Fluent Essays

Southern NGOPost a description of your assigned NGO’s dependency or double dependency along with an explanation of at least two consequences or challenges your NGO faces because of these dependencies. Support your post by referring to specific passages in the Brehm (2004), Elbers & Arts (2011), and Lister (2000) articles. Your initial post should not exceed 250 words.Helpful references:Autonomy or Dependence? North–South NGO PartnershipsI chose this article because the author examines the relationship between Northern and Southern NGOs. Brehm, V. M. (2004).http://cercle.lu/download/partenariats/INTRAC1autonomy1or1dependence.pdfKeeping Body and Soul Together: Southern NGOs’ Strategic Responses to Donor ConstraintsI 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. Elbers, W. & Arts, B. (2011).Power in Partnership? An Analysis of an NGO’s Relationships with its PartnersI chose this article because the authors analyze the relationships between NGOs and donors, distinguishing between organizational partnerships and individual relationships. Lister, S. (2000). week2_lecture1.pptx week2_lecture2.pptx week2_lecture3.pptx Unformatted Attachment Preview WHOSE ACCOUNTABILITY? NGOS, DEMOCRACY & DEMOCRATIZATION NGOS & ACCOUNTABILITY K i m M o l o n ey, Ph.D. NGOs & Global G o v e r n a nc e RECALL: NGO “GENERATIONS”  F i r s t G e n e r a t i o n : L a r g e l y fo r e i g n ( to t h e d e v e l o p i n g wo r l d ) o r fi r s t - wo r l d N G O s . O f te n s e r v i c e - o r i e n t e d i n we l f a r e , v o l u n te e r i s m , a n d a r e o s te n s i b l y n o n - p o l i t i c a l ( 1 8 6 0 s to p r e s e n t ) . E x a m p l e s : Re d C r o s s ; S ave t h e C h i l d r e n  S e c o n d G e n e r a t i o n : B ot h fo r e i g n ( to t h e d e v e l o p i n g wo r l d ) a n d l o c a l , d e v e l o p i n g wo r l d N G O s ( l a te 1 9 6 0 s to p r e s e n t ) . L o c a l , d e v e l o p i n g wo r l d N G O s t r y a n d ov e r c o m e p r i o r d e p e n d e n c i e s o n fo r e i g n N G O s , a n d to h e l p solve their culturally -specific or locality -specific n e e d s . M o r e “ b ot to m - u p ” t h a n t h e p r i o r g e n e r a t i o n . S u c h g r o u p s m ay a l s o b e c o m e i nv o l v e d i n m o r e ove r t p o l i t i c a l c a m p a i g n i n g .  T h i r d G e n e r a t i o n : Fo c u s e d o n c o m m u n i t y organizing, mobilization, and coalition -building. O f te n i n f l u e n c e d by L a t i n A m e r i c a n l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g y. I t i s a m o r a l r e a c t i o n to p ov e r t y a n d s o c i a l i n j u s t i c e . O f te n s u c h N G O s wo r ke d to r a i s e “ c r i t i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s ” a n d to fo c u s o n m o b i l i z a t i o n o r e v e n ov e r t p o l i t i c a l c o n fl i c t . E x a m p l e : L e f t - l e a n i n g L a n d l e s s Wo r ke r s M o v e m e n t ( M ov i m e n t o d o s Tr a b a l h a d o r e s S e m Te r r a o f B r a z i l ) RECALL: NGO “GENERATIONS”  Fo u r t h G e n e r a t i o n : I n o u r p o s t - 1 9 8 9 e r a , t h e r e h av e b e e n e f f o r t s to c o o r d i n a te a l l o f t h i s g l o b a l N G O a c t i v i t y t h r o ug h c o o r d i n a te d N G O c o u n c il s. E x a m pl e s : I n te r a c t i o n ( U S ) ; N G O C o u n c i l f o r O v e r s e a s D ev e l o p m e n t C o o p e r a t i o n ( Ko r e a )  F i f t h G e n e r a t i o n : G e n e r a l l y p o s t - 2 0 07 , t h e s e a r e N G O s f o c us e d o n d ev e l o p me n t a i d , f o r ei g n a i d , a n d i t s e f f e c t iv e n e s s . A r o s e o u t o f p o s t - Ac c r a e f f o r t s to c r e a te s p a c e w i t h i n o u r g l o b a l a i d e f f e c t i ve n e s s d i s c us s i o n s f o r N G O v o i c e s . E x a m p l e s : B et te r A i d , I n te r n a t i o n al Fo r um o f N a t i o n al N G O P l a t fo r ms  Sixth Generation: Generally post-2000 and/or c o n c ur r e n t to t h e f i f t h g e n e r a t i o n i s a s e p a r a te g r o up o f N G O s w h i c h f o c us o n ke e p i n g t h e N G O a c c o un t a b l e . E x a m p l e : C h a r i t y N av i g a to r ( U S ) . ASSOCIATIONAL REVOLUTION OUTPUT? If the last 25 year s, we have witnessed a dramatic rise in the number and type of NGOs, then what has been the result?  De Tocquevillian Per spective : NGO proliferation strengthens civil society and democracy by improving interest ar ticulation and representation. ver sus  Gramscian Per spective : NGO proliferation simply institutionalizes existing patterns of political contestati on between the state and civil society and within civil society, retaining class -based problems. ASSOCIATIONAL REVOLUTION OUTPUT? versus  Other: NGO proliferation simply encourages (or institutionalizes) the neocolonial order as ar ticulated by the dominant pro -democratic objectives of the Western n a t i o n s w h o c r e a t e d o u r p o s t - W W I I o r d e r. ▪ For the observer who sees neocolonialism, this neocolonialism from West comes through NGOs, foreign aid, foreign direct investment, government relations, and a desire for good governance and economic development. ▪ For the observer who sees neocolonialism, this neocolonialism from China comes through foreign direct investment, government relations, an encouragement of economic development, and a purposefully non -committal China on Africa’s governance problems. ▪ F o r m o r e o n C h i n a ’ s v i e w , s e e : w w w . f o c a c . o r g / e n g / l t da / dw j b z j j h y s / t 9 5 4 2 9 6 . h t m ( 5 t h M i n i s t e r i a l C o n f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Ch i n a a n d A f r i c a , 2 0 1 2 ) a n d Ch i n a ’ s A f r i c a po l i c y ( 2 0 0 6 ) , s e e : w w w . f o c a c . o r g / e n g / z t / z g d f z z c w j / t 2 3 0 4 7 9 . h t m ( i n pa r t i c u l a r , P a r t I I I o n “ Ch i n a ’ s A f r i c a n P o l i c y ” ) DEFINING ACCOUNTABILIT Y  Accountability lies in… ▪ (1) the actors’ commitments to each other; ▪ (2) the substantive character of those commitments; and ▪ (3) the means that the other has to ensure that those commitments are honored. Some commitments are hierarchical between principal and agent with agent being accountable to the principal; others more mutual with contracts that say what each side should do.  We can look at NGO Accountability in two ways: 1. NGO Accountability vis-à-vis Democratic Accountability; and 2. NGO Accountability vis-à-vis Institutional Accountability WHY NGO ACCOUNTABILIT Y PUSH? 1. Declining worldwide trust in governments as number of NGOs has risen. 2. Increased influence of NGOs within developed countries, with developing countries, and in their interaction with global governance. 3. Increased influence of donor government funding of NGOs. 4. This has given rise to questions of “representation, accountability to beneficiaries and suppor ter s, quality and ef fectiveness of their programmes, financial management and governances” (Warren and Lloyd, 2009, p. 4) 5. Questions about whether NGOs should be accountable to their donor s or the developing countr y governments and people whom they ser ve? To whom is the NGO formally accountabl e? To whom is the NGO morally accountable? WHY NGO ACCOUNTABILIT Y PUSH? 6. Questions about from where NGOs get their money and the implications of that money on what NGOs can or cannot do, to whom they are accountable, and whom they represent? 7. To whom do NGOs represent? What values do they represent? 8. Need to increase public trust of NGOs. 9. Pre-empt government regulation or complement increased government interest in NGO regulation. 10. Desire for my NGOs to increase their accountability and thus, their legitimacy and credibility. T YPES OF NGO ACCOUNTABILIT Y SCHEMES  For sense of the number s and types of NGO self regulator y initiatives around the world, see: www.oneworldtrust.org/c soproject  We will look at the INGO Accountability Char ter (2014) which closely represents the “Peer Cer tification” model. From: www.coddeconduitaong.ro/resurse/CSO_self_regulation.pdf (Warren & Lloyd, One World Trust, 2009, pp. 5-6) T YPES OF NGO ACCOUNTABILIT Y SCHEMES From: www.coddeconduitaong.ro/resurse/CSO_self_regulation.pdf (Warren & Lloyd, One World Trust, 2009, pp. 5-6) INTERNATIONAL NGO ACCOUNTABILIT Y CHARTER (2005) (2014 UPDATE)  This Charter was first written in 2005.  