Advertisement

Management of External Reliance

  • SungYong Lee
Chapter
Part of the Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies book series (RCS)

Abstract

The case study chapters of this volume examine four behavioural patterns of local peacebuilders as stated above. They examine how the four types of ownership promotion have been employed in the two areas, focusing specifically on the strategies local actors utilize to develop their unique models of peacebuilding, the distinguishing features of each of these, and their limitations as models of authentically local peacebuilding. This chapter introduces a contrasting approach to ownership development, that entails grassroots peacebuilders’ efforts to reduce the influence from external donors by gaining more financial independence. One popular way is to develop income generation schemes, in which funding sources are sought from collaboration with local communities and their own services for work partners. Moreover, local peacebuilders frequently adopt two types of actions to reduce their over-reliance on a small number of external supporters: diversification of partnership and local coalition building. While these efforts are unlikely to bring about complete autonomy for local peacebuilders, successful examples significantly increase their negotiation power vis-à-vis the demands from external actors, in terms of selecting the programmes to be initiated and those which will continue to operate, and determining operational features.

Keywords

Autonomy Influence mitigation Coalition Diversification of partnership Income generation 

References

  1. Bylander, Maryann. 2016. Micro-saturated: The Promises and Pitfalls of Microcredit as a Development Solution. In The Handbook of Contemporary Cambodia. ed. Simon Springer and Katherine Brickell. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Cagoco-Guiam, Rufa. 2002. An Exploratory Study of Civil Society Organizations Among Muslim Communities in Two Provinces in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Davao: Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  3. CEDAC. 2006. Improving Livelihood of Small Farmer in Tramkak: A Sustainable Solution for Rice Farmer. CEDAC Completion Report, January 2003–December 2005.Google Scholar
  4. CEDAC. 2009. Internal Evaluation Report of the Project: ILFARM-TK (June 2009). Phnom Penh: CEDAC.Google Scholar
  5. CIVICUS. 2015. Snapshot of Civil Society in the Philippines: Questionnaire to AGNA Members, CIVICUS. Available at http://www.civicus.org/images/Snapshot_of_CS_in_The_Philippines.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2018.
  6. Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC). 2013. CSO Contributions to the Development of Cambodia 2012. Phnom Penh: Cooperation Committee for Cambodia.Google Scholar
  7. Coronel-Ferrer, Miriam. 2002. Philippines National Unification Commission: National Consultation and the ‘Six Paths to Peace.’ In Owning the Process: Public Participation in Peacemaking, ed. Catherine Barnes. Accord 13. London: Conciliation Resources. Available at www.c-r.org/accord/peace/accord13/phi.htm. Accessed 18 June 2018.
  8. Ear, Chariya. 2010. Cambodia’s Rural Communities and Social Capital Formation: Lessons Learned from Tram Kak District, Takeo Province. Master’s Disseration, Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
  9. Feuer, Hart. 2014. Competitive Discourse in Civil Society: Pluralism in Cambodia’s Agricultural Development Platform. In Southeast Asia and the Civil Society Gaze: Scoping a Contested Concept in Cambodia and Vietnam, ed. Gabi Waibel, Judith Ehlert, and Hart Feuer. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hiwasa, Ayako. 2014. Changing Gendered Boundaries in Rural Cambodia. In Southeast Asia and the Civil Society Gaze: Scoping a Contested Concept in Cambodia and Vietnam, ed. Gabi Waibel, Judith Ehlert, and Hart Feuer. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Keosothea, Nou, and So Sovannarith. 2009. The Assessment of Project Approach for Promoting Farmers Associations (FAs) in Cambodia (ILFARM-TK I&II 2003–3008/9). Phnom Penh: CEDAC.Google Scholar
  12. Malena, Carmen, and Kristina Chhim. 2009. Linking Citizens and the State: An Assessment of Civil Society Contributions to Good Governance in Cambodia. New York: World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. McKechnie, Alastair. 2018. Sustaining Peace: How Can the Multilateral Humanitarian and Development System Deliver? A Presentation Delivered at the University of Otago, May 14.Google Scholar
  14. Parks, Thomas. 2008. The Rise and Fall of Donor Funding for Advocacy NGOs. Development in Practice 18 (2): 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rood, Steven. 2005. Forging Sustainable Peace in Mindanao: The Role of Civil Society—Policy Studies 17. Washington DC: East-Weste Center.Google Scholar
  16. Sivhouch, Ou, and Kim Sedara. 2013. 20 Years’ Strengthening Civil Society: Time for Reflection. Phnom Penh: CDRI.Google Scholar
  17. Sothea, Oum, and Neak Samsen. 2016. Inclusive Business Model in Cambodia: Case Study on Vegetable—A Presentation Delivered at Smallholder-Inclusive Food Value Chain Models for Local and Global Markets, June 4–6, Bali.Google Scholar
  18. White, Gordon. 1994. Civil Society, Democratization and Development (I): Clearing the Analytical Ground. Democratization 1 (2): 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Xinhua. 2017. Cambodia Caps Interest Rates on Microfinance Institution Loans, 13 March. Available at http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/13/c_136125874.htm. Accessed 29 May 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations