Advertisement

Places of Poverty and Powerlessness: INGOs Working ‘At Home’

  • Susannah Pickering-SaqqaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The search for transformatory development practice, distanced from colonial binaries and representations, has been the focus of decades of scholarship. Recent research suggests that international development non-governmental organisations (INGOs) are central in this regard, whether in their governance, fundraising, advocacy, knowledge-management, engagement with others or approach to programme design. This paper progresses these debates by providing empirical evidence of the value of domestic programming in this ‘project’. Drawing on three case studies, the paper finds evidence of INGOs’ search for a programme strategy, which moves minimising the violence of ‘othering’ from theory to practice. Findings indicate that domestic programmes incorporate dimensions of a development practice, which make visible a theory of poverty as powerlessness, distance it from the violence of ‘othering’ and are grounded in an ethic of ‘everyone matters’. If development practice and intervention design can incorporate these elements, a transformatory, decolonised development practice may be possible.

Keywords

INGOs Power Othering Ethics Transformation Decoloniality 

Résumé

La recherche de pratiques de développement transformatrices, loin des représentations et des conceptions binaires coloniales, fait l’objet d’études depuis des décennies. Des recherches récentes suggèrent que les ONG internationales jouent un rôle central sur ce sujet-là, que ce soit dans leur gouvernance, leur collecte de fonds, leur plaidoyer, leur gestion des connaissances, leurs échanges avec les autres ou leur approche de la conception de programmes. Cet article fait progresser ces débats en fournissant des preuves empiriques de la valeur de la mise en oeuvre nationale de programmes dans ce "projet". En s'appuyant sur trois études de cas, cet article trouve des preuves sur le fait que les ONG internationales sont à la recherche d’une stratégie de programme, qui vise à passer de la théorie à la pratique le sujet de la réduction de la stigmatisation violente de «l’Autre». Les résultats indiquent que les programmes nationaux intègrent les dimensions d’une pratique de développement qui: rend visible une théorie de la pauvreté comme impuissance; l’éloigne de la violence de la stigmatisation de «l’Autre» et se fonde sur une éthique du «tout le monde compte». Si les pratiques de développement et la conception des interventions peuvent intégrer ces éléments, une pratique de développement transformatrice, loin de l’approche coloniale, peut devenir possible.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author confirms that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alcock, P. 2006. Understanding poverty, 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Appiah, A. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  3. Ballard, R. 2013. Geographies of Development II: Cash transfers and the reinvention of development for the poor. Progress in Human Geography 37 (6): 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bebbington, A. 2007. Social capital and development studies II. Progress in Development Studies 7 (2): 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bebbington, A., S. Hickey, and D. Mitlin (eds.). 2008. Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, E. 2017. How development projects persist: Everyday negotiations with Guatemalan NGOs. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BOND. 2015. Fast forward: The changing role of UK-based INGOs. London: BOND.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P., and P.P. Ferguson. 1999. The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P., and R. Nice. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bronstein, A. 2010. Interview with author, 6 April 2010.Google Scholar
  11. Cammack, P. 2002. Neoliberalism, the World Bank, and the new politics of development. Development Theory and Practice: Critical Perspectives.  https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-24345-4_9.Google Scholar
  12. Centre on Migration Policy and Society. 2008. Immigration, faith and cohesion: Findings informing change. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Choudry, A., and D. Kapoor (eds.). 2013. NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects. New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  14. Cooke, B. 2008. ‘Participatory Management as Colonial Administration’, The new development management: Critiquing the dual modernization. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  15. Cowen, M.P., and R.W. Shenton. 1996. Doctrines of development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. de Vries, P. 2008. Managerialization of Development, the Banalization of its Promise and the Disavowal of ‘Critique’ as a Modernist Illusion. In The new development management: Critiquing the dual modernization, ed. S. Dar and B. Cooke, 150–176. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  17. Dogra, N. 2012. Representations of global poverty: Aid, development and international NGOs. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  18. Ebrahim, A. 2005. NGOs and organizational change: Discourse, reporting, and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Elbers, W., and L. Schulpen. 2014. Reinventing international development NGOs—The case of ICCO. European Journal of Development Research 27 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Escobar, A. 1992. Planning. In The Development Dictionary A Guide to Knowledge as Power, ed. W. Sachs. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  21. Ferguson, J. 1990. The anti-politics machine: “Development,” depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fernando, J.L. 2011. The political economy of NGOs: State formation in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  23. Fowler, A. 2012. ACORD’s Transformation 1976–2010: Overcoming uncertainty. Nairobi: ACORD.Google Scholar
  24. Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  25. Gaventa, J. 2006. Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin 6: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaventa, J. 2010. Interview with author, 30 April 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Goulet, D. 1971. The cruel choice: A new concept in the theory of development. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  28. Goulet, D. 1997. Development ethics: A new discipline. International Journal of Social Economics 24 (11): 1160–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammock, J., and M. Hirschland. 1992. Oxfam America: U.S. Program (Draft). Oxford: Oxfam America.Google Scholar
  30. Hettne, B. 1990. Development theory and the three worlds. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical.Google Scholar
  31. Hira, A., and T.W. Parfitt. 2004. Development projects for a new millennium. London: Westport.Google Scholar
  32. Islamic Relief Worldwide. 2010. Annual Report 2009. Birmingham: Islamic Relief Worldwide.Google Scholar