Let’s take a look at the text of this Charter (2014 update): http://www.ingoaccountabilit ycharter.org/wpcms/wpcontent/uploads/INGO_CHAR TER_web.pdf INTERNATIONAL NGO ACCOUNTABILIT Y CHARTER (2005) (2014 UPDATE) Accountability Commitments (2014) 1. Respect for Human Rights 2. Independence 3. Transparency 4. Good Governance 5. Responsible Advocacy 6. Participation 7. Diversity / Inclusion 8. Environmental Responsibility 9. Ethical Fundraising CHARTER ACCOUNTABLE INGOS  To d a te ( S e p 2 01 4 ) , 2 3 I N G O s a r e f u l l m e m b e r s o f t h e I N G O C h a r te r p r o j ec t . To b e a f u l l m e m b e r, yo u r N G O m u s t w r i te a n a c c o un t a b i l it y r e p o r t w h i c h i s t h e n a p p rov e d by a n I n d e p e n de n t Rev i ew Pa n e l . Tw e n t y - o n e o f t h o s e I N G O s a r e l o c a te d o n t h e r i g h t ➔  A n o t h e r t w o I N G O s a r e “A f fi l ia te s ” : I s l a m i c Wo r l d Re l i e f a n d Te r r e d e s H o m m e s I n te r n a t i o n al Fe d e r a t i o n .  T h e c u r r e n t l i s t o f I R P r ev i ewe r s ( t h i s i s t h e “ p e e r ” p a r t ) m ay b e f o un d h e r e : w w w. i n g oa c c o un t a b i li t yc h a r ter. o r g / h o me / r ev i ew - p r o c e s s / i n d e p e n d e n t- r e v i e w - p a n el / Driving Performance “I have become convinced by the work I have seen on the Charter as a member of the Independent Review Panel that appropriate standard-setting is a feasible way of helping to drive up performance in the CSO world.” Richard Manning, former Chair of the OECDs DAC NGO CHALLENGES WHEN THEY INTERACT WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE EFFECTIVE LINKAGES?: CITIZENS, NGOS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS  We will return to this topic during our World Bank week. However, this question is also important within the context of whether NGOs can be considered representative or illustrative vehicles for expressing citizen preferences before international organizations?  Remember… there is a dif ference between NGOs and International Organizations … INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOS) NGO: “an independent voluntary association of people acting together on a continuous basis, for some common purpose, other than achieving government office, making money or illegal activities” Key NGO Traits  They are independent from government control  They do not seek to challenge government as a political party  They are self-governing (equipped to control their own activities)  They are organized (possess some institutional reality)  They do not make a profit  They are often voluntary (at least in part)  They are not engaged in criminal activities  They are not engaged in violent activities International NGO Examples : Red Cross, Transparency International, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Oxfam, World Vision, etc. EFFECTIVE LINKAGES?: CITIZENS, NGOS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS  Traditional link between citizen and government and then to an international organization (IO) is weak for citizens with a complaint.  Instead, the relationship is of ten via an unelected state technocrat or diplomat with responsibility for interacting with an international organizations.  Argument: Citizens look to global civil society organizations to help the citizen obtain greater democratic accountability from international organizations like the United Nations, World Bank , etc.  The mid-1980s rise of NGO interaction with IOs has led many IOs to create mechanisms for discussion between themselves and the NGOs whether through special newsletters, transparent websites, and so on.  But…. IOs are new at this liaising and for many IOs, this is of ten a secondar y activity focused more upon reaching Nor thern, urban, elite, English-speaking civil society professionals. NGOS CHANGING GLOBAL GOVERNANCE? 