Nous sommes le 22 novembre.
Je quitte Manille
le 1er décembre à 20h, avion pour Shanghai où j’ai la chance de passer 10 jours
chez un neveu. J’ai donc mes 2 billets d’avion et le visa pour la Chine.
Pendant 1 an, je
n’ai pas pu me servir de ma CB-Premier pour acheter les billets d’avion, car le
numéro de téléphone en relation avec la carte était mon numéro de portable français
qui ne fonctionnait pas ici … j’en veux beaucoup a ma banque française. La Banque Postale !
Le visa Chinois …
cela s’est T. bien passé, malgré : beaucoup de pièces à fournir & beaucoup de monde à l’Ambassade de Chine …
Pour que mon
voyage retour se passe bien, je m’organise au mieux, car le retour des USA,
avec passage par la case « sans papiers » de l’aéroport de Manille
m’a beaucoup vexé.
Pour m’amuser,
j’ai demandé a Google la traduction de mon nom : en Chinois … puis
(puisque le 2e vol fera une
escale a Moscou) en Russe. Et voila l’résultat :
Mais
concrètement, mon travail de secrétariat (car le travail de responsable des
parrainages est un travail de secrétaire), puis-je en faire un bilan ?
J’ai gère plus de
600 contrats de parrainages, avec l’organisation actuelle c’est beaucoup pour 1
seule personne. Ce qui fait que je n’ai pas pu augmenter le nombre de contrats
… cela fait d’ailleurs plusieurs années que le nombre de parrainages stagne.
Il y a 1 an, avant de venir ici pour ma mission, déjà, j’avais compris que la
base de données devait être refaite. Nous avons essayé avec Coline de mettre cela en place ...
Concretement, pendant toute cette année, j'ai beaucoup travaillé chaque jour et je n’ai pas été vraiment dispo pour construire seul cette nouvelle base de données …
Il me semble
évident qu’une grande modernisation du poste doit être mis en place.
J’étais prof de maths pendant 40 ans … la révolution informatique m’a
poussé à me mettre à jour intellectuellement … ma plus grande responsabilité en Informatique a ete la mise place tout le
pôle informatique-internet au lycée de Pondichéry …de 1997 à 2003.
Cela m’a permis d'enseigner, entre'autre les bases de données de demander aux eleves d’en construire … mais cela n’est pas encore suffisant pour savoir concrètement en 2014
comment améliorer le poste de responsable des parrainages pour les 5 années avenir …
J’ai bien
plusieurs idées, elles ont deja ete transmises à Virlanie-Manille & Virlanie-France … elles me
semblent nécessaires (mais pas suffisantes) :
a.
Pour la partie parrainage : gérée par les
responsables,
b.
Pour la partie enfants : gérée par les
Assistants Sociaux,
c.
Pour la partie personnel : géré par le HR
Donc mise en place d’un dossier-numérique pour chaque
parrain avec accès par le site-web.
Il y a 15 jours, j’ai déjà été
contacté par « La Guilde ». Nous, les VSI, devons faire un bilan de cette année de Mission,
et je me suis inscrit au prochain stage de fin de Mission.
J’avais particulièrement
apprécié les 4 jours de stage de début de mission.
Je pense, bien sur, que cette journée « bilan de la mission » sera, elle aussi, tres positive ! ….
Aujourd'hui, suis-je capable,
aujourd’hui, de faire le bilan ? Pas encore totalement.
Avant de partir,
en découvrant VIRLANIE – juste par le biais du site web et des différents témoignages
que je lisais avec attention sur internet, j’ai été enthousiasmé par cette ONG.
Depuis quelques
temps nous avons, a Virlanie « Ms. Peachy » elle a le poste de Executive
Director: Ma. Leah Peachy Pacquing .
Je ne connais pas
précisément son CV. Je crois qu’elle a eu un poste important à UNIFEX (Makati)
et actuellement elle enseigne à l’Université
En tout cas, elle
nous a fait réfléchir en particulier sur le texte ci-dessous :
Cela a été pour
moi vraiment interessant …. Je vous laisse méditer ! …. (hi hi !)
Challenges of Local NGO
Sustainability1
1 Keynote remarks prepared for the USAID/PVC-ASHA Annual PVO Conference,
14 October, 2003
Jerry VanSant
Duke Center for International Development
Duke University
1 Introduction
I am honored to be among you today for what I hope will be a time of
mutual learning.
The comedian George Burns once said that the secret to a first-rate
speech is to have a good beginning and a good ending and then to keep them as
close together as possible! In that spirit I will try not to ask you to listen
to me too long in order that there will be time left to hear from you.
It will not be news to this audience that currently the role of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is more critical and more strategic in
the process of global human development than at any time before. I will talk
some about why this is so because it will help us understand the changing roles
of NGOs, implications for building NGO capacity, and how NGOs can advance the
next step from capacity to sustainable roles in the development of a vibrant
and free civil society.
My goal today is to highlight certain themes around which there is
enormous expertise in this room. If these remarks help trigger a productive
exchange of ideas and experience among you today and tomorrow, then I will
count this keynote a success and hope you do as well.