  33. Islamic Relief Worldwide. 2011. Islamic Relief Worldwide Annual Report and Financial Statements 2010. Birmingham: Islamic Relief Worldwide.Google Scholar
  34. Islamic Relief Worldwide nd. Faith Inspired Action: Global Strategy 2011- 2015, Birmingham: Islamic Relief Worldwide.Google Scholar
  35. Kelsall, T., and C. Mercer. 2003. Empowering People? World Vision & ‘Transformatory Development’ in Tanzania. Review of African Political Economy 30 (96): 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khan, A.A., I. Tahmazov, and M. Abuarqub. 2009. Translating faith into development. Birmingham: Islamic Relief Worldwide.Google Scholar
  37. Kothari, U. 2005. A radical history of development studies: Individuals, institutions and ideologies. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  38. Krause, M. 2008. How humanitarians make decisions about relief: In pursuit of the good project. Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  39. Lewis, D. 2013. Reconnecting development policy, people and history. In Aid, NGOs and the realities of women’s lives: A perfect storm, ed. T. Wallace, F. Porter, and M. Ralph-Bowman. Rugby: Practical Action.Google Scholar
  40. Lizardo, O. 2004. The cognitive origins of Bourdieu’s Habitus. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (4): 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCourt, W., and H. Johnson. 2012. The means-ends debate in development management: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of International Development 24: 531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGee, R. 2002. Participating in development. In Development theory and practice: Critical perspectives, ed. U. Kothari and M. Minogue, 92–116. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, H. 2012. A change in charity law for England and Wales: Examining War on Want’s foremost adoption of the new human rights charitable purpose. International Journal of Human Rights 16 (7): 1003–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, R.W. 2010. Globalizing justice: The ethics of poverty and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mitchell, T. 1995. The object of development: America’s Egypt. In Power of development, ed. J. Crush, 129–157. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Mitlin, D., S. Hickey, and A. Bebbington. 2007. Reclaiming development? NGOs and the challenge of alternatives. World Development 35 (10): 1699–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moyles, C. 2007. Promises of transformation: Just how different are international development NGOs? Journal of International Development 19 (3): 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moyles, C. 2012. Keeping means and ends in view—Linking practical judgement, ethic and emergence. Journal of International Development 24: 544–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Narayanaswamy, L. 2016. ‘I have not seen a single person use it’: NGOs, documentation centres and knowledge brokering in development. In Negotiating Knowledge: Evidence and experience in development NGOs, ed. R. Hayman, S. King, T. Kontinen, and L. Narayanaswamy. Practical Action: Rugby.Google Scholar
  50. Njoroge, F., T. Raistrick, B. Crooks, and J. Mouradian. 2009. Umoja Transforming Communities: Facilitator’s Guide. Teddington: Tearfund.Google Scholar
  51. Olukoshi, A. 2007. From colonialism to the new Millennium and beyond. IDS Bulletin 38 (2): 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oxfam America. 2010. Resilience and determination: Gulf Coast organizations defending worker and immigrant rights in the aftermath of Katrina. Boston, MA: Oxfam America.Google Scholar
  53. Oxfam America. 2011. A state of fear: Human rights abuses in North Carolina’s tobacco industry. Boston: Oxfam America.Google Scholar
  54. Pallas, C., D. Gethings, and M. Harris. 2015. Do the right thing: The impact of INGO legitimacy standards on stakeholder input. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations 26 (4): 1261–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parfitt, T. 2013. Modalities of violence in development: Structural or contingent, mythic or divine? Third World Quarterly 34 (7): 1175–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Perry, J., and A. El-Hassan. 2008. A guide to engaging with Muslim communities. Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.Google Scholar
  57. Petersen, M.J. 2012. Trajectories of transnational Muslim NGOs. Development in Practice 22 (5–6): 763–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pipa, T. 2006. Forgotten communities, unmet promises: An unfolding tragedy on the Gulf Coast. Boston: Oxfam America.Google Scholar
  59. Pogge, T. 2005. Reply to the critics: Severe poverty as a violation of negative duties. Ethics and International Affairs 19: 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rahnema, M. 1992. Participation. In The development dictionary, ed. W. Sachs. New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  61. Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  62. Sachs, W. 1992. The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  63. Schwittay, A.F. 2015. New media and international development: Representation and affect in microfinance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Shrestha, N. 1995. Becoming a Development Category. In Power of development, ed. J. Crush. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Sinclair, M. 2012. Interview with author (via Skype), Accessed 8 March 2012.Google Scholar
  66. Singer, P. 2009. The life you can save: How to play your part in ending world poverty. London: Picador.Google Scholar
  67. Tomalin, E. 2012. Thinking about faith-based organisations in development: Where have we got to and where next? Development in Practice 22 (5–6): 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: Agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  69. VeneKlasen, L., and V. Miller. 2002. A new weave of power, people and politics: The action guide for advocacy and citizen participation. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wacquant, L. 2014. Putting habitus in its place: Rejoinder to the symposium. Body & Society 20 (2): 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walton, O., T. Davies, E. Thrandardottir, and V. Keating. 2016. Understanding contemporary challenges to INGO legitimacy: Integrating top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations 27 (6): 2764–2786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yanacopulos, H. 2016. International NGO engagement, advocacy, activism: The faces and spaces of change. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  73. Yanacopulos, H., and M. Bailie Smith. 2008. The ambivalent cosmopolitanism of international NGOs. In Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives, ed. A. Bebbington, S. Hickey, and D. Mitlin. London: Zed.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesUniversity of East LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations