BEBBINGTON, A.J.; Hickley, S.; Mitlin, D. C. (ed.)(2008) in: Can NGOs Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternative, London: Zed Books. PriF http://www.email.cz/getAttachment?session=u%D4%839%60%9C%94%AF%034W%C9n%F7%8B%AF%F6%3EeQ%15%A7ZU%81 %A6%E5%99e%F0%F9%BCw%FFS%01%FA%8D%D5%DE%FF%B8b%06y%B0r5%21o%FDZCm%D1%B0%D6J%B7%E8%9E%C9%8E%40%C9%CA %B4%01%8F%8A%81%23%28q%86Co%D7%AF8%1C-%8C%26K%92J%BC%14%E9%AE%EA%D3k%D4X%ED%E9%23f%C5%DFUP%C1%E2WG% 3Fk%D2%F6 OPVK Inovace výuky geografických studijních oborů, CZ.1.07/2.2.00/15.0222 ž80s and 90s – market le- economies – tendency to move away from central government activities and decision-making to a more decentralized approach (Willis, 2005:96). žDecentralizing government – greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness ž- neo-liberal agenda transferring decision-making to the more local level – people would have a greater say in the decisions made about their services žMove away form the central state as the key player in the ´development´ žNGOs – panacea for ´development problems´ range of organizations - žOverview – one.world.net – links to a range of development organization (Willis, 2005:98) ž žLocation (North, N and S, S) žLevel of operation (international, regional national, community) žOrientation (welfare activities and service provision, emergency relief, development education, participation and empowerment, self-sufficiency, advocacy, networking) žOwnership – non-memebership support organization žMembership organizations žAnswer to perceived limitations of the state or market in facilitation development because ž1) can provide services that are more appropriate to local communities ž(work wt population at grassroot level) žAble to provide services more efficiently and effectively through drawing on local people´s knowledge žAble to react more quickly to local demands žNon-material aspects of development – empowerment, participation and democratization žLarge part of multilateral and bilateral aid channelled through NGOs žPart of New Policy Agenda (NPA) – neo-liberal approach within the international institutions (cf WB). žUp to 10% of ODA žAssesing the number of NGOs difficult – žDefinitional difficulties, differing registration practicess accross the globe žUNDP 2000 – 145,405 NGOs in the world ž ž žWhen population numbers are taken into account, the UNPD figures suggest that the vast majority of the world´s population has no opportunity to interact with an NGO in any meaningful way. žIndia – 2 million associations, however 1718 NGOs (Willis, 2005:100) žEcuador Viviendas del Hogar de Cristo Project, Guayaquil (1,6 population million) ž60% build their own dwelling žPoor quality and lack of access to basic services (water, sanitation) ž žSet up by a Catholic priest to help to address housing need in the city žWood frame with bamboo panels – can be constructe in a day žParticipant have access to credit throuth NGO žOfficial housing for over 138dollar / month žInformal sector – less than 100 žNGO – fund from donations alloving them to provide housing for free 1/3 ž ž ž žNGO ability to ´empower individuals´ (Willis, 2005102) – important part of the NGOs enthusiasm žIdea of having greater power and therefore more control over your life žDoes not recognize the different ways in which ´power´ can be defined žPower over - is associated with the process of marginalization and exclusion thought which groups are portrayed as pwoerless ž ž žPower over – the ability to dominate žThis form of power is finite, so that if someone obtains more power then it automatically leas to someone else having less power. žPower to – the ability to see possibilities for change žPower with – the power that comes form individuals working together collectively to achieve common goals žPower within – feeling of self-worth and self-esteem that come form within individuals. žA key element of empowerment as development outcome – interventions leading to empowerment. žOften claimed – NGOs empower communities – in reality not the case žEmpowerment is something that comes from within žNGOs can provide context within which a process of empowerment is possible, only individuals can choose to take opportunities and use them žOne of the key routes though which empowerment is meant to be achieved – through participation žGrassroots development - is often termed participatory žParticipation - umbrella term to refer to the involvement of local people in development activities žParticipation can take place in different stages in the setting up of development projects. ž ž ž žAppraisal – way of understanding the local community and their understandings of wider processes PRA, PUA žAgenda setting – involvement of local community in decisions about development policies, consulted and listened to from the start, not brought in once policy haws been decided upon žEfficiency – involvement of local community in projets – building schools žEmpowerment – participation leads to greater self-awareness and confidence; contributions to development of democracy ž žParticipation – new tyranny in development work žThe notion of participation is included in every dimension of development policy, but no recognition of: žThe time and energy requirement of local people to participate žThe heterogeneity of local populations meaning that community participation does not always involve all sectors of population ž žJust being involved does not necessarily lead to empowerment žFocusing at a micro level can often lead to a faliure to recognize much wider structures of disadvantage and oppression ž žBebbington et al. žCowen and Shenton (1996) Doctrines of Development žDistinction between development as an immanent and unintentional process ( development of capitalism) žAnd intentional policies žDifference – small and big D - Development žHart( 2001:650) geographically uneven, profoundly contradicotry set of processes undarlying capitalist development ž žWhat is the impact of globalization on on inequality and social stratification? ž ž´project of intervention in the third world – that emerged in the context of decolonization and the cold was žMutual relationships but non-deterministic ž žOffers a means of clarifying the relationship between development policy and development practice žDiverse impact for