Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Directions in a Post-aid World? South–South Development Cooperation and CSOs in Latin America

Abstract

The architecture of international aid to developing and emerging economies is undergoing significant change. Post-aid world conditions will reshape relationships between international aid actors including donors, civil society organizations (CSOs), governments, and other institutions. These trends draw attention to South–South Development Cooperation (SSDC) as a promising direction in regions like Latin America. CSOs’ participation in SSDC might challenge and divert the dependency and power asymmetries in traditional North–South aid. As potential adaptive strategy for CSOs, SSDC diversifies the actors involved in aid and the resources exchanged, and produces different development discourses. The article outlines SSDC as an alternative development model and specifically considers the participation of CSOs. It provides a case of CSOs’ participation in SSDC in the region of Latin America. As research on CSOs in SSDC is limited, the article contributes to its further understanding and provides further avenues of research.

Résumé

La structure de l’aide internationale aux économies en développement et émergence connaît d’importants changements. Les conditions mondiales qui découleront de cette assistance restructureront les relations entre les intervenants du secteur de l’aide mondiale, dont les donateurs, organisations de la société civile (OSC), gouvernements et autres institutions. Ces tendances attirent l’attention sur la coopération au développement sud–sud (CDSS), un modèle prometteur dans des régions comme l’Amérique latine. La participation des OSC à la CDSS pourrait remettre en perspective et dérouter les dépendances et déséquilibres de pouvoirs qui caractérisent l’aide nord-sud traditionnelle. En tant que stratégie d’adaptation potentielle des OSC, la CDSS diversifie les intervenants et les ressources échangées, et elle crée différents discours en matière de développement. Le présent article définit la CDSS comme un modèle de développement alternatif et traite particulièrement de la participation des OSC. Il présente un exemple de ladite participation en Amérique latine. Puisque les recherches sur les OSC et la CDSS sont limitées, l’article permet de mieux comprendre la relation entre ces dernières et offre d’autres avenues de recherche.

Zusammenfassung

Die Form der internationalen Hilfe für Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländer erlebt derzeit bedeutende Änderungen. Die Bedingungen auf der Welt nach den erfolgten Hilfeleistungen werden die Beziehungen zwischen den Akteuren im Zusammenhang mit der internationalen Hilfe, einschließlich Spender, Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen, Regierungen und anderer Einrichtungen, neu definieren. Diese Trends lenken die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Süd-Süd-Entwicklungskooperation als eine vielversprechende Richtung in Regionen wie Lateinamerika. Durch die Beteiligung der Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen an der Süd-Süd-Entwicklungskooperation könnte das asymmetrische Verhältnis von Abhängigkeit und Macht in der traditionellen Nord-Süd-Hilfe herausgefordert und verlagert werden. Als eine potenzielle adaptive Strategie für Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen diversifiziert die Süd-Süd-Entwicklungskooperation die Hilfeleistenden und die ausgetauschten Ressourcen und löst andersartige Entwicklungsdiskurse aus. Der Beitrag stellt die Süd-Süd-Entwicklungskooperation als ein alternatives Entwicklungsmodell dar und betrachtet insbesondere die Beteiligung der Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen. Man beschreibt einen Fall der Beteiligung von Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen an der Süd-Süd-Entwicklungskooperation in der lateinamerikanischen Region. Da die Forschung zu Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen in der Süd-Süd-Entwicklungskooperation nur begrenzt ist, leistet diese Arbeit einen Beitrag für das weitere Verständnis und bietet weitere Forschungsmöglichkeiten.

Resumen

La arquitectura de la ayuda internacional a economías en desarrollo y emergentes está sufriendo cambios significativos. Las condiciones mundiales de la posayuda darán nueva forma a las relaciones entre los actores de la ayuda internacional, incluidos los donantes, las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (CSO, por sus siglas en inglés), los gobiernos y otras instituciones. Estas tendencias llaman la atención hacia la Cooperación al Desarrollo Sur–Sur (SSDC, por sus siglas en inglés) como una prometedora dirección en regiones como América Latina. La participación de las CSO en SSDC podría cuestionar y desviar las asimetrías de poder y dependencia en la ayuda tradicional Norte-Sur. Como potencial estrategia adaptativa para las CSO, SSDC diversifica a los actores implicados en la ayuda y los recursos intercambiados, y produce diferentes discursos de desarrollo. El artículo esboza a la SSDC como un modelo de desarrollo alternativo y considera específicamente la participación de las CSO. Proporciona un caso de participación de las CSO en SSDC en la región de América Latina. Como la investigación sobre las CSO en SSDC es limitada, el artículo contribuye a su mayor comprensión y proporciona vías de investigación adicionales.

Chinese

国际社会对发展中经济体和新兴经济体的援助正在发生结构性变化。援助后世界格局将重塑国际援助参与者,其中包括,捐赠者、民间团体组织(CSO)、政府及其他结构,之间的关系。这些趋势使南南合作(SSDC)在拉丁美洲等地区倍受青睐。民间团体组织参与南南合作可能改变传统的南北援助模式的依赖性和权力失衡。作为民间团体组织潜在适应性策略,南南合作对援助参与者及交换资源加以分类,作出了不同的发展论述。本文把南南合作概括为一种替代性发展模式,并专门考虑了民间团体组织的参与。另外,本文列举了一个民间团体组织在拉丁美洲参与南南合作的实例。鉴于南南合作对民间团体组织研究的局限性,本文还专门对民间团体进行了深入研究,并提供了其他研究途径。.

Japanese

経済の新興と開発における国際的援助の構造は大きな変化を遂げている。援助後の世界的状況は、資金提供者、市民社会の組織 (CSO)、政府、その他機関を含む国際援助者間の関係を変えている。この傾向から、ラテンアメリカ地域における有望な方向性として南南開発協力 (SSDC) に注目が集まっている。SSDC の市民社会の参加は、伝統的な南北援助における依存関係と力の非対称性に転用して挑戦する。市民社会のため潜在的な適応戦略として、SSDCは援助に関与する行為者と交換された資金の多様化、様々な開発の言説を生成する。本論文では、代替開発モデルとしてのSSDCを説明して、市民社会の参加を特に考慮する。ラテンアメリカ地域での市民社会の参加の事例を提供する。SSDC の市民社会に関する研究は限られている、本論文では理解を深めて、さらなる研究の道を提供する。.

Arabic

يشهد التخطيط للمساعدات الدولية للإقتصاد الناشئ والنامي تغيركبير. بعد المساعدات الظروف العالمية سوف تعيد تشكيل العلاقات بين الجهات الفاعلة للمساعدات الدولية بما في ذلك الجهات المانحة ومنظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs)، الحكومات، المؤسسات الأخرى. هذه الاتجاهات تلفت الإنتباه إلى التعاون الإنمائي فيما بين بلدان الجنوب (SSDC) كإتجاه واعد في مناطق مثل أمريكا اللاتينية. مشاركة منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs)، في التعاون الإنمائي فيما بين بلدان الجنوب (SSDC) قد يتحدى و يحول التبعية و تماثل السلطة في المساعدات التقليدية بين الشمال والجنوب. كإستراتيجية التكيف المحتملة لمنظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs)، التعاون الإنمائي فيما بين بلدان الجنوب (SSDC) ينوع الجهات المعنية في المساعدات وتبادل الموارد، وينتج محادثات تنمية مختلفة. يسلط هذا المقال الضوء على التعاون الإنمائي فيما بين بلدان الجنوب (SSDC) بمثابة نموذج التنمية البديلة، ويعتبر على وجه التحديد مشاركة منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs). يقدم حالة من مشاركة منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs) في التعاون الإنمائي فيما بين بلدان الجنوب في (SSDC) منطقة أمريكا اللاتينية. كما أن البحث في منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs) في التعاون الإنمائي فيما بين بلدان الجنوب (SSDC) محدود، وتساهم هذه المقالة في مزيد من الفهم وتقدم المزيد من سبل البحث.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Change history

  • 10 May 2018

    The PDF version of this article was reformatted to a larger trim size.

Notes

  1. 1.

    CSOs are considered self-governing entities that do not distribute the excess of their revenues over expenditures among stakeholders and are assumed to have a purpose for the public benefit that is agreed upon by associates of the organization (Boris 2006; Vakil 1997). As such, the term CSO encompasses nongovernmental organizations, as well as faith-based organizations and other less formal associations.

  2. 2.

    The global South is usually considered the regions of Africa, Latin America, and developing Asia including the Middle East.

  3. 3.

    A quick search in the field’s top interdisciplinary journals (For example, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, and Nonprofit Management and Leadership) demonstrates no attention to SSDC and its relationship to CSOs in the global South.

  4. 4.

    The Ibero-American General Secretariat serves as a liaison body between the 22 governments that comprise the Ibero-American Summit of Nations and is charged with coordinating the annual summits (http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Portal/en/PoliticaExteriorCooperacion/Iberoamerica/Paginas/SEGIB.aspx).

  5. 5.

    The Ibero-American General Secretariat is the most comprehensive data on South-South coordination; however, its definition does differ from some of the academic policy literature in that it only ‘counts’ examples of SSDC which include 3 partners.

  6. 6.

    Ibero-America includes the countries and territories where Spanish or Portuguese are considered the predominant languages and which were territories of Spain or Portugal. These include: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Spain, Uruguay, Venezuela, Brazil, Portugal.

References

  1. Abdenur, A. E., Estevao, J. M., & Sa Fonseca, M. (2013). The north’s growing role in south–south cooperation: Keeping the foothold. Third World Quarterly, 34(8), 1475–1491.

  2. Aldrich, H. E., & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 79–105.

  3. ALOP [Asociación Latinoamericana de Organizaciones de Promoción al Desarrollo]. (2010). Consultas nacionales a organizaciones de la sociedad civil América Latina y el Caribe. http://rendircuentas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Consultas-Nacionales-OSC-AL-y-El-CARIBE-espa%C3%B1ol.pdf.

  4. Andrade, M. (2009). Is the south ready for southsouth cooperation? UNDP—International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth. http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCOnePager77.pdf.

  5. ANF. (2015). Retiro de cooperación danesa afectará más al Gobierno que a las ONG, según UNITAS. Retrieved from http://www.paginasiete.bo/sociedad/2015/9/29/retiro-cooperacion-danesa-afectara-gobierno-ong-segun-unitas-71752.html.

  6. Appe, S. (2016). NGO networks, the diffusion and adaptation of NGO managerialism, and NGO legitimacy in Latin America. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9495-y.

  7. Appe, S. (Forthcoming). Civil society organizations in a post-aid world: New trends and observations from the Andean region. Public Administration and Development.

  8. Appe, S. & Barragán, D. (2013). Strategies outside the formal classroom: Nonprofit management education in transparency and accountability. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 591–614.

  9. Appe, S. & Barragán, D. (2015). Policy Windows for CSOs in Latin America: Looking Outside the Standard Legal and Regulatory Environments. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266015-9666-z.

  10. Appe, S. & Telch, F. (2016). Donor withdrawal and the implications for public governance in Latin America. In A. Farazmand(Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (GEPAPP). New York, NY: Springer Press.

  11. AROG. (2013). 12th anniversary celebration of AROG. Retrieved on 10 April 2016 from http://arog.org/2013/11/celebracion-de-12avo-aniversario-de-arog/.

  12. AROG. (2016). AROG website. Retrieved on 10 April 2016 from http://ongecuador.blogspot.com/.

  13. Ayllón, B., & Dolcetti, M. (2014). Revolución Ciudadana, Buen Vivir y Cooperación en Ecuador (2007–2013). Relaciones Internacionales, 46, 177–199.

  14. Balbis Pérez, J. (2013). Las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y las asociaciones incluyentes para la Cooperación Sur-Sur en América Latina. Revista, 36(17), 59–73.

  15. Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development, 66, 707–718.

  16. Brancaccio, D. (2016). This financial innovation could help low-income people gain access to credit. Marketplace. Retrieved from: http://www.marketplace.org/2016/09/26/wealth-poverty/jose-quinonez-macarthur-unbanked-credit-lending-circle.

  17. Brinkerhoff, J. M., & Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2002). Government-nonprofit relations in comparative perspective: Evolution, themes and new directions. Public Administration and Development, 22(1), 3–18.

  18. Brysk, A. (2000). Democratizing civil society in Latin America. Journal of Democracy, 11(3), 151–165.

  19. Carbonnier, G., & Sumner, A. (2012). Reframing aid in a world where the poor live in emerging economies. In G. Carbonnier (Ed.), International development policy: aid, emerging economies and global policies (pp. 3–18). Geneva: Institute of International Studies.

  20. CIVICUS. (2015). State of civil society report. CIVICUS world alliance for citizen participation. http://civicus.org/index.php/en/media-centre-129/reports-and-publications/socs2015.

  21. CIVICUS. (2016). State of civil society report 2016. Retrieved on 4 July 2016, from http://www.civicus.org/images/documents/SOCS2016/summaries/SoCS-full-review.pdf.

  22. Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: Deconstructing development discourse. Development in Practice, 17(4/5), 471–484.

  23. de Sá e Silva, M. M. (2010). How did we get here? The pathways of south–south cooperation. Poverty in Focus, 20, 3–4.

  24. Edwards, M. (2005). Civil society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  25. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.

  26. FAONG. (2015). About us. Retrieved on 15 September 2015 from http://www.faong.org/quienes-somos/.

  27. FAONG and AROG. (2013). Convenio Marco de Cooperación. Document on file with the author.

  28. Farouky, N. (2016). The State of Arab philanthropy and the case for change. Development in Practice, 26(5), 637–645.

  29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). Southsouth cooperation. Retrieved on 1 August 2015 from http://www.fao.org/partnerships/south-south-cooperation/en/.

  30. Fowler, A. (2016). Non-governmental development organisations’ sustainability, partnership, and resourcing: futuristic reflections on a problematic trialogue. Development in Practice, 26(5), 569–579.

  31. Hayman, R. (2016). Unpacking civil society sustainability: Looking back, broader, deeper, forward. Development in Practice, 26(5), 670–680.

  32. Hudock, A. (1995). Sustaining southern NGOs in resource-dependent environments. Journal of International Development, 7(4), 653–668.

  33. Instituto de Comunicación y Desarrollo. (2014). Estudio Regional sobre Mecanismos de Financiamiento de la Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil en América Latina. Mesa de Articulación de Plataformas Nacionales y Redes Regionales de América Latina y el Caribe. Montevideo: ICD.

  34. Jules, T. D., & de sá e Silva, M. M. (2008). How different disciplines have approached south–south cooperation and transfer. Society for International Education Journal., 5(1), 45–64.

  35. Kopecky, P., & Mudde, C. (2003). Rethinking civil society. Democratization, 10(3), 1–14.

  36. Lewis, D. (2014). Heading south: Time to abandon the ‘parallel worlds’ of international non-governmental organization (NGO) and domestic third sector scholarship? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 1132–1150.

  37. Mawdsley, E., Savadge, L., & Kim, S. (2014). A ‘post-aid world’? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum. The Geographical Journal, 180(1), 27–38.

  38. McEwan, C., & Mawdsley, E. (2012). Trilateral development cooperation: Power and politics in emerging aid relationships. Development & Change, 43(6), 1185–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01805.

  39. Mirabella, R. M., Gemelli, G., Malcolm, M.-J., & Berger, G. (2007). Nonprofit and philanthropic studies: International overview of the field in Africa, Canada, Latin America, Asia, the Pacific, and Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4, Suppl.), 110S–135S.

  40. Mitchell, G. (2014). Strategic responses to resource dependence among transnational NGOs registered in the United States. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 67–91.

  41. Moilwa, T. (2015). Realising the potential of civil society-led southsouth development cooperation. Institute of Development Studies Policy Briefing, Issue 84. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/5656/PB84_AGID421_CivilSociety_Online.pdf?sequence=1.

