Download to read offline
Uploaded byUWGlobalHealth
Grass without roots
Foreign funding to NGOs in Nicaragua has undermined their accountability to grassroots organizations and limited their ability to catalyze social change. Due to short-term funding cycles tied to donor priorities, NGOs are more accountable to foreign donors than the communities they are meant to serve. This has contributed to a façade of civil society dominated by urban NGO elites rather than empowered grassroots organizations. As a result, NGOs have had minimal policy impact and have demobilized, rather than empowered, the people. Long-term funding structures that strengthen accountability to local constituencies may help NGOs better support grassroots organizations and social movements.
More Related Content
![Role of civil society in urban planning and development [compatibility mode]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/roleofcivilsocietyinurbanplanninganddevelopmentcompatibilitymode-141227105858-conversion-gate01-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Grass without roots
- 1. Grass without Roots?ForeignFunding and Accountability in Nicaraguan Civil SocietyDean Chahim ([email protected])2009 Beyond Good Intentions FellowDevelopment Studies & Civil and Environmental Engineering
- 2. From Agents toFacilitators“Constructing civil society cannot be essentially about building up intermediary development organisations to represent the 'poor': it must be about empowering the poor and enabling them to fight for their own rights as citizens.”(Pearce 1993, emphasis added)
- 3. Civil society forhealthResistance against neoliberal policiesPressure for improvement of social servicesReduce corruption via watchdog groupsEnhance democracy?Youth at rally in Managua
- 4. MotivationIncreasing donor fundingfor “civil society”Apathy and demobilizationStructural inequalities (economic, ethnic, gender, orientation, etc.)Highly organized society in 1980sFarmer & NGO aid recipient
- 5. Key questions &OutlineHow does foreign funding affect the accountability of NGOs to the grassroots?Does conflicting accountability affect the ability of NGOs to catalyzesocial change?How does the presence of NGOs affect the viability and vitality of the grassroots?What are the alternatives?
- 6. Nicaraguan ContextHigh poverty& inequalityGDP/capita: $1160Top 10% own 41%Bottom 10% own 1.4%Weak social movements, unions, cooperatives, etc.Rampant corruptionPoorqualitysocial servicesData source: World Bank, www.data.worldbank.org
- 7. NGOs in NicaraguaExplosionafter 1990 Neoliberal reforms2009: 60% of foreign aid goes to NGOs (Hidalgo 2009)Assumed to be:Closer to “people”More innovativeApoliticalCheck to state powerNGO administrator at press conference
- 8. Paradox: Why sodemobilized?Highly unfavorable conditions for poor – stagnant or declining.BUT: 20+ years of “civil society” building NGOs(and 20 years of neoliberal policies)Coffee farmers & NGO aid recipients
- 9.
- 10. Hypothesis: “Grass withoutRoots” Increasing Foreign Funding…
- 11. Points of departure“Civilsociety” as purchasable and quantifiable NGOs as strictlynormative actorsNGOs as “apolitical” actorsNGOs able to “empower” the grassrootsNGOs able to advocate on behalf of the grassroots
- 12. Sample17 NGOsAdvocacy networks(4)Organizing (1)Human Rights (3)Democracy (1)Environmental (1)Rural Development (5)Health (2)16 locally run11 nationalMost visible NGOs in media includedNGO educator at workshop in León
- 13. MethodologyTwo month fieldstudy (July & August, 2009)Semi-structured interviews with:AdministratorsField staffVolunteer “Promoters”RecipientsObservation & field visitsAnalysis of NGO literature & local mediaVolunteers and field staff of local NGO
- 14. Characteristics of fundingVolatile& whimsicalShort-term cyclesAimed at quantitative resultsPoliticized and depoliticizingTied to donor foreign policyUSAID funded NGO compound
- 15. Accountable to who?Thestruggle for downward accountability
- 16.
- 17. Coordinadora Civil (CC):The“Voice” of Civil Society?AdvocacynetworkForeign fundedDominated by NGOsRepresentatives elect “spokesperson”Extremely prominent in mediaClaims to be “the voice” of civil society“apolitical”Headline: “Civil Coordinator condemns Mel Zelaya”
- 18. The “apolitical” paradoxHowcan advocacy for any group be “apolitical” – let alone the disempowered?Does this notion of “apolitical” restrict the impact of advocacy?
- 19. Accountable to who?Downwardaccountability?
- 20. Weak downward tiesLegitimacy from NGO “experts”
- 21. Urban elite NGOstaff
- 22. NGOs not stronglyaccountable to volunteer promotersVolunteer promoters and victim of abuse NGO representative checking on project
- 23. Structural impediments Completelydependent on foreign aidNo institutionalized downward accountabilityto constituencyCan it be responsive?Can it mobilize?
- 24. Net resultSelf-admitted minimalpolicy impact
- 25. Marginal success atNGO coordination
- 26. Springboard to politicsfor NGO staff
- 27. Façade of activecivil societyRepresentative speaking at CC assembly
- 28. Mission DriftSocial serviceor social change?
