4-30-2010 Dean Chahim

1. 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

2. From Agents to Facilitators “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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. Key questions & Outline How does foreign funding affect the accountability of NGOs to the grassroots? Does conflicting accountability affect the ability of NGOs to catalyzesocial change? How does the presence of NGOs affect the viability and vitality of the grassroots? What are the alternatives?

6. 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 Poorqualitysocial services Data source: World Bank, www.data.worldbank.org

7. 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

8. 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

9. “Civil society”?

10. Hypothesis: “Grass without Roots” Increasing Foreign Funding…

11. Points of departure “Civil society” as purchasable and quantifiable NGOs as strictlynormative actors NGOs as “apolitical” actors NGOs able to “empower” the grassroots NGOs able to advocate on behalf of the grassroots

12. 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

13. 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

14. Characteristics of funding Volatile & whimsical Short-term cycles Aimed at quantitative results Politicized and depoliticizing Tied to donor foreign policy USAID funded NGO compound

15. Accountable to who? The struggle for downward accountability

16. Strained accountabilities NGOs Other NGOs, Staff ?

17. Coordinadora Civil (CC) :The“Voice” of Civil Society? Advocacynetwork 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”

18. 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?

19. Accountable to who? Downward accountability?

21. Urban elite NGO staff

22. NGOs not strongly accountable to volunteer promotersVolunteer promoters and victim of abuse NGO representative checking on project

23. Structural impediments Completely dependent on foreign aid No institutionalized downward accountabilityto constituency Can it be responsive? Can it mobilize?

25. Marginal success at NGO coordination

26. Springboard to politics for NGO staff

27. Façade of active civil societyRepresentative speaking at CC assembly

28. Mission Drift Social service or social change?

29. Example: IXCHEN Promote and defend women’s rights “empowerment” “we incitethe 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

30. Empowerment? Ixchen workshop

31. Pushed to serve the status quo Short-term “project” focus ignores structures Depoliticized, token popular education Services reduce pressure on state for policy change Campesinochild

32. No Room for the Grassroots?

33. 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 literacy Photos and statistics from Walker, 2003

34. 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

35. 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

36. Policy Implications & Emerging Solutions

37. 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?

38. “Illusion of Progress” Foreign funding to NGOs does not resolve but actually may distractfrom the structural issues underlying inequality while demobilizingthose best capable of challenging them. Campesino children

39. 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

40. 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)

41. Thank you!

42. Questions?

43. 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: RethinkingStrategy." 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.