scholarly journals Germany’s Government-Civil Society Development Cooperation Strategy: the dangers of the middle of the road

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-59
Author(s):  
Susan Engel

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been busy since the late 2000s studying the way aid donors manage their relations with development civil society organisations (CSOs). More than studying these relations, they have made some very detailed, managerialist suggestions about how CSOs should be organised and how donor governments should fund and otherwise relate to them. This came out of the debate about aid effectiveness, which was formally aimed at improving both donor and recipient processes. Donors have quietly dropped many of the aspects related to improving their own performance and yet a number have created new interventionist governance frameworks for CSOs. This is the case in Germany, which has a large, vibrant development CSO sector that has traditionally been quite autonomous, even where its received state funding thanks to Germany’s commitment to ‘subsidiarity.’ Yet Germany is otherwise a middle of the road donor and in many ways, these ‘reforms’ are moving its relations with civil society more towards a somewhat more managerialist approach, one that is in fact the norms amongst OECD donors.

Two Homelands ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Lacomba ◽  
Mourad Aboussi

The conjunction between the last few decades’ public policy changes and the impact of the growth of immigration in Spain has had a transformative effect on the third sector. The government trend toward outsourcing the management of international development cooperation programs and social services has shifted much of the state’s responsibility onto the shoulders of civil society organizations. The context has subjected them to tensions and changes in the way they take action and the way they are organized. This article, based on two research projects, explores the adaptations and new forms of relationships among the main actors involved in the field of migration and development.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Pedram Pirnia

<p>The principle of ownership and the idea that development aid should be owned by recipients has emerged within the last two decades in key statements from a series of international meetings between major donors and partners, most prominently since the 2005 Paris Declaration when ‘ownership of development aid’ became the first Principle of Aid Effectiveness. The principle was applauded particularly by the governments of rich donor states, but also by their specialist aid agencies and representatives of civil society. However, despite the endorsement and praise of the principle of ownership by all donors and stakeholders, confusion and lack of clarity remains as to what exactly ownership of development aid means especially in terms of policy and practice in the work of development actors.  The core proposal of this thesis is that the principle of recipient ownership of development aid, apparently so important at the highest international levels of discussion, must be defined, broken down into relevant ingredients, taken into consideration in terms of policy and practice, and measured. Otherwise, the principle is nothing but empty rhetoric. It is logical to suggest that to have any policy value political concepts should be definable and measureable. Hence, the thesis argues that if one can formulate the relevant ingredients of ownership, one can carefully investigate factors that increase or decrease those ingredients. This is the focus of this thesis.  Field research in the Pacific Islands used a mixed methodology that included gathering data on completed development projects and interviewing government officials, major donor officials, other deliverers of aid – particularly the civil society organisations (CSOs) – and especially the project beneficiaries at the grassroots. Projects where CSOs demonstrated particularly close engagement with the communities and beneficiaries were chosen as case studies. Analysing and deconstructing these mechanics and ingredients of ownership produced a new definition for ‘ownership of development aid’ and a range of variables for an Ownership Index and for Ownership Guidelines. These combined tools presented in this research should assist professionals to promote, cultivate and measure ownership of development outcomes that project beneficiaries will maintain, protect and improve over time.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-264
Author(s):  
Richard Madsen

Abstract A staple of political theory is that democracy depends on a vibrant civil society. What are the indicators of such a society? Is it the number of voluntary associations, their relative independence from government, the content of their activities, their systemic relationships with one another—and/or the way the relationships among these variables are evolving over time? In this paper, I place special emphasis on the systemic relationships among civil society organisations and their evolution over time, and I revisit some of the findings from the book Democracy’s Dharma to show how this emphasis might offer a new perspective on the development of Taiwan’s civil society today.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-80
Author(s):  
David Dole ◽  
Steven Lewis-Workman ◽  
Dennis D. Trinidad ◽  
Xianbin Yao

The aims of this article are twofold. First, from a historical perspective, it examines the recipient-to-donor transition of five Asian aid donors, namely Japan, Korea, China, India, and Thailand. Specifically, it examines the evolution of their foreign aid programs and practices. Second, it analyzes the effects of Asian aid donors on the international aid regime. We argue that the mix of economic and security goals, which motivated Asian donors to develop their initial economic cooperation programs, have persisted over time. This explains why Asian aid donors have allotted a disproportionate share of their assistance to neighboring countries and their use of foreign aid as a key tool of their commercial and diplomatic policies. Moreover, we contend that the rise and experience of Asian aid donors have created a new dynamic to donor–recipient partnerships and development cooperation like new approaches and modalities. Key findings of this study add to the growing literature on emerging donors and aid effectiveness debate.