different social groups (cf Bauman, Globalization) žAnd underlying process of uneven development that create exlusions and inequality for many and enhanced opportunities for others. ž žAlternatives – cf alternative ways of arranging microfinance, project planning, serives delivery žEg alternative ways of intervening žAlternatives can be conceived in relation to the underlying process of capitalit development (little development) ž emphasis is on alternative ways of organizing the economy, politics and social relationships in a society žRemormist – partial, intervention-specific, žRadical – systemic alternatives žWarning of too sharp distinction – NGOs can forge between apparently technocratic interventions (service delivery) and broader transformations žDissapointments Bebbington et al. – tendency to indentify more readily with alternative forms of intervetions than with more systemic changes žStrong grounds for reversing this trend. žState, market and civil society žTripartite division – is often used to understand and locate NGOs as civil society actors žProblems: žA) excessively normative rahter than analytical – sources of ´good´ as opposed to ´bad´ - imputed to the state adn market ž žUnderstate the potential role of the state in fostering progressive chance žDownplaying the extent to thich civil society – also a real of activity for racist organizations, business-sponsoer research NGOs and other organization that Bebbingtal and al. do not consider benign žThe relative fluidity of boundaries + politics of revolving door – žgrowing tendency for people to move back and forth between NGOs, government and occasionally business žunderestimated in academic writing žNGOs – relatively recent organizational forms compared to religious institutions, political movements, government and transnational networks žExistence of NGOs – understood in terms of relationship to more cosntitutive actors in society ž1) level of ideology and theory – notion of civil society – flourishes most fruitfully withint either the neoliberal school of thoughts that is reduced role for the state žOr neomarxist and post/structural approach emphasizing the transformative potential of social movemtns within civil society. ž ž2) Conceptual level žCivil society – civil society treated in terms of associations or as an arena of contesting ideas about ordering of social life žProponents of both approches – civil society offering a critical path towards Aristotles´ s the good society´. ž žGramscian understanding of civil society žas constituting an arena in which hegemonic ideas concerning the organization of economic and social life are both established and contested ž žGramsci (1971) perceived state and civils society to be mutually constitutive rather than separate autonomus entities žWith both formed in relation to historical and structural forces žGlobalization – as the most potent force within late moderntiy žNGOs have increasingly become a transnational community, itself overlapping the other transnational networks and institutions žLinkages and networks disperse new forms of development discourse and modes of governance ž žSome southern NGOs – began to gain their own footholds in the North with their outposts in Brussels, Washington etc ž(Grameen Foundation, BRAC, breadline Africa) žDrawback - transnationalizing tendencies – exclusion of certain marginalized people and groups žTrasnationalizing tendencies – excluded certain actors for whom engagement in such process is harder žEmergence of international civil society elites žwho dominante the discourses and flows channelled through the transnational community žQuestion – as to whose alternatives gain greater visibilitiy in these processes !!!!!! ž ž žTransnationalizing Development (big D) – SAPs, proverty-reduction strategy papers) žGrowing importance of any alternative project žIncreasing channelling of state-controlled resources through NGOs žResources become bundled with particular rules and ideas žNGOs – increasingly faced with opportunities related to the dominant ideas and rules žNGOs – vehicle of neoliberal governmentality? žDisciplining local organizations and populations in much the same way as the Development has done it žUnderestimate the extent to which such pressure are resisted by some NGOs ž ž žNGOs – sustain broader funding base – tool to negotiate and rework some of the pressures žPotential ability of NGOs to mobilize the broader networks and institutions within which they are embedded žPotential for muting such disciplining effects žCf International Campaign to Ban Landmines; Jubilee 2000 ž can provide other resources and relationships of power – cf Jesuit community, bud also transnational corporate actors (sit on a number of NGOs boards) žNGOs – not necessarily characterized by uneven North-South relations žMore horizontal experience (Slum Dwellers International) Spatial reworking of development žincreased opprotunities for socially excluded groups žReconstruction of ActionAid – HQ in Johannesburg ž1980s NGOs decade žThese new actors - lauded as the institutional alternative to existing develpment approaches (Hirschman, Korten) ž ž ž žlargely muted, confined to expressing concerns – that NGOs - externally imposed phenomenon žFar from being alternative; they heralded a new wave of imperialism ž ž ž žNGOs under closer and more critical scrutiny žInternal debate how to scale up NGO activities žmore effectiveness of NGOs and to ensuring their sustainability ž žCloseness to the mainstream undermined their comparative advantage as agents of alternative development žWith particular attenton falling on problems of standardization and upwards accountability (discuss) ž žApparently limited success of NGOs as agents of democratization came under critique žThreatened the development of indigenous civil society and distracted attention from more political organization (Bebbington et al., 2008:10) ž ž ž žFirst period - long history of limited number of small agencies žresponding to the needs of groups of people perceived as poor who received little external professional support ž(Bebbington et al., 2008:11) ž ž ž žLargely issue-based organizations combined both philanthopic action and advocacy žNorthern based - against generaly embedded both in broader movements and in networks that