The road less taken by advocacy organizations

ESPAnet 2012 Edinburgh

Dr Chana Katz (PhD)

Department of Public Policy and administration

Sapir College Israel

chanak@mail.sapir.ac.il

Introduction

Advocacy civic society organizations perceive social issues from a multi- disciplinary

perspective, with the advantage of specialized knowledge and expertise. With this

advantage, combined with the fact that civic society organizations are financially

independent – not funded by the state - lies their strength to challenge policies; to

come forward with alternative policy suggestions based on reliable independent data

and knowledge that will garner public support and pave the way to an impact on

policy.

Independent knowledge is regard as a source of power and expertise of advocacy

organization and yet, most of those organizations, at least in Israel, neither hold nor

produce such knowledge. Moreover, in campaigns for changes in existing policy or of

and initiated an alternative policy independent knowledge is very significant.

The core of this paper is to raise some optional explanations to the above

phenomenon. We shall start with the theoretical context perspectives composed of:

civic society, public policy, and social-economical rights. We then move to present

three aspects of rights advocacy organizations relevant to understanding the nature of

this paper's issue: policy advocacy approach, multidisciplinary work, and the value of

independent knowledge. Next we present our four optional explanations why rights

advocacy organizations in general and Social-Economical Rights Advocacy

Organizations (SERAO) in particular are less inclined to take the road of independent

knowledge. They are: over domination of judicial discipline, funds catch, role

1

perception, and the power of non-governmental research institutions. We will close

with some conclusions.

Conceptual Context

This paper deals with the work of rights advocacy organizations; more precisely on

the understanding of why those organizations do not by and large develop their own

independent knowledge and data bases although such knowledge is imperative to their

course of action. In this section, we shall present three concepts: civic society, public

policy and social economical rights. In putting them together we can understand the

nature of our issue and develop our suggested explanations to its roots.

Civic society

Civic society is an arena of institutions, organizations, and individuals located

between family, state and the market forces; thus the concept of civic society is a

broad comprehensive concept anchored in the sociological political orientation of the

relationship between citizens and government. This relationship has a long history of

changing meanings in different times and context. Furthermore, researchers are

divided about the components, ways of operation, and relations with other political,

economic and social entities. Its modern interpretation relates to socio-political

activities that represent positions and ideology of human rights, social rights,

pluralism, multi-cultural and equality in relation to society in general and to the

disadvantaged, excluded groups in particular; and emphasizes citizen actions aimed at

influencing the political agenda (Gidron, Almog-Bar & Katz, 200).

Foly & Edwards (1996 cited in Gidron et al, 2003), emphasize the importance of

action on the part of independent powerful civic society organizations to restrain and

monitor state actions. They distinguish between two central schools: one as an

alternative sphere of action and counterbalance to the state, the other as separate and

distinct from the state but which is not a counterbalance.

Civic society organizations are formal organizations and part of the Third Sector

nonprofit organizations but differ mainly in that they have independent resources, and

they are not funded by any way by the state in contrast to other nonprofit

2

organizations (Gidron, et al, 2003). The question what is a civic society organization

and what is not received differing answers among researchers. In part this is the

reflection of the liquidity of the concept itself. For example Alimi (2008), includes

interest groups and social change movements; while Yishi (2003), includes four types

of organizations: interest organizations, social movements, grass roots organizations

and voluntary organizations. In both Alimi (2008) and Yishi (2003), there is no direct

or indirect reference to rights organizations or to advocacy organizations. In contrast

Reid (1999), identifies civic society organizations as an interest group, representing

the civic interest.

There are several typologies of advocacy organizations: based on their basis of

operation, according to their primary population, the reflection of their focus wheather

administrative, legal, or program; or representation – do they represent a general issue

or they represent subgroup (Straier, 2009).

Israel has faced in the last decades, with enormous growth of nonprofit organizations,

civic society organizations including right advocacy organizations (Gidron, et al,

2003, Straier, 2009; Yishi, 2003); yet the latter are still a small part only 6 % (Straier,

2009). This might explain Yishi (2003), perception that the increase in numbers does

not necessarily indicate an increase in influencing on public policy.

Rights advocacy organizations as NGOs have considerable moral authority, which

derives from their claim to represent the public interest or the common good rather

than private interests, as well as from their adhesion to legitimated global principles

and values (Bieri, 2010). They challenge the state from below (Reiman, 2006). Thus

the new pro-NGOs neo-liberal top down civic society norms promote joint work of

the business, and NGOs to promote democracy, environment, civil rights (Reiman,

2006). That should be of great concern to SERAO, since their stance of representing

social-economic rights in public policy is in conflict with neo-liberal stance.

Public policy

There are many definitions to public policy that all share the ideas that public policy

is made by government, and that policies are a matter of choice, what to do and what

not to do (Dye, 2008; Hill, 1997; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003). Public policy relates to

3

all conceivable issues and areas from the national security to personal behavior. Two

inseparable policy issues are economic policy and social policy, yet social policy is

too often, subordinate to economic policy especially in a neo-liberal economy.

The power to decide what will be a policy issue is crucial to the policy-making

process. Interest groups initiate their own policy proposals (Dye, 2008). Rights

advocacy organizations want to influence both the essence and priorities in order to be

a recognized actor in the policy process (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003; Parsons, 2005);

they want to promote civic rights, human rights and social-economic rights.

Public policy is an ongoing cycle that refers to: agenda-setting, policy forming,

decision-making, implementation and evaluation (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003). Agenda

setting is in many respects an ideological process establishing the policy foundation

and rhetoric (Hill, 1997; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003). There is not only an explicit

ideological consensus among those who take part in agenda setting, but also masking

or suppressing alternative views (Hill, 1997). The inundation of information from the

policy implementation process by means of those who are the subject of the policy is

of great importance to advocacy for changes in that policy. Policy alternatives are to

be promoted before and during the agenda setting and policy formation process.

Public policy reflects elites and government ideology, values, interests and

preferences (Dye, 2008), manifested in the policy content and paradigm. In neo-

liberal ideology the preference is, among others, about limiting government

involvement in social and economic issues, and in putting the market interest above

and before citizen's interest (Katz & Tzfadia, 2010). On the other hand Dye (2008), as

many others, emphasizes the influence of human rights on public policy especially,

regarding the elimination of discrimination and racism. The lack of reference to the

influence of social- economic rights on public policy puts a heavy burden on social

economic rights advocacy organizations (SERAO), in particular on their expertise

which is based on independent knowledge.

Social-economical rights

Social –economical rights are, according to Ben-Bassat & Dahan (2004), rights with

the power to influence directly or approximately on economic standards of living and

4

citizens welfare. They are "primarily about everyone having the right to a chance to

thrive in life, to have sufficient resources, education and leisure time to live a fulfilled

life" (Gearty, 2011: 244). Social-economic rights are positive rights, meaning they put

the obligation for their execution on governments, which ought to allocate budgets for

their fulfillment (Ben-Bassat & Dahan, 2004; Gild-Hayo, & Shahav, 2009). These

rights should be protected and promoted in the political arena

Although social economic rights are, as manifested in international conventions, part

of human rights, in Israel we still find differentiation in their legal recognition and in

the court attitudes (Paz-Fuchs, 2007). Moreover, Israel does not have a constitution or

a bill of rights, and rights organizations such as the Israeli Association for Civil

Rights, although established in 1972, started to deal with social-economic rights only

in the beginning of this century. Reiman (2006), details the INGOs' area of activities:

human rights, political rights, citizen rights, democracy transparency but not social

economic rights.

Advocacy organizations

The second part of this paper presents three aspects of right advocacy organizations

that are the core of this paper – why rights advocacy organizations are taking less the

road of independent knowledge even though such knowledge is of great importance to

their actions.

Policy advocacy approach

Policy advocacy is the total sum of activities in the political arena aimed to influence

the civic social economic agenda to support alternative policy suggestions or

proposed changes in existing policy, or proposed changes in budget allocation

priorities (Reid, 1999; Schmid et al, 2008). Policy advocacy is about power, the

power to impact successfully on policy process in the political arena (Parsons, 2005;

Reid, 1999). This power arises from values, standpoints and interests, portrayed as

efforts to enforce change compatible with them (Hill, 1997). It includes any attempt to

influence government decisions and policies in order to promote a collective goal

5

and/or interest. Civic rights, human rights and social economic rights are such a goal

and interest. Their promotion by rights advocacy organizations and SERAO

represents a situation of competing interest in the policy process (Reid, 1999).

Parsons (2005), points to an aspect of policy advocacy which is critical to gaining

influence on media discourse, focusing on specific aspects which will enable the

directing of attention to the advocacy organization's agenda. Hill (1997), emphasizes

rights organization's critical and crucial part in policy process agenda setting, by

disseminating their knowledge to political actors. The ability of advocacy

organizations to come forward with independent knowledge is of great significant to

their success (Katz, 2008; Levy & Payne, 2006; Reid, 1999).

