European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence‐sitting, or adaptation?

Abstract

Motivation:The article examines the advocacy strategies of European non-government development organizations (NGDOs). The development aid literature has not put much emphasis on understanding NGDOs' aidrelated advocacy strategies, and the literature on interest groups has so far neglected to explain why groups select different advocacy strategies within the same policy area. Purpose: The article explains how NGDOs have selected advocacy strategies during the process of reformulating the European Consensus in 2016/17, in response to attempts by the European Union (EU) to divert aid from poverty reduction to three other goals: managing migration, funding climate change adaptation (CCA), and funding the private sector. Approach and methods: The article develops a framework explaining NGDOs' strategy selection, looking at the politicization of the policy change, its impact on NGDOs' funding, and its relation to the groups' normative positions. The article uses qualitative data from NGDO documents and interviews with senior staff of NGDO networks based in Brussels. Findings: NGDOs used different strategies for the three cases of aid diversion: they contested aid diversion for managing migration; mainly choose fence-sitting in case of CCA; and gradually became more adaptive towards diverting aid to fund the private sector. The three variables of politicization, impact on funding, and relation to normative positions explain the strategies selected by NGDOs in all three cases. Policy implications: The findings can help NGDOs in selecting the most appropriate advocacy strategies for changes in aid policy, allowing them to become more effective in influencing the EU institutions and member state governments. K E Y W O R D SAdvocacy, climate change, foreign aid, interest groups, migration, New European Consensus, non-government development organizations (NGDOs), private sector | INTRODUCTIONNon-government development organizations (NGDOs) play a key role in international development, not only by implementing aid projects in less developed countries, but also shaping the policies of 162 | ROZBICKA And SZEnT-IVÁnYI donor and recipient countries through their advocacy. NGDO networks, as well as other non-state actors like epistemic communities and social movements, have been instrumental in forcing the World Bank to apply environmental and social safeguards (Park, 2005), convincing donors to cancel the debts of some of the most heavily indebted poor countries (Busby, 2007), or mainstreaming gender into the EU's development policy (Elgström, 2000).Despite their significance and impact, however, the literature has paid relatively little attention to understanding how exactly NGDOs engage in policy advocacy, and how they select their advocacy strategies. NGDOs have a variety of advocacy strategies at their disposal, including direct or indirect approaches, the use of different lobbying techniques (e.g. building media presence, protest activities, publications, hiring commercial consultants), as well as the particular framing of t...

Politicization of Aiding Others: The Impact of Migration on European Public Opinion of Development Aid

“…Moreover, by making aid conditional on migration control, the EU channels more aid to countries of origin or transit countries that are not necessarily the ones that need financial assistance the most. On a political level, subordinating development policy for self‐serving migration goals runs the risk of compromising the ‘normative power’ image and the positive development practices the EU has wanted to promote globally over the years (Manners, 2002; Rozbicka and Szent‐Iványi, 2020).…”

Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe: What Impact Do they Have on Development Policy?

“…Firstly, migration is a core issue for PRRPs, and research evidence suggests that these parties have successfully influenced the migration policies of (Western) European countries (Lutz, 2019; Rossell Hayes and Dudek, 2019). Secondly, we observe the increasing diversion of European aid for the purpose of migration management and control (CONCORD, 2018; Rozbicka and Szent‐Iványi, 2020). PRRPs should contribute to the further exploitation of this link.…”

Cross-sector dialogue for sustainability: to partner or not to partner?

“…One reason why business and society literature does not emphasize these approaches more lies in an imbalance, in that literature, between, on the one hand, an emphasis on business strategies and, on the other hand, a comparative lack of consideration for the strategic interests and pragmatic approaches of NGOs or Civil Society Organisations. In these times of partnership imperative because of both the SDGs and changes in development aid policies incentivizing partnerships across the board (Bull and Miklian, 2019;Menashy and Shields, 2017;Rozbicka and Szent-Iv anyi, 2020), the number of dialogue-oriented organizations deliberately rejecting the partnership form is intriguing and suggests that partnerships as such might suppress true dialogue. This warrants more empirical studies focused on these types of organizations.…”