Convergence among Development, Environment and Human Rights NGOs
Posted on 14 June 2010 | No responses
By Sherine Jayawickrama
On June 3, at the 2010 InterAction Forum, the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations convened a panel discussion on Capitalizing on Convergence: Prospects for Collaboration Among Development, Environment and Human Rights NGOs.
The panel was moderated by L. David Brown, Senior Research Fellow at the Hauser Center, and featured Marcia Marsh, Chief Operating Officer at the World Wildlife Fund USA; Radha Muthiah, Vice President for Strategic Partnerships and Alliances at CARE USA; and Sameer Dossani, formerly Director of the Demand Dignity campaign at Amnesty International USA (and now at ActionAid International).
The panel explored how the work of these different types of NGOs are converging, what opportunities and challenges are encountered in trying to foster collaboration among these NGOs, and what lessons are being learned with respect to capitalizing on this convergence. This post combines strands of the panelists’ contributions with comments from attendees and my own observations.
Reimagining Development: An Imaginative Initiative at IDS
Posted on 31 May 2010 | No responses
By Sherine Jayawickrama
All around us is evidence of how the world is changing and why development paradigms need to change as well. The multiple crises that came to the fore in 2009 – economic recession, climate change, poverty, chronic food insecurity and human rights crises, to name a few – underscored that global challenges and vulnerabilities are interconnected.
We may think we are beyond the ”perfect storm” but the lesson that the challenges don’t exist in silos (and neither should the solutions) should be taken to heart. We need much more effective ways of working to face the complexity of current and future challenges. Lawrence Haddad frames this really well in his blog post titled The 20th Century Has Left the Building: Time to Reimagine Global Development.
Yet, there does not seem to be a push to profoundly rethink development and approaches to development (in a really holistic way) among major development players – developing country governments, institutional donors, NGOs or academic institutions. True, in the United States, there are really important attempts to reform U.S. foreign assistance, rebuild USAID and redefine US global development policy. But the recently leaked draft Presidential Study Directive does not indicate such a profound rethink.
Against this backdrop, I find the Reimagining Development initiative launched by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) an important step toward such a rethink. The initiative takes the opportunity presented by the convergence of food, finance, fuel and climate crises to ask essential questions about how international development needs to change in the 21st century and what alternatives to the status quo might be.
What Makes INGO Advocacy Legitimate?
Posted on 25 May 2010 | No responses
By Jennifer Rubenstein
This post is a response to the comments generated by Sherine Jayawickrama’s post on The Ethics of INGO Advocacy: Launching a Discussion.
Thanks so much for the contributions so far—I’m learning a lot from the conversation! This comment responds briefly to a theme that has come up in several posts: the relationship between justice and democracy under extremely “non-ideal” conditions.
Jay Goulden writes that, rather than the various possibilities I mention, perhaps we should view INGOs as “representatives of (global/their national) citizens concerned with issues of human rights, justice, etc.” I think that, as a descriptive matter, this is exactly right: INGOs do often represent the views of their volunteers (and donors). But I’m not sure if this entirely answers the question of what makes INGO advocacy legitimate or normatively acceptable.
On the one hand, viewing INGOs as representatives of concerned citizens in wealthy countries helps to alleviate problems of insufficient accountability, because these citizens can hold INGOs accountable, at least to some degree. This is attractive because, as Tosca Bruno-van Vijfeijken states, justice “can be a rather vague concept.” But it does not change the fact that INGOs cannot avoid making significant substantive judgments about what is just and unjust, and about the best way to pursue justice.
The idea that INGOs ought to represent citizens of wealthy countries who are concerned about human rights is compelling not for procedural reasons (e.g. because these citizens are under-represented). Rather, it is compelling for substantive reasons: because—or, insofar as— their ideas about human rights and justice are good ideas. In other words: by choosing to represent people who are already adequately represented at a procedural level, INGOs are—I would think—making a substantive judgment that their ideas about justice or human rights deserve a broader hearing.
India’s Caste System: Barrier to Inclusive Development
Posted on 19 May 2010 | 1 response
By Ramaswami Balasubramaniam
Over the last year, I have spoken at universities in Canada and the U.S. on India’s development challenges. One question that repeatedly came up was on the issue of caste and how it was impacting India. India’s caste system has been much studied and researched. It has been criticized and commented upon. Many have blamed it for present day ills.
Subscribing to the view that ‘development is an expansion of human capabilities’ and that poverty is more a lack of opportunity rather than anything else, I have been personally disgusted by the discrimination and the denial of opportunity that the caste system has created. Part of my dream for India is an egalitarian and caste free society where every Indian would have equal opportunity to pursue his life without fear and with all his basic needs addressed. The state would only be a facilitator ensuring that the people below the safety net have a helping hand and not be condemned to live off handouts.
Development Partnerships: Views from Corporate Foundations
Posted on 18 May 2010 | No responses
By Lakshmi Iyer
I have always believed that a successful NGO develops successful partnerships. In the non-profit funding world, it is a critical challenge for NGOs to ensure that relationships with donors are not muddled with power imbalances but, in fact, are true joint efforts to achieve a shared mission.
The April 8 NGOs & Development study group session looked at this relationship from the perspective of corporate foundations. Two inspiring women led the discussion: Salimah Samji, formerly with Google.org, and Shalaka Joshi, Vice President, Global Strategies, CSO Partners.
Salimah kicked off the discussion with an overview of types of foundations, with specific focus on corporate foundations. Students engaged in a discussion on understanding what corporate foundations can offer and what their biggest challenges in the field are. Here are my take-aways from that discussion:
Ragball International: Connecting Youth Via Soccer
Posted on 13 May 2010 | No responses
By Mariana Andrade
This post is part of this blog’s Sport & Development series. It is based on a conversation with Jeff DeCelles, co- founder of Ragball International along with Ian Oliver.