1. Transparency: ▪ 2. Example: Brazilian NGOs pressured the World Bank to publish its Country Assistance Strategies in the mid-1990s. Policy Monitoring and Review: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Track progress on Millennium Development Goals Monitor government compliance to UN human rights conventions (Amnesty International) Expose violations by under-regulated corporate actors; and/or Focus on class/race/age problems overlooked by IOs. 3. Pur suit of Redress: Focuses on creating auditors, ombudspersons, parliaments, cour ts to focus on the global governing arena. Or do public “trials” of global governance of ficials. 4. Promoting Formal Accountability Mechanisms ▪ ▪ Example: French NGOs pressuring its government to write an annual report on French interaction with the international financial institutions. Example: Creation of the World Bank’s Inspection Panel. NGO CHALLENGES WHEN THEY INTERACT WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE  Resources  Networks  Of ficial Attitudes  Mass media  Political Culture  Civil Society Accountability NGO CHALLENGES IN THEIR INTERACTION WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE  R e s o u rc e s ▪ Need staff, computers, travel budgets, supplies, etc. While telecommunication advances make it easier, global travel is expensive. Poorer countries may not have cheaper electricity or don’t have computers. ▪ Wealthier NGOs like Oxfam or other endowed NGOs are often headquartered in northern countries, professional classes, English speakers, etc. Even if had resources no guarantee of democratic accountability or they gained at loss of autonomy. Thus they become voices of, not watchdogs over, agencies, political parties, etc.  N et w o rk s ▪ If NGOs network, then resources shortages be partially overcome. Simply by joining Transparency International, poor country NGOs get tools for improving local country transparency. Can also do cross-sectoral networks on debt, and so on. ▪ Yet at the same time, very effective networking requires resources that many don’t have, or sometimes the networks don’t have mechanism to establish common platform, and then because we are all different, they must first negotiate compromises. ▪ Or in some cases, the local offices can be viewed as mouthpieces of the home NGO. NGO CHALLENGES IN THEIR INTERACTION WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE  Po l i t ic a l C u l t ur e ▪ Canada could use taxpayers fund to bring southern NGOs to a conference challenging the FTAA. ▪ But in Qatar, which hosted a W TO meeting, such things could not be done. ▪ Some political cultures have a history of citizen activism, others a history of deference toward governing authorities. ▪ Or active citizenship is disengaged by consumerism and entertainment. ▪ Or if in a country where government is viewed corrupt, then not only is the government distrustful of the NGOs but the NGOs can distrust government or even the citizens distrust the NGOs. NGO CHALLENGES IN THEIR INTERACTION WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE  Mass Media ▪ Quantity of attention can attract an audience interested in advocating about global governance accountability. ▪ But also the quality of the mass media attention also matters. If instead more sensationalized or not create full pictures. ▪ If the media seems too linked to “status quo”, alternative sources arise via blogs, Twitter, and so on.  O f f i c ia l A t t i t ud e s ▪ Relationship with ruling authorities. Or at times, states can use CSOs are public relations tools or the state may only ally with the sympathetic ones. ▪ Yet few, if any, states require CSO liaisons to either (a) be part of traditional international civil servant evaluations; or (b) part of the government’s duties when interacting with international organizations. NGO CHALLENGES IN THEIR INTERACTION WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE  Civil Society Accountability ▪ “If CSOS are going to deal with democracy issues, then they also how to have a self -critical reflection on how they work themselves” ▪ Or “before you point your fingers, be sure your hands are clean” (Bob Marley and “Judge Not” song, see (~2 min): www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHkt3iatFcs ). ▪ While advocating for increased accountability in others, many NGOs have also been accused of having limited accountability mechanisms. ▪ Typical Faults: The board can consist of friends, some paid; of ficer elections with low turnout; infrequent general