 For a sample (only) of InterAction member projects, see: http://www.ngoaidmap.org/ (video on this project, see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsSJclRmb_w. ~4 min) Fifth Generation? (generally post-2007): ▪ ▪ NGOs focused on development aid, foreign aid, and its effectiveness. Arose out of post-Accra efforts to create space within our global aid effectiveness discussions for NGO voices. Examples: Better Aid, International Forum of National NGO Platforms (www.ongngo.org/en/sections/platforms ), Action Aid (http://www.actionaid.org/activista), Aid Watch (Australia) (http://www.aidwatch.org.au/about/what-we-do/ or even local developing country based groups like PGAE in Vietnam (http://www.ngocentre.org.vn/node/6441)  Sixth Generation? (post-2000 or so) ▪ Concurrent to the fifth generation is a separate group of NGOs which focus on keeping themselves (as NGOs) accountable. ▪ Examples: NGO Monitor (www.ngomonitor.org/index.php); Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org) or even initiatives like the International NGO Accountability Charter, see: www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org (video ~1 minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzb5wi ir--w) Kim Moloney, Ph.D.  To link this third sector or civil society to global governance, we should ask whether and how NGOs influence global decisions and policies. ▪ Identify problems and globalization consequences that might otherwise be ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪  ignored; Articulate new values and norms to guide and constrain international practice; Building transnational alliance that advocate for otherwise ignored alternatives; Altering international institutions to respond to unmet needs; Disseminating social innovations that have international applications; Negotiating resolutions to transnational conflicts and disagreements; and Mobilizing resources and acting directly on important public problems. As our global civil society spaces become more populated, are we creating a transnational civil society or global civil society capable of influencing our evolving global governance arena? Note: The following potential answers are in no particular order. 1. Spread of information technology and global communication. 2. Recognition of new forms of organizations… from our community-based organizations to those with transnational foci. 3. Late 1800s and early 1900s creation and then later, spread of labor union movements worldwide. Tied to industrialization. 4. Greater interest in environmental advocacy, awareness of climate change, impact of poor environmental policies since Stockholm (1972) and strengthened with Rio (1992). 5. Ending of multiple authoritarian and non-democratic regimes in the developing countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. 6. Permanence of borders are challenged by increased global movements, global trade, and exposures to new ideas. 7. In many “lost decade” economies, the state began to cede control of its service provision to civil society. 8. In many countries, increased donor country interest in development (whether for altruistic or strategic purposes) has led to new NGOs and CBOs in the recipient country.  In the Matthews article, she wrote about how in the early 1990s, the UN Centre for Human Rights had a smaller budget than Amnesty International. ▪ In 2014-2015, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will have a US$173.5 million budget (see: www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/FundingBudget.aspx) while Amnesty International’s Voluntary Income for 2013 was GBP£58,437,000 (~US$98,865,000) (see: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/amnesty_international_combined_finan cial_statements_2013.pdf). ▪ AI is just one NGO. There are others around the world. ▪ What might this say about potential NGO power within our global governance arena?  Or examples of NGOs who influence trade negotiations (from NAFTA, forward)  Or NGOs who were formally invited by the Australian government to participate in the 2014 G20 Meetings  Or UN conferences (or world summits) which would be considered illegitimate if they did not involve successive and deep consultations with interested civil society actors before, during, and after the UN conferences. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Example: One of the first was the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The 1992 UN conference set the stage for later UN-NGO interactions at the UN World Conferences. Over 2400 NGO representatives attend this 1992 conference. At the parallel NGO Forum, there were 17,000 participants. While 180 governments agreed to the 1992 Rio Declaration (http://habitat.igc.org/agen ... Purchase answer to see full attachment