A major issue in policy advocacy is the requirement of funds to carry out all the

planned activities (Reiman, 2006). In addition, policy advocacy by rights

organizations can face many obstacles. For example the new pro NGOs top down

structural joint forces of nonprofit and for-profit organizations (Reiman, 2006); or

Straier (2009), suggestions for a government policy to support advocacy organizations

in the field of welfare financially, and professionally. However, Straier (2009), asserts

that between government and advocacy organizations there is a built-in conflict.

Nonprofit service organizations seldom participate in policy process or policy

advocacy, unless it is about improving their service, or their very existence (Adan,

2010; Reid, 1999; Schmid et al, 2008). This is true in Israel as well, due to the high

dependency of nonprofit organization on government finance, and on the other hand a

very high degree of state involvement in those organizations due to the privatization

policy (Ben-Elieser, 1999; Gidron et al, 2003). Rights advocacy organizations are free

of government involvement since they are not dependent on government funds,

therefore their position is different.

Policy advocacy involved simultaneous actions in five arenas: political, judicial,

professional, media and public (Katz, 2008). Thus, one would assume it would reflect

on the composition of rights advocacy organizations staff. It does not. The main

profession in rights advocacy organizations is lawyers. Focusing on one arena will

result in a partial advocacy process, and will limit it to the perspective characterize

this arena (Gordon, 2005; Katz, 2008).

6

Multidisciplinary work

The term discipline refers to separate and exclusive academic theories, professional

identity, practice, and perspective where language and skills become forms of

knowledge. Disciplinary thinking and practice puts boundaries between disciplines. It

is its strength and its weakness. In multi disciplinary relations each discipline brings

its own professional perspective and opens to the others. In practice each discipline

remains distinct but expended and the whole grows larger. It opens options for many

combinations between perspective joint action ad-hoc and ongoing (Korazim-Korosy,

et al, 2007).

Multidisciplinary relations in policy process are about relations between several

disciplines such as: law, communication, politics, lobbying, and the relevant

disciplines to the subject matter. Political advocacy by rights advocacy organizations

involves actions in five arenas: political, judicial, professional, media and public. In

order to be able to operate in these arenas they need first to have professionals, paid or

volunteers from each discipline; and second, those professionals need to work in a

multidisciplinary mode. Unfortunately most rights advocacy organizations in Israel

are over dominated by the judicial discipline.

The value of independent knowledge

Knowledge is an organized body of information shared by people in a particular field,

and the facts, information, understanding and skills a person acquired through

experience or education. Knowledge is the power to persuade thus according to Reid

(1999), rights advocacy organizations should invest time and money on research

before developing policy suggestions. Advocacy organizations that own reliable

independent data grant their reputation and credibility as experts, and increase their

ability to influence (Bieri, 2010). Such data accumulated from independent or

supported research, case analysis, and surveys are important for preparing alternative

data or when reacting to existing policy. In addition there is the knowledge of those

who are affected by the policy and the citizen's perspective both adding value to the

advocacy organization knowledge (Greaty, 2011; Katz, 2008; Korazim-Korosy, et al,

2007), usually lacking in the political process.

7

Advocacy organizations knowledge and information are valuable to policy formation

(Dye, 2008; Parsons. 2006). Knowledge is vital to policy initiatives in the policy

process. It can be introduced by government officials, academicians, and

nongovernmental research institutes, or by advocacy organizations (Hill, 1997;

Howlett & Ramesh, 2003). Yet, most advocacy organizations in Israel do not dedicate

staff or budget for in-house research. Bieri (2010), offers an insight to this arguing

that NGO's watchdog role receives much more attention in the literature than the

expert role, while their legitimacy is impacted by the recognition of their expertise.

Why advocacy organizations lack independent knowledge

In the last part, based on the previous parts we present four optional explanations as

why rights advocacy organizations of all kinds are taking less the road of independent

knowledge.

Over domination of judicial discipline

Since the re-emergence of human rights in 1948 they have been associated with the

legal profession mainly because The Human Rights Convention grants authority to

courts to criticize policy regulation on all levels. And yet, Gearty (2011), raises the

question "can we be strongly in favour of human rights but at the same time be firmly

against lawyers exclusive appropriation of the term?" (p 242), and his answer is:

"lawyers are never the answer to any serious question about social policy" (p 243).

Rights organizations in Israel perceive their work mainly in the legal arena on

protecting rights, thus they are over dominated by the legal discipline. Their typical

mode of operation according to Gordon (2005), is in developing strong legal

departments, more expertise in legal presentation and less in legislation. Yet, since in

Israel social economic rights are not yet recognized, it is hard to protect them (Paz-

Fuchs, 2007). Recognition means legislation - a policy process in the political arena

not in courtrooms (Gearty, 2011).

Legislative process is a complex process that needs expertise from two disciplines,

legal and political (Gild-Hayo & Shahav, 2009). The neglect of the latter by rights

advocacy organizations is an example of the over domination of the judicial

8

discipline, superfluous development of independent knowledge on the issue beyond

the boundaries of the legal discipline. Moreover, very few lawyers are knowledgeable

in both presentation and legislation (Gild-Hayo & Shahav, 2009), thus most rights

advocacy organizations are not embracing a pro-active role of coming forward with

alternative policy suggestions as part of policy advocacy process.

Lawyers, as in any other profession, prefer to work with other lawyers from either

state organizations or private ones (Gordon, 2005), it is intra-disciplinary work not

multidisciplinary (Korazim-Korosy, et al 2007). On one hand intra-disciplinary

approach in advocacy organizations can advance their work in the legal arena; but on

the other hand it narrows the possibilities of developing independent knowledge.

The funds catch

Policy advocacy organizations need to be well equipped in their activities (Reid,

1999). Thus, funds become an important ingredient in advocacy organization

operations. It not only opens doors, gain access, and provides opportunities; it also

provides the option for the creation of independent knowledge. As we can learn from

two advocacy organizations in Israel: 'Or Yarok' (Green Light) and 'The National

Council for the Child'. In both organizations there is a research unit, and a data base.

Over the years they developed independent knowledge contributing to their expertise.

Both organizations are by choice, not founded by the state, but are well funded.

In order to keep their autonomy, advocacy organizations as a matter of principal are

not funded by the state (Gidron et al, 2003; Reiman, 2006). They depend on donations

either from individuals or from local or international foundations and on volunteers.

Most rights advocacy organizations are in an ongoing struggle for fund and resources

that are not forthcoming (Greaty, 2011). Thus, private foundations became an

important major financial sponsor of NGOs activities worldwide (Reiman, 2006). As

such they can give preference on the kind of activities their funds would be used for.

Moreover, the need for visible success put research in a low priority thus hindering

the creation of independent knowledge.

In such situations there are voices proposing government financial assistance to

advocacy organizations; see for example Straier (2009), recommendation. In the same

9

vein are the new pro-NGOs norms (Reiman, 2006), introducing new funding

opportunities. This new pro-NGOs norms rises from liberal democracy and neo-

liberal economic principles, arguing that it is necessary for free market and for a

democratic state to have a flourishing 'civic society'. In both cases there is a potential

of blocking activities especially those representing social economic rights since they

present a different viewpoint and ideology; thus, putting rights advocacy

organizations in a, catch fund situation.

Role perception

Bieri (2010), identifies three roles of NGOs: experts, legitimiziers of policies and

involved bodies, and "watchdog". In order to be recognized as experts, NGOs and

rights advocacy organizations need to develop their own body of knowledge. Straier

(2009), view is that "watchdog" and "blowing the horn", are roles played by advocacy

organizations where there is a potential violating of civic rights.

The traditional "blowing the horn" course of action taken by civic society

organizations - protest, stimulating public and political discourse - is no longer

effective. Pro-active action is called for to provide alternative suggestions based on

independent reliable data and solid theory, to policies and fundamental issues (Katz,

2008). Policy alternative suggestions are about offering answers to fundamental

questions in the sphere of civil rights, human rights and above all social economic

rights, ignored by government.

Sticking with the traditional advocacy roles of "watchdog" and "blowing the horn" is

in part a result of limited resources including funds, and in a much more significant

part it is a matter of choice, of understanding the importance of pro-active role, in the

initiation and promotion of policy alternative. This is particularly important in regards

to social economic rights.

The power of non-governmental research institutes

Advocacy organizations could develop their specific knowledge by allying with

independent policy research institutions (not part of university or government). In

10

Israel there are about twenty such institutions. Independent policy research

institutions, based on their ideology and with their research, papers, and other

activities, bridge between ideas and politics. They all have an agenda set by their

directors, initiators, and funders; and from economical, social and political events and

process in society (Friedman & Hasson. 2003; Karmon, 1999; Reid, 1999).

Reid (1999), claims that research organizations in Washington D.C. "can strongly

influence national policy development and decisions. They generate data and reports,

sponsor forums on policy issues, and disseminate information through regular

publications (p 304).

In general, in Israel, advocacy organizations are not viewed as the policy research

institutions target population or as research partners excluding the Adva center. In the

same vein, advocacy organizations will use those institutions data and publications,

but are reluctant to initiate collaboration with them. Interestingly Friedman & Hasson

(2003), claim that rights organizations can be used as potential supporters of policy

research institutions proposed policy.

Conclusions

Rights advocacy organizations in Israel are only small part of nonprofit organizations

and civil society organizations. They struggle for their existence and for their part in

the policy political process. Independent knowledge is of greatest importance to their

activities and recognition as experts in their field. The four explanations we offer in

this paper as to why rights advocacy organizations are traveling less in the road of

independent knowledge indicates that in many respects it is a matter of choice, the

same as public policy.

11

BibliographyAdan, D. (2010). Third sector and education system in Israel: collaboration or conflict. Studies in Education, 31, 213-241. (Hebrew)

Alimi, A. (2008).Calling the child in his name: the difference (and Similarity) between social movements and interest groups. Civic Society and Third Sector in Israel, 2(2), 29-52. (Hebrew)

Ben-Bassat, A. & Dahan, M. (2004). Social rights in the constitution and economy policy. Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute (Hebrew)

Ben-Elieser, U. (1999). Is civic society exists in Israel? Politics and identity of new associations. Israeli Sociology, 2(1), 51-97. (Hebrew)

Bieri, F. (2010). The role of NGOs in the Kimberley Process. Globality studies journal, 20(1), 1-21.

Dye, T.R. (2008). Understanding Public Policy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Friedman, A. & Hasson. S. (2003). Introduction. In A, Friedman & S, Hasson (eds) How to Have Impact (pp 9-32). Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israeli Studies. (Hebrew)

Gearty, C. (2011). Putting the lawyers in their place: the role of human rights in the struggle against poverty. In: A. Walker, A., Sinfield, & C. Walker (eds) Fighting Poverty, Inequality and Injustice a Manifesto inspired by Peter Townsend (241-256). Bristol: The Policy Press.

Gidron, B, Bar, M and Katz, H. (2003). The Third sector in Israel between welfare state and civil society, Tel-Aviv: Hkibbutz Hmeuchad (Hebrew).

Gild-Hayo, D. & Shahav, S. (2009).Legislative lawyering as an instrument of social change. MA'ASEI MISHPAT, 2, 69-86. (Hebrew).

Gordon, N. (2005). Human Rights and social sphere: the association for civil rights in Israel power. Israeli Sociology, 7(1), 23-44. (Hebrew)

Hill, M. (1997). The policy process in the modern state, Essex: Prentice Hall. Third edition.

Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Karmon, A. (1999). Think tank policy institutes: the Israel Democracy Institute as a model. In: D. Nachmias & G. Menahem (eds) Public Policy in Israel (pp 95-114). Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute. (Hebrew)

12

Katz, C. (2008). 'To be and not to be'. Advocacy organizations and public policy net – lessons learned from the case of the "Wisconsin Watch" in Israel. Paper presented at the 14th researching the voluntary sector conference University of Warwick, UK September 2008. (Unpublished)

Katz, C. and Tzfadia, E. (2010). Introduction – The Hyphen between State Abandoning and State Surveillancing. In: Katz, C. and Tzfadia, E. (Eds). "Abandoning State – Surveillancing State" : Social Policy in Israel, 1985-2008 (pp 9-31). Tel-Aviv: Resling. (Hebrew)

Korazim-Korosy, Y., Mizrahi, T., Katz, C., Karmon, A., Bayne-Smith, M., Martha Lucia Garcia, M.(2007). Toward Interdisciplinary in community development: comparing knowledge and experience from Israel and the USA, in: Miller, A. & Korazim-Korosy,Y. (eds), Interdisciplinary Community Development, International perspectives (pp 13-44)The Haworth Press.

Levy, J. & Payne, M. (2006). Welfare Rights Advocacy in a Specialist Health and Social Care Setting: A Service Audit. British Journal of Social work, 36, 323-331.

Parsons, W. (2005). Public Policy an introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. UK: Edward Elgar.

Paz-Fuchs, A. (2007) Respect for the poor between dignity and the right to social security. Journal of Welfare and social Security Studies, 75, 9-37. (Hebrew)

Reid, E. (1999). Nonprofit Advocacy and Political Participation in: Boris, E.T. & Steuerle, C.E. (Eds), Nonprofits and Government Collaboration and Conflict, (291-325). USA: The Urban Institute Press.

Reiman, K .D. (2006). A view from the top: international politics, norms and worldwide growth of NGOs. International Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 45-67.

Schmid, H., Almog-Bar, M. & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit organizations providing social services. Journal of Welfare and social Security Studies,78, 11-37. (Hebrew)

Straier, R. (2009). Government – social welfare advocacy organizations relationships. Jerusalem: state of Israel, Ministry for Welfare and Social Services, Senior Division for Research Planning and Training. (Hebrew)

Yishai, Y. (2003). Civil Society in Israel. Jerusalem: Carmel. (Hebrew)

13