Passion for soccer is such a universal sentiment that children all over the world, no matter what their socio-economic condition, will find a way to play the game. In South Africa, they make soccer balls out of fruit bags and newspapers, in Uganda they use banana leaves, and in Ethiopia coffee bags are the material of choice. Children also want an education, they dream of becoming lawyers and doctors but do not always have the means to fulfill their goals.
Jeff DeCelles understands that children are capable of realizing their dreams if they are given the right tools. He recognized that the widespread love of soccer and the creativity it inspires could be harnessed to provide entrepreneurial development and income generation for youth, giving them the opportunity to have a better education and future.
The 3Ds: Development Must Not Be Subservient to U.S. Diplomatic or Security Objectives
Posted on 12 May 2010 | No responses
By Peter Bell
In late April, Sherine Jayawickrama’s post Great Expectations, Rising Impatience: A Watershed Moment for U.S. Foreign Assistance posed several questions. Steve Feldstein responded to her question related to the evident imbalance among the 3Ds (defense, diplomacy and development). This post provides a different perspective on the question.
I appreciate Steve Feldstein’s effort to combine principle and pragmatism in his comment on the 3 Ds; yet his bow to the political realism of Washington leaves me uneasy.
What does it mean for development to be “an indispensable partner” to defense and diplomacy? Over the long term, I do believe that economic growth, equitable development, poverty reduction and effective governance everywhere is in the U.S. national interest. Human security throughout the world will advance our national security.
The problem is that so much of U.S. defense policy and diplomatic practice is driven by short-term considerations—conflicts and crises. By its very nature, development (the empowerment of individuals, families, communities and nations to exercise an increasing measure of control over important decisions in their lives) demands a multi-decade perspective. All too often, foreign aid that has been guided by or coupled with short-term political objectives has proven ineffective for development.
The Ethics of INGO Advocacy: Launching a Discussion
Posted on 11 May 2010 | 7 responses
By Sherine Jayawickrama
Several months ago, a provocatively titled academic paper caught my eye. The Ethics of INGO Advocacy or Why It’s Okay that No One Elected Oxfam was authored by Jennifer Rubenstein, Assistant Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. Her presentation and the discussion that followed were interesting and lively.
Chatting with Professor Rubenstein afterward, I learned that she was keen to have her arguments considered by practitioners, scholars and activists. She liked the idea of a candid discussion of her ideas on this blog. I hope this post can be the beginning of interesting exchange.
Professor Rubenstein’s full paper can be found here – and a brief summary of her paper can be found here. Her main purpose is to conceptualize (drawing from democratic theory) the role of INGOs in relation to advocacy in a way that their donors, intended beneficiaries and the public can better evaluate INGO advocacy and hold INGOs accountable.
As a political theorist, Professor Rubenstein is drawn to this subject matter because INGO advocacy campaigns are an increasingly prominent feature of global politics. She lays out the following three ways of conceptualizing INGO advocates:
• INGOs as representatives of poor and marginalized people
• INGOs as partners of poor and marginalized people
• INGOs as agents of justice for poor and marginalized people
The 3Ds: “Co-Equal Pillars”?
Posted on 6 May 2010 | 2 responses
By Steve Feldstein
In late April, Sherine Jayawickrama’s post Great Expectations, Rising Impatience: A Watershed Moment for U.S. Foreign Assistance posed several questions. This post responds to her question related to the evident imbalance among the 3Ds (defense, diplomacy and development).
I think there are several different ways to approach this issue. On the one hand, it is accurate to say that despite the “3D – co-equal pillar” rhetoric between defense, diplomacy and development, the relative amount of resources, political attention and priority paid to each of the three areas remain vastly unequal.
The numbers themselves are extremely telling – the President’s FY 2011 budget request for defense and national security spending totals approximately $733 billion. In contrast, the FY 2011 budget request for the international affairs budget (funding both development and diplomatic programs) totals $55.8 billion.
While resources and numbers are not the complete story – there is a basic truth to what an institution is able to accomplish with a $10 million program and a hundred million dollar intervention. That being said, it is equally important to consider larger trends and general levels of support for foreign aid today, versus 15 or 20 years ago.
Grassroot Soccer: Using the Power of Soccer in the Fight Against HIV and AIDS
Posted on 6 May 2010 | No responses
By Mariana Andrade
This post is part of this blog’s Sport & Development series. It is based on a conversation with Jeff DeCelles, Global Research & Development Manager at Grassroot Soccer (GRS). GRS was founded by Dr. Tommy Clark, Mthembe Ndlovu, Kirk Friedrich and Ethan Zohn.
When Jeff DeCelles first met Ebby Mukandawiri in Zambia, he was amazed to learn that this small 15-year-old had taken it upon himself to teach the GRS curriculum to 50 other children, many of them twice his size, in the Lusaka township of Chawama. Losing his parents, a sister and many other relatives and friends to AIDS spurred Ebby into looking at ways of bringing about change in his community. That is the power of GRS, a program that speaks to children in their language and that gives role models and peer educators simple but effective tools for the fight against HIV and AIDS.
GRS was founded in 2002 by a group of soccer players who had played professionally in Zimbabwe. This was their response to losing friends and fellow players to AIDS and to witnessing how HIV was devastating families, communities and the country. It was clear to the group that the traditional model of educating youth about the disease in classrooms was not effective; children were bored and apathetic and had little interest in the message.
Subscribe