mobilized voluntary contributions ž žOften linked to other organizations providing them with an institutional bnase and funding,, frequently linked to wider religious institutions and philantropists žAlso clear interactions with state around legal reform as well as with market - generated most recourses then transferred through foundations ž(model that continues throuhg today on a far massive scale) ž žFrom the North - some interventions emereged from the legacy of colonialism žSuch as volunteer programmes sending expeerts of ´undercapacited´ counrries or organization that derived from missionary interventions (Bebbington et al., 2008:11) žMinor or no structural reforms ž ž ž žsome interventions were of organization whose mission adn/or staff recognized the need for structural reforms, only rarely was such work altenrative in any systemic sense, žOr in the sense that it sought to change the balance of hegemonic ideas, be these about the organization of society or the provision of services. ž(Bebbington et al., 2008:11) ž žconsolidation of NGOs co-financing programmes, žwillingness of Northern states and societies to institutionalize NGOs projects within their national aid portforlios (direct financing) žGeopolitical moment - sector became increasingly cirital žNGOs imperative - to elaborate and contribute to alternative arrangements among state, market and civil society ž ž žDevelopment ( as a project) closely scrutinized, reflecting the intersection between NGOs and political struggles around national independence and various socialisms žStruggles between political projects and intellectual debates on dependency, stucturalist and Marxian intepretation of the development process žAlternative development – become a strong terms, intellectual backing – cf (Schumacher) ž ž žNumerous influences - awareness of the need for local institutional development, žreduction in the formal colonial presence and contradictions inherent in the Norhtern NGOs model – žsteady shift from operational to funding roles for Northern NGOs and the growht of a Southern NGOs sector ž žGrowth and recognition for NGOs ž80s - period of NGOS boom žcontradiction of NGO alternatives žincrease of NGO activity during the 80s was driven to a significant extent by unfolding neoliberal agenda - the very agenda that development alternatives have sought to critically engage ž žChallenges to Participation, Citizenship and Democracy: Perverse Confluence and Displacement of Meaning žBrazil – participation of civil society in the building of democracy and social justice žExistence of perverse confluence between participatory and neoliberal political projects žThe confluence charaterizes the contemporary scenario of this struggle for defending democracy in Brazil and LA žDispute over different meanings of citizenship, civil society and participation ž- core referents for the understanding of that confluence and the form that i takes in the the Brazilian conflict žThe process of democratic construction in Brazil – faces important dilemma because of this confluence žTwo different processes ž1) process of enlargement of democracy – creation of public spaces and increasing participation of civil society in discussion and decision making processes žFormal landmark – Constitution 1988 žConsecrated the principle of the participation of civil society žGrew out of a partticipation project constructed since 1980s around extension of citizenship and deepening democracy ž- project emerged from the struggle against the military regime žLed by sector of civil society among which social movements played and important role žTwo elements important: ž1) re-establishment of formal democracy žDemocracy taken into the realm of state power žMunicipal as well as state executives ž1990s actors making hte transition from civil society to the state žLed by belief in the possibility of joint action between the civil society and the state ž ž- reduced minimal state žProgressively exempts itself form its role as a guarantor of rights by shrinking its social responsibility žTransferring the responsibility to the civil society žThe pervesity – these projects points in opposite even antagonistic directions žEach of them requires as a proactive civil society žNotion of citizenship, participation and civil society are central elements žThis coincidence at the discursive level hides fundamental distinctions and divergence of the two projects žObscuring them through the use of common vocabulary ž žObscuring them through the use of a common vocabulary as well as of institutional mechanism that at first seemed quite similar žDiscursive shift – common vocabulary obscures divergences and contradictions ž- a displacement of meaning becomes effective žIn this process the perverse confluence creates image of apparent homogoneity among different interests and discourses žConcealing conflict and diluting the dispute between these tho projects. žIn practice unwilling to shapre their decision making with respect to the formation of public politices žBasic intention – have the organization of civil society assument the fucntiosn and responsibilities resptricted to the implementation and the realization of these policies žProviding services formely consideret to be duties of the state ž žSome CS organizations accept this circumscription of their roles and the meaning of participation žCS accept the circumscritpion of their roles and the meaning of participation žIn doing so they contribute to its legitimization žOthers react to these pervese confluence – regarding their political role ž žThe implementation of the neiliberal project – requires shrinking of hte social responsibilities of the state žAnd their transference to civil society žSignificant inflection of political culture žBrazilian case – implementation of neoliberal project - had to confront a concolidated participatory project maturing for more than 20 years ž80s and 90s – market le- economies – tendency to move away from central government activities and decision-making to a more decentralized approach (Willis, 2005:96). žDentralizing government – greater efficiency and cost-effectivenemss ž- neo-liberal agenda transferring decision-making to the more local level – peole woudl have a greate say in the decisions made about their services ž ž ž