Understanding NGO Strategies to Engage with Donor-Funded Development Projects: Reconciling and Differentiating Objectives

Abstract

Much of the literature on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) problematises the relationship between donors and NGOs in terms of the control the former exercise over the latter. This leaves other aspects of a rich and varied relationship relatively unexplored. The aim of this article is to highlight the agency of civil society actors to promote an agenda independent of donor interests. The reactions of Turkish NGOs to the policy agenda and financial support put forward by the European Union suggest two main motivations for NGO engagement with the process: negotiating access to material resources and participating in the politics of representation. Out of this engagement emerges a typology of four strategies labelled 'translation', 'brokerage', 'navigation' and 'agonism'. These strategies reflect contrasting means of turning resources -both financial and ideopolitical -into the capacity to realise organisational objectives.La plupart de la littérature sur les ONG (organisations non-gouvernementales) problématise la relation entre les donneurs et les ONG en termes du contrôle que les ONG ont sur les donneurs. Ceci n'explore pas les autres aspects de cette relation si riche et variée. Le but de cet article c'est de souligner l'action des acteurs de la société civile dans la promotion d'un agenda indépendant des intérêts des donneurs. Les réactions des ONG Turques à l'agenda politique et au support économique promu par l'Union Européenne suggèrent deux raisons principales pour l'engagement des ONG avec ce procès: la négociation d'accès aux ressources matérielles, et la participation aux politiques de représentation. Une typologie émerge de cet engagement: quatre stratégies, nommées 'traduction', 'intermédiation', 'navigation', et 'agonisme'. Ces stratégies réfléchissent les formes contrastantes dans lesquelles on transforme des ressources -soit financières qu'idéo-politiques -dans la capacité de réaliser objectifs organisationnels.

Living with Paradox in International Development: An Extended Case Study of an International NGO

“…Our study shows how CU manages to hold a space that contains contradictory discourses across multiple communities and actors. As such, our findings concur with Ketola's (2016) suggestion that NGOs appropriate different strategies at different times in order to pursue the structural and political changes needed to get greater equity for poor communities on the ground. Further, we suggest that CU -with its unusually bottom-up approach to development, in which most staff come from within local communities and influence the overall strategy of the organisation -embodies a way of working that mitigates against the danger of a totalising approach to development that sees communities as passive recipients of development (Hesketh 2016, Escobar 2001.…”

“…Farmers blame GIG for not helping them, but CU people in turn point to their inability to challenge the rules of the market. To adopt Ketola's (2016) terminology, they are 'differentiating' themselves from an agenda imposed upon NGOs and communities alike by more powerful development actors. In this way, the uncomfortable late-night conversation that unfolds illustrates the extent to which communication can be agonistic rather than consensus-seeking (Burchell and Cook, 2013;Ganesh and Zoller, 2012), as NGO actors accept but do not attempt to resolve the tension identified by farmers.…”

“…However, even as capitalism has engulfed industrial and emerging societies alike, its advances are negotiated and resisted at local level through radical action by communities and those who work with them (Hesketh, 2016). For example, in his discussion of Turkish NGOs and their relationship with European donors, Ketola (2016) suggests nonprofits retain significant agency, despite the power differentials involved. Wrangel (2017) suggests poor people themselves assert a similar autonomy: Although constrained by their lack of capacity to 'conceive of or act towards a different future,' they are nonetheless 'hopeful' rather than passive or despairing (2017: 875).…”

Aid micropolitics: Everyday southern resistance to racialized and geographical assumptions of expertise

“…As Kumi and Kamruzzaman (2021) highlight, focus here may reveal how southern experts challenge, transform, subvert, resist or otherwise donor objectives that are brought with and by foreign consultants. Research on southern resistances in partnerships has mostly focused on NGOs, revealing how southern NGO workers employ a mixture of acquiescence and strategic subversion to try to hit the right note with donors in language and style to achieve, in part, their goals and desires for an alternative vision of change (e.g., Ancker and Rechel, 2015, Ketola, 2016, Mannell, 2014. Townsend et al (2004) call these "independent thinking NGOs", that create a small space in which to promote their own development ideas.…”

“…As Kumi and Kamruzzaman (2021) highlight, focus here may reveal how southern experts challenge, transform, subvert, resist or otherwise donor objectives that are brought with and by foreign consultants. Research on southern resistances in partnerships has mostly focused on NGOs, revealing how southern NGO workers employ a mixture of acquiescence and strategic subversion to try to hit the right note with donors in language and style to achieve, in part, their goals and desires for an alternative vision of change (e.g., Ancker and Rechel, 2015, Ketola, 2016, Mannell, 2014). Townsend et al.…”