2017 ◽  
pp. 133-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Witkowska

A deliberative debate is a process of communication focused on finding good arguments for specific evaluations and solutions to the issues discussed, and addressing important stakeholder issues. The aim of the article is to present the course and results of observations made with regards to the theoretical and scientific discourse of deliberation that took place in September 2016. Participants were academic experts, thinkers and representatives of civil society organisations working in European affairs, as well as doctoral students and other activists. The questions concerned the way to understand the guiding motto of the meeting: More Europe and the way to define and to perceive the crisis in the process of European integration. Deliberation concerned the assessment of the model of European integration and the question whether the current formula is endorsed or contested. In addition, arguments on the best and worst effects of the integration process should be identified, who can challenge the integration process and for what reasons. The purpose of the deliberation was to assess the process of European integration, identify the ground for the criticism thereof, diagnose crisis situations and indicate the desired target model.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Pedram Pirnia

<p>The principle of ownership and the idea that development aid should be owned by recipients has emerged within the last two decades in key statements from a series of international meetings between major donors and partners, most prominently since the 2005 Paris Declaration when ‘ownership of development aid’ became the first Principle of Aid Effectiveness. The principle was applauded particularly by the governments of rich donor states, but also by their specialist aid agencies and representatives of civil society. However, despite the endorsement and praise of the principle of ownership by all donors and stakeholders, confusion and lack of clarity remains as to what exactly ownership of development aid means especially in terms of policy and practice in the work of development actors.  The core proposal of this thesis is that the principle of recipient ownership of development aid, apparently so important at the highest international levels of discussion, must be defined, broken down into relevant ingredients, taken into consideration in terms of policy and practice, and measured. Otherwise, the principle is nothing but empty rhetoric. It is logical to suggest that to have any policy value political concepts should be definable and measureable. Hence, the thesis argues that if one can formulate the relevant ingredients of ownership, one can carefully investigate factors that increase or decrease those ingredients. This is the focus of this thesis.  Field research in the Pacific Islands used a mixed methodology that included gathering data on completed development projects and interviewing government officials, major donor officials, other deliverers of aid – particularly the civil society organisations (CSOs) – and especially the project beneficiaries at the grassroots. Projects where CSOs demonstrated particularly close engagement with the communities and beneficiaries were chosen as case studies. Analysing and deconstructing these mechanics and ingredients of ownership produced a new definition for ‘ownership of development aid’ and a range of variables for an Ownership Index and for Ownership Guidelines. These combined tools presented in this research should assist professionals to promote, cultivate and measure ownership of development outcomes that project beneficiaries will maintain, protect and improve over time.</p>


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-60
Author(s):  
Fitri Wulandari ◽  
Nirwana Puspasari ◽  
Noviyanthy Handayani

Jalan Temanggung Tilung is a 2/2 UD type road (two undirected two-way lanes) with a road width of 5.5 meters, which is a connecting road between two major roads, namely the RTA road. Milono and the path of G. Obos. Over time, the volume of traffic through these roads increases every year, plus roadside activities that also increase cause congestion at several points of the way. To overcome this problem, the local government carried out road widening to increase the capacity and level of road services. The study was conducted to determine the amount of traffic volume, performance, service level of the Temanggung Tilung road section at peak traffic hours before and after road widening. Data retrieval is done by the direct survey to the field to obtain primary data in the form of geometric road data, two-way traffic volume data, and side obstacle data. Performance analysis refers to the 1997 Indonesian Road Capacity Manual (MKJI) for urban roads. From the results of data processing, before increasing the road (Type 2/2 UD), the traffic volume that passes through the path is 842 pcs/hour and after road widening (Type 4/2 UD) the traffic volume for two directions is 973 pcs/hour, with route A equaling 528 pcs/hour and direction B equaling 445 pcs/hour. Based on the analysis of road performance before road enhancement, the capacity = 2551 pcs/hour, saturation degree = 0.331, and the service level of the two-way road are level B. Based on the analysis of the performance of the way after increasing the way, the direction capacity A = 2686 pcs/hour and direction B = 2674 pcs /hour, saturation degree for direction A = 0.196 and direction B = 0.166, service level for road direction A and direction B increase to level A


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document