  42. Molina, C., Celi, C., & Toro, A. (2011). Ecuador: Between the progress of the Citizen’s revolution and the difficulties of civil society. In Reality of aid, democratic ownership and development effectiveness: Civil society perspectives on progress since Paris.

  43. Molina, C., & Zamora, E. (2015). Las Organizaciones de Sociedad Civil y Los Principios y Alternativas de la Cooperación Sur-Sur. Unpublished document.

  44. Muggah, R., & Pasarelli Hamann, E. (2012). Brazil’s generous diplomacy: friendly dragon or paper tiger. In G. Carbonnier (Ed.), International development policy: aid, emerging economies and global policies (pp. 104–116). Geneva: Institute of International Studies.

  45. OECD. (2014). Aid (ODA) disbursements to countries and regions [DAC2a]. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE2A.

  46. OECD-DAC (2008). The Accra Agenda for Action. Paris: OECD.

  47. Pallas, C., & Nguyen, L. (2017). Donor withdrawal and the future of civil society in Vietnam: Problems and solutions from the HIV/AIDS sector. Development Policy Review.

  48. Paul, J. A. (1996). The World Bank & NGOs. Global Policy Forum. Retrieved from https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/177/31512.html.

  49. Pousadela, I. M., & Cruz, A. (2016). The sustainability of Latin American CSOs: Historical patterns and new funding sources. Development in Practice, 26(5), 606–618.

  50. Pratt, B. (2016). Special issue overview: Civil society sustainability. Development in Practice, 26(5), 527–531.

  51. Ramírez, F. (2009). Entre el poder y la crítica: Movimientos sociales, sociedad civil y democracia en el Ecuador. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

  52. Reality of Aid. (2010). Southsouth cooperation: A Challenge to the Aid System? Special Report on South-South Cooperation 2010. http://www.realityofaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ROA-SSDC-Special-ReportEnglish.pdf.

  53. Rist, G. (2007). Development as a buzzword. Development in Practice, 17(4/5), 485–491.

  54. Ruttenberg, T. (2013). Wellbeing economics and Buen Vivir: Development alternatives for inclusive human security. PRAXIS The Fletcher Journal of Human Security, XXVIII, 68–93.

  55. Salazar, A., Pérez, C. P., Cadavid, M., & Erazo, A. (2011). Political publica para el fortalcimiento de las organizaciones sociales de la sociedad civil del municipio de Medellin.

  56. Schaaf, R. (2015). The rhetoric and reality of partnerships for international development. Geography Compass, 9(2), 68–80.

  57. Schulpen, L., Loman, B., & Kinsbergen, S. (2011). Worse than expected? Public Administration and Development, 31(5), 321–339.

  58. Steering Committee members of the Bogota High Level Event. (2010). Bogota statement towards effective and inclusive development partnerships. http://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/45497536.pdf.

  59. Suárez, D., & Gugerty, M. K. (2016). Funding civil society? Bilateral government support for development NGOs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9706-3.

  60. Tomlinson, B. (2013). Working with civil society in foreign aid: Possibilities for southsouth cooperation? United Nations Development Program.

  61. United Nations Office for South–South Cooperation. (2016). What is southsouth cooperation? Retrieved on 15 August 2015 from http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc/about/what_is_ssc.html.

  62. Vaes, S., & Huyse, H. (2013). New voices on South-South Cooperation between emerging powers and Africa: African civil society perspectives. Leuven: Research Chair on Development Cooperation.

  63. Xalma, C., & López, S. (2015). 2015 report on South-South Cooperation in Ibero–America. Madrid: Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Juan Molina Bolivar from Equinoctial Technical University in Quito, Ecuador for fruitful conversations and his insights that led to and very much informed this paper.

Author information

Correspondence to Susan Appe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Appe, S. Directions in a Post-aid World? South–South Development Cooperation and CSOs in Latin America. Voluntas 29, 271–283 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9838-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • International aid
  • Post-aid
  • Aid dependency
  • Alternative development
  • Civil society networks