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.