Post on 31-Oct-2014
description
GRASS WITHOUT ROOTS?Foreign Funding and Accountability in Nicaraguan Civil Society
Dean Chahim (dchahim@uw.edu)
2009 Beyond Good Intentions Fellow
Development Studies & Civil and Environmental Engineering
“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)
FROM AGENTS TO FACILITATORS
CIVIL SOCIETY FOR HEALTH
Resistance against neoliberal policies
Pressure for improvement of social services
Reduce corruption via watchdog groups
Enhance democracy? Youth at rally in Managua
MOTIVATION
Increasing donor funding for “civil society”
Apathy and demobilization
Structural inequalities (economic, ethnic, gender, orientation, etc.)
Highly organized society in 1980s
Farmer & NGO aid recipient
KEY QUESTIONS & OUTLINE
How does foreign funding affect the accountability of NGOs to the grassroots?
Does conflicting accountability affect the ability of NGOs to catalyze social change?
How does the presence of NGOs affect the viability and vitality of the grassroots?
What are the alternatives?
NICARAGUAN CONTEXT
High poverty & inequality GDP/capita: $1160 Top 10% own 41% Bottom 10% own
1.4% Weak social
movements, unions, cooperatives, etc.
Rampant corruption
Poor quality social services
Data source: World Bank, www.data.worldbank.org
NGOS IN NICARAGUA
Explosion after 1990 Neoliberal reforms
2009: 60% of foreign aid goes to NGOs (Hidalgo 2009)
Assumed to be: Closer to “people” More innovative Apolitical Check to state
power
NGO administrator at press conference
PARADOX: WHY SO DEMOBILIZED?
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
“Civil society”?
HYPOTHESIS: “GRASS WITHOUT ROOTS”
Weak & disconnected civil society
Reduces downward
accountability
Emphasizes social service
over social change
Decreases viability of
locally-funded grassroots
organizations
Increasing Foreign Funding…
POINTS OF DEPARTURE
“Civil society” as purchasable and quantifiable
NGOs as strictly normative actors
NGOs as “apolitical” actors
NGOs able to “empower” the grassroots
NGOs able to advocate on behalf of the grassroots
SAMPLE
17 NGOs Advocacy networks (4) Organizing (1) Human Rights (3) Democracy (1) Environmental (1) Rural Development (5) Health (2)
16 locally run 11 national Most visible NGOs in
media included
NGO educator at workshop in León
METHODOLOGY
Two month field study (July & August, 2009)
Semi-structured interviews with: Administrators Field staff Volunteer “Promoters” Recipients
Observation & field visits
Analysis of NGO literature & local media
Volunteers and field staff of local NGO
CHARACTERISTICS OF FUNDING
Volatile & whimsical Short-term cycles Aimed at
quantitative results Politicized and
depoliticizing Tied to donor foreign
policy
USAID funded NGO compound
ACCOUNTABLE TO WHO?The struggle for downward accountability
STRAINED ACCOUNTABILITIES
Donors
Recipients?
NGOs Other NGOs, Staff
COORDINADORA CIVIL (CC) :THE “VOICE” OF CIVIL SOCIETY?
Advocacy network Foreign funded Dominated by NGOs Representatives elect
“spokesperson” Extremely prominent
in media Claims to be “the
voice” of civil society
“apolitical” Headline: “Civil Coordinator condemns Mel Zelaya”
THE “APOLITICAL” PARADOX
How can advocacy for any group be “apolitical” – let alone the
disempowered?
Does this notion of “apolitical” restrict the impact of advocacy?
ACCOUNTABLE TO WHO?
CC
NGOs w/o Promoters
Recipients
NGOs w/Promoters
Promoters
Public
Downward accountability?
WEAK DOWNWARD TIES Legitimacy from NGO
“experts” Urban elite NGO staff NGOs not strongly
accountable to volunteer promoters
Volunteer promoters and victim of abuse NGO representative checking on
project
STRUCTURAL IMPEDIMENTS
Completely dependent on foreign aid
No institutionalized downward accountability to constituency
Can it be responsive?
Can it mobilize?
NET RESULT
Self-admitted minimal policy impact
Marginal success at NGO coordination
Springboard to politics for NGO staff
Façade of active civil society
Representative speaking at CC assembly
MISSION DRIFTSocial service or social change?
EXAMPLE: IXCHEN
Promote and defend women’s rights
“empowerment” “we incite the
autonomy, participation, equality, and decision power of women”
Create a movement for women’s rights
More funding for: Vertical healthcare delivery
Less funding for: Women’s rights education via volunteer promoters
Mission Practice
Pre-natal care
EMPOWERMENT?
Ixchen workshop
PUSHED TO SERVE THE STATUS QUO
Short-term “project” focus ignores structures
Depoliticized, token popular education
Services reduce pressure on state for policy change
Campesino child
NO ROOM FOR THE GRASSROOTS?
1979-1983: MOBILIZATION & INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE Tens of thousands of
volunteers mobilized +37% Literacy -50% Malaria Elimination of Polio -75% Infant Diarrhea +4 years life expectancy
Literacy crusade trucks Teaching literacyPhotos and statistics from Walker, 2003
CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS OF NEOLIBERALISM, WAR, AND POVERTY
Fatigue from war
Distrust in corrupt institutions
Neoliberal reforms crushed unions, cooperatives
Increasing poverty: eat or organize?
Rural community leaders in Somoto
IMPACT OF NGOS ON GRASSROOTS
NGOs have disproportionate voice
Overshadowed by NGO elites
“Funding culture”
Depoliticized & demobilized
Overly localized and project-focused Community organizer in León
POLICY IMPLICATIONS & EMERGING SOLUTIONS
SUMMARY: “GRASS WITHOUT ROOTS” Funding restricts downward accountability
Structural inequality stagnant
Dominated by NGO elites
Limited “empowerment”
Limited potential for grassroots growth
Minimal policy impact
Depoliticized, localized, and demobilized
Undermining of social contract?
“ILLUSION OF PROGRESS”
Foreign funding to NGOs does not resolve but actually may distract from the structural issues underlying inequality while demobilizing those best capable of challenging them.
Campesino children
EMERGING SOLUTIONS Long-term donor funding?
Does not eliminate donor politicization
Social audits?
Accountability clubs?
Democratic NGO structures?
NGO technical support without co-optation? Ex. Zapatistas, Sandinistas
Return to member funding for advocacy? Difficult - and not perfect - but great potential
WORKING TOWARDS OBSOLESCENCE?
“The greatest achievement of any NGO is the ability to renew
society and then be replaced by movements from that renewed
society.” -Marchetti 1997 (emphasis added)
THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?
SOURCES Gugerty, 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: Rethinking Strategy." 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.