- 29. Example: IXCHENPromote anddefend women’s rights“empowerment”“we incitethe autonomy, participation, equality, and decision power of women”Create a movement for women’s rightsMore funding for: Vertical healthcare deliveryLess funding for: Women’s rights education via volunteer promotersMission PracticePre-natal care
- 30.
- 31. Pushed to servethe status quoShort-term “project” focus ignores structuresDepoliticized, token popular educationServices reduce pressure on state for policy changeCampesinochild
- 32. No Room forthe Grassroots?
- 33. 1979-1983: Mobilization &Institutional ChangeTens of thousands of volunteers mobilized+37% Literacy-50% MalariaElimination of Polio-75% Infant Diarrhea+4 years life expectancyLiteracy crusade trucksTeaching literacyPhotos and statistics from Walker, 2003
- 34. Contextual Effects ofNeoliberalism, War, and PovertyFatigue from warDistrust in corrupt institutionsNeoliberal reforms crushed unions, cooperativesIncreasing poverty: eat or organize?Rural community leaders in Somoto
- 35. Impact of NGOson GrassrootsNGOs have disproportionate voiceOvershadowed by NGO elites“Funding culture”Depoliticized & demobilizedOverly localized and project-focusedCommunity organizer in León
- 36. Policy Implications &Emerging Solutions
- 37. Summary: “Grass withoutRoots”Funding restricts downward accountabilityStructural inequality stagnantDominated by NGO elitesLimited “empowerment”Limited potential for grassroots growthMinimal policy impactDepoliticized, localized, and demobilizedUndermining of social contract?
- 38. “Illusion of Progress” Foreignfunding to NGOs does not resolve but actually may distractfrom the structural issues underlying inequality while demobilizingthose best capable of challenging them.Campesino children
- 39. Emerging solutionsLong-term donorfunding?Does not eliminate donor politicizationSocial audits?Accountability clubs?Democratic NGO structures?NGO technical support without co-optation?Ex. Zapatistas, SandinistasReturn to member funding for advocacy?Difficult - and not perfect - but great potential
- 40. Working towards Obsolescence?“Thegreatest achievement of any NGO is the ability to renew society and then be replaced by movements from that renewed society.” -Marchetti 1997 (emphasis added)
- 41.
- 42.
- 43. SourcesGugerty, Mary Kay,and Aseem Prakash. Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Hidalgo, Wendy Álvarez. "Ipade: Obtener fondos internacionales fue dificìl en 2009." La Prensa, 12 18, 2009.Marchetti, Peter E. "NGOs: RethinkingStrategy." Envío, no. 195 (October 1997).Pearce, Jenny. "NGOs and Social Change: Agents or Facilitators?" Development in Practice 3, no. 3 (October 1993): 222-227.Polakoff, Erica, and Pierre La Ramée. "Grass-Roots Organizations." In Nicaragua without Illusions: Regime Transition and Structural Adjustment in the 1990s, by Thomas W. Walker, 185-201. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1997.Walker, Thomas W. Nicaragua: Living in the Shadow of the Eagle. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003.Vázquez, Luis Serra. "La Sociedad Civil en Nicaragua." Centro de Análisis Socio Cultural, Universidad Centroamericana, Managua, 2008.
Editor's Notes
- #2 Key point: NGOs cannot be the movement
- #3 Key point: NGOs cannot be the movement
- #7 General apathySocial movements practically non-existent or co-opted by partiesWeak unions*1989: 22% of labor force2008: 8% of labor forceWeak cooperatives (only slightly improved since 2006 elections)
- #17 Note “horizontal” accountability as mentioned by Gugerty as an option via accountability clubs
- #18 Advocacy networkGoal: “citizen participation in public politics”800+ NGOs, networks, & civil society organizations (CSOs)Produces gov’tpolicy proposals“Apolitical” yet opposed to neoliberal policies
- #23 Donor buzzwords, donor politicsPoliticizationEphemeral mobilizationsDepoliticized popular educationInter-NGO rivalries
- #26 Note the air conditioning, laptop, and projector. IXCHEN’s education director and other NGO staff complained that people had come to expect amenities like these, otherwise they simply wouldn’t come. What does this mean for the grassroots – for whom these luxuries are inaccessible without foreign funding?NOTE the volatility of a movement dependent on funding like IXCHEN’s. Their network literally disappeared in one year when funding for the promoter network was cut.
- #27 Note IXCHEN’s education director’s explicit admonition that IXCHEN would not contribute to an improvement of state health services for women, even though that has her long-term goalNote US parallel on last point: many scholars and activists point to the devolution of state services to the private sector & NGOs as a key factor in decreasing the legitimacy of the state, distancing the accountability mechanisms, and fundamentally decreasing protest since those who can will exit rather than pressure for change. See Wood, Hisrchman, Skocpol, etc.
- #36 Social change will only come about when those excluded from access to wealth and power are able to make their own claims to justice, equality, rights, services, and technical support. (Pearce 1997, 273)