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

Professor Rubenstein seeks to assess which of these conceptions is most democratic: “which conception, if adopted, would best promote and embody democratic norms?”

She recognizes that, on face value, the concepts of representation and partnership appear more democratic than the justice-based conception. If INGOs are faithful representatives, they can help poor and marginalized groups make their voices heard in important policy venues; and, if INGOs are good partners, they can work to gain respect for the rights of these groups.  She argues, however, that the reality of what INGOs are (and how they work) creates two problems – the “allocation problem” and the “displacement problem” – that make construing INGOs as representatives or partners less democratic than conceptualizing INGOs as agents of justice.

First, she argues that construing INGOs as representatives obscures that fact that INGOs make deliberate decisions about whom to advocate for and do not equitably distribute their advocacy efforts among all poor and marginalized groups (or, for that matter, among groups who need their advocacy support the most). Since there isn’t a fair mechanism to guide the allocation of INGO advocacy efforts, the democratic norm of inclusion is undermined. Professor Rubenstein calls this the “allocation problem”.

Second, she argues that INGOs are “second-best” representatives compared to democratically-elected governments or local NGOs. Thus, when INGOs occupy the role of representative, they displace better representatives.  Professor Rubenstein calls this the “displacement problem.”

Finally, she argues that, because conceptualizing INGOs as agents of justice avoids the “allocation problem” and the “displacement problem”, it is a more democratic way of construing INGOs and their advocacy efforts.  Because the justice-based conception encourages INGOs to take a broad and impartial view when developing and selecting possible advocacy campaigns, she argues that it “makes present” those whom INGOs may otherwise overlook.

I find Professor Rubenstein’s arguments interesting and hope the concepts she sets out will promote reflection on some features of INGO advocacy.  Here are some of my reactions to her paper.

• Even though many INGOs will themselves argue that they do not seek to represent poor people, INGOs’ actions often indicate the contrary. Their advocacy messaging gives the impression that INGOs are “acting on behalf of” groups impacted by certain policies; the human interest stories INGOs invoke in the policy arena seem to “speak for” a broader group of beneficiaries.  Do INGOs need to be more deliberate about avoiding the appearance that they represent certain groups of poor people?  Or, if INGOs leverage the idea of representation to enhance their credibility in the policy arena, should they then be held up to standards of democratic representation (or at least be transparent about how they make decisions about how to allocate their advocacy efforts – for example, how do they identify advocacy issues)?

• The language of partnership is evocative of equitable relationships among INGOs, local NGOs and community groups – and when genuine partnership is achieved, democratic norms are affirmed – but reality is often more complex.  If INGOs hold the power to choose the issues on which they advocate – and these issues are often tied, to some extent, to strengthening the INGO’s brand identity, raising its public profile and bolstering its fundraising and mobilizing capacity – then is this a mere illusion of partnership rather than the real thing?  Does the language of solidarity and partnership paper over (possibly) divergent interests that INGOs avoid confronting?

• In the long version of her paper, Professor Rubenstein states that “the normative implication of construing INGOs as agents of justice is that INGOs should try to act consistently with what justice really requires.” I agree. As she argues, the concept of justice provides analytical resources for principled decision making re how to allocate INGO advocacy (introducing ideas of impartiality, fairness and equal consideration) and what outcomes to advocate for. However, does this conceptualization, at the end of the day, leave it up to each INGO to decide what justice really requires and how best to advance justice?  If so, how should INGOs be held accountable?  Is there something inherently easier about holding INGOs accountable as representatives or partners than as agents of justice?  Or is this irrelevant because there are no ways to formally hold INGOs accountable as representatives or partners in any case?

• Overall, I found illuminating (as someone who worked for several years in INGO advocacy) Professor Rubenstein’s description of the circumstances in which INGO advocacy takes place as involving “second-best actors in highly non-ideal contexts.”  The best INGO advocacy work must carefully balance ambitious goals about affecting positive change at scale with the humility and consciousness of the “second-best actor in a non-ideal context.”  How can this balance be struck with the reality of the aid-driven, project-based, brand-conscious business model that many INGOs have?

I welcome Professor Rubenstein and others to respond candidly – both comments to this post and separate guest posts are most welcome!

Sherine Jayawickrama manages the Humanitarian & Development NGOs domain of practice at the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University.

A couple of months ago, I blogged about how much NGOs have changed in terms of their readiness and their capacity to engage in the policy arena.  In that post, I cited NGO advocacy and campaigning at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh as an example.  The climate change summit that began today in Copenhagen is an even better example. 

First, the combination of analysis, campaigning, marketing and social networking that NGOs are advancing reflects a savvy, confident approach.  Oxfam America’s Climate Action Hub is an excellent example.  Other NGOs have considered how climate change affects their core issue and underscored the case for why climate change needs to be addressed.  For example, Save the Children recently published Feeling the Heat: Child Survival in a Changing Climate, a report describing how children will be affected by climate-induced disasters and diseases.   

Second, in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, advocacy coalitions and alliance-based campaigns have come brought diverse NGOs together to join forces and maximize public reach.  The Global Campaign for Climate Action’s Tck Tck Tck campaign is an exciting reflection of this.  By its own description, the campaign is “made up of leading international, national and local organizations addressing environment, development, poverty, human rights, health and humanitarian issues – it represents faith-based groups, youth groups, trade unions and individuals…”  Last time I looked, more than 10.5 million people had signed the campaign’s I Am Ready pledge, urging world leaders to make a bold climate deal in Copenhagen.  The campaign ran an open letter to world leaders in the Financial Times and International Herald Tribune today.

Finally, NGOs are drawing their credibility from their presence in communities already affected by climate change and are beginning to understand that their program strategies will need to be reshaped to address and take into account climate change.  InterAction, the coalition of U.S.-based international NGOs, recently embarked on an effort to develop NGO-wide principles for effective climate change adaptation.   Oxfam’s report on People-Centered Resilience explores the challenge of building farmers’ resilience to climate change.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of NGO staff are in Copenhagen now and the sheer size of their presence reflects a shift in the role of non-governmental and civil society groups in multilateral policy processes.  These groups are still not at the center of these gatherings and they have little official clout.  But it is clear that their positions and their capacity to mobilize concerted public action (a la the spectacular 350.org campaign which inspired 5200 events in 181 countries on October 24) cannot be cast aside. 

NGOs and civil society groups are becoming increasingly formidable players in the multilateral policy arena – and policy makers ignore them at their own peril.

The panel will be moderated by Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School.  Among the panelists will be: Paul O’Brien, Director, Aid Effectiveness  Team at Oxfam America; and Lant Pritchett, Professor of the Practice of International Development at the Harvard Kennedy School. 

Six weeks ago, President Obama signed a Presidential Study Directive (PSD) authorizing a whole-of-government review of U.S. global development policy.  What is significant about this PSD is that it looks far beyond foreign aid in considering how U.S. policies can impact global development.  It has become increasingly obvious that agriculture, trade and energy policies, for example, have huge consequences for poor people in developing countries.  Yet, there is little to no policy coherence across U.S. agencies, when it comes to advancing global development.

This is the first time that a U.S. administration will: look across all U.S. agencies that have a bearing on global development and ask essential questions about objectives, priorities and trade-offs; consider what resources and tools are needed to make U.S. development policy more effective; and recommend how to organize the U.S. government to better achieve its development objectives.  The PSD is now underway and will be finalized by the end of January 2010.

The panel will: examine this important opportunity for reshaping U.S. global development policy; explore how it relates to other processes that seek to reform U.S. foreign assistance and related legislation; and discuss what works in development, from the perspective of NGOs and scholars, and how that should be reflected in this policy review process unfolding in real time.