meetings; minimal reports written about their work; and weak financial reports. Or among groups which operate without a clear constituency or hold of fice for years and years and/or are self -elected. ▪ But when NGOs ignore this accountability issues, it can compromise CSO potential to challenge global governance. ▪ NGOs say too expensive or diverts from real problems of accountability of countries. ▪ Others might ask why should unaccountable civil society actors have the right to influence globalization? QUESTIONS WHICH ARISE WHEN NGOS INTERACT WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE  Citizens want more than legitimacy of the NGOs but also an ability to participate democratically within a NGO… similar to citizen interaction with governments. But is this (and should it be) possible?  NGOs, like governments, must earn public trust, have customer service, and be responsive.  To whom does a NGO represent? Should decisions that af fect many interests and often billions of people be shaped or blocked by their actions? QUESTIONS WHICH ARISE WHEN NGOS INTERACT WITH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE  With external funding dependency, do NGOs develop a stake in government policies and thus, lose independence?  Questions raised include dependency on external funding, reliance on partnership and alliance through information sharing, importance of learning from clients, maintain ethic of service.  Operationally can help selves by reducing collusion, increasing self-reliance, and by increasing accountability mechanisms and better internal governance. DOUBLE DEPENDENCY K i m M o l o n ey, Ph.D. NGOs & Global G o v e r n a nc e DEPENDENCY? DOUBLE DEPENDENCY? AUTONOMY VERSUS DEPENDENCY Autonomy versus Dependency, defined  Autonomy: The local NGO retains the freedom to determine its own strategic direction and without pressure from external actors/donors/NGOs. When we consider the traditional conception of a more powerful “North” and less powerful “South”, an NGO that is autonomous is a horizontal “equal” to NGOs/donors elsewhere in the South and the North.  Dependent: The local NGO is locked into ver tical relationships with the donor. Less freedom to determine its own strategic direction. EXPLAINING DEPENDENCY AND DOUBLE DEPENDENCY I t i s a t h r e e - way r e l a t i o n s hi p . D e p e n d e n c y o r D o u b le D e p e n d e n c y Donor NNGO SNGO  O b j e c t iv e : I m p l e m e n t P r o g r am o r P r o j e c t - - Ve r s u s - P a r t n e r s hi p KO I C A  → N N G O  → S N G O  O b j e c t iv e : I m p l e m e n t P r o g r am o r P r o j e c t  W h a t h a p p e n s ? W h a t s h o u l d h a p p e n ? W hy ? WHY PARTNERSHIP OBJECTIVE?  Assumption : Par tner ships are ideal. If done well, a donor -NGO or donor SNGO or donor-NGO -SNO par tner ship would leave “a more autonomous, empowered and sustainable local NGO sector, which will have the additional ef fect of strengthening ‘civil society’”  Par tner ship can be mean considered from an organizational sense of “strategic alliances” “sharing of resources and responsibilities” to meet a “shared objective”.  Par tner ship can also be more idealistic such as “joint commitment to long term action, shared responsibility, reciprocal obligation, mutuality, balance of power” and so on.  Nor th-South par tner ships were supposed to increase legitimacy and the transparency of both NNGO and SNGOs. They are supposed to encourage mutual trust and shared owner ship. The SNGO is supposed to have the local knowledge, local context, local culture, and as impor tantly, the staying power longer af ter a NNGO has lef t the scene. The SNGO actually must live there. The NNGO is just passing through. If you involve the SNGO the idea is that there will be long -term sustainability. WHY DONORS “PARTNER” WITH SNGOS?  Less focus on the donor s doing the “operations ”.  Instead, encouraging local SNGOs to do the development work .  Not unrelated to general push by donor community (since 2002) to increase “development ef fectiveness” and have a results -oriented focus.  Less focus on project -based work . IOW less focus on piecemeal or one of f projects. This doe ... Purchase answer to see full attachment