I would like to begin by noting some background issues and contextual
factors that make the topic of local NGO capacity and sustainability so
relevant today.
1.1 Changing NGO Roles
You all are aware of and, indeed, contributors to the evolution of NGOs
through the generations of activity described by David Korten as
- first, relief and welfare (involving primarily the delivery of
inputs such as humanitarian assistance),
- second, small scale local development (involving service
delivery and building of some local capacities for self-help, and
- third, sustainable development systems (involving grassroots
mobilization and policy advocacy).
In his recent book, Worlds Apart, John Clark describes the same
progression as moving from a focus on poor individuals to poor communities to
poor societies.
Page 2
The point, of course, is not
that a later stage of this evolution is necessarily superior or that all PVOs
and NGOs should strive to advance along this continuum. Each generation of
activity is an important part of the development process, whether responding to
humanitarian needs, supporting local development, or engaging in advocacy for
policies that support voice and empowerment for civil society.
At the same time, however, there is growing recognition that, as stated
in the current USAID Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation (PVC)
strategic plan, “the ability of NGO groups to influence national and sectoral
policies is crucial to the viability of such groups and to the success of their
programs.”
1.2 The Emerging Focus on Civil Society and Governance
In his landmark book, Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen defines
development as the process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy.
These freedoms include political, economic, and social opportunity as well as
transparency guarantees, and protective security. Each of these freedoms
requires both a healthy civil society and sound governance.
Indeed, we have learned that good governance represents a critical path
toward sustainable human development. The experience of many countries suggests
that weak governance and slow economic development go hand-in-hand while
improved governance fosters development success. In short, governance
matters!
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has put it this way:
“The quality of management of a nation’s economic, social, and political
affairs, or governance, is the single most important influence on the extent to
which its human and natural resources are used for the benefit of all, now and
in the future.”
We know that good governance requires both citizen empowerment and the
acceptance by those who govern of accountability to those who are served, with
priorities based on broad societal consensus. This means among other things
that the voices of the poor and vulnerable are heard in the determination of
policy and in the allocation of resources. The role of a free civil society and
all its elements as critical partners with government cannot be overemphasized.
Strengthening relations between government and citizens thus becomes a
key leverage point for increasing citizen access and influence. Two principal
strategies to improve these relations are creating linkages and building
capacity. NGO’s are particularly well-placed to implement these strategies in
local and regional settings. Many are doing it. And many of you are helping
them. More on this later.
1.3 Contextual Factors
The context for development is ever changing. NGOs, like all effective
organizations, must endeavor to master the dynamic environment in which they
pursue their missions. Five factors in that environment that I would like to
note briefly this morning are globalization, technology, networking,
decentralization, and USAID/PVC strategic direction. Each of these factors
presents both challenge and opportunity. Page 3
Globalization means the
elimination or reduction of barriers to human interaction across national
boundaries. Its dimensions are economic, cultural, and political. As put by
Kofi Annan, “Today’s real borders are not between nations, but between powerful
and powerless, free and fettered, privileged and humiliated.” We might add that
development often is the ticket across these borders.
Technology has made globalization possible by opening doors to
the worldwide exchange of information. For NGOs, technology enables
organizational linkages, constituency mobilization, public information, and
fund raising in ways unimaginable in the very recent past.
Networking is an aspect of globalization and is a major strategic
device for NGOs. Networks contribute to adaptability and problem-solving. They
can more swiftly discover and adapt new techniques. Networking, as John Clark
notes, does not mean working only with like-minded groups; it means building
partnerships to tackle issues that would be impossible without particular
strategic alliances.
Decentralization and related development emphases on democracy and
civil society create a particular opportunity for NGOs with core competence and
credibility in mobilizing citizen voice.
PVC’s strategy responds to and adds to the changing context we face.
It builds on a recognition of the role of NGOs in civil society, an increased
emphasis on partnership, and recognition of advocacy as an essential program
activity.
Each of these contextual factors changes the playing field for NGOs in
significant ways. You know this and you will be returning to these themes as
this conference proceeds.
2 NGO Capacity
Recognition of the changing – and important – role of NGOs for
development and an understanding of the changing context in which they work has
led to a growing focus on NGO capacity as an agenda for NGO partners be they
donors, international NGOs or PVOs, or other support organizations.
Part of this growing attention is a proliferation of tools or
methodologies for measuring NGO capacity. Generally, the creators of these
tools correctly recognize that how they are used may be more important than any
assessment results themselves. Like any good process tool, organizational
assessment can facilitate and provide structure to a participatory process of
organizational diagnosis and change. In fact, the USAID/PVC strategic plan
cites as a lesson learned the reality that organizational assessments in and of
themselves can catalyze change.
Assessment tools usually offer a set of measurement categories or
indicators. Often these are qualitative so that measurement takes place along a
defined descriptive scale of development. Obviously, the specific items worth
measuring will vary depending on the nature and purpose of the organization.
Page 4
Likewise, benchmarks along a
scale of, say, financial strength, need to be adapted to the context of a
specific organization and its own stage of development.
The process of defining measurement categories and descriptive points of
development in those categories is part of the potential learning process of
organizational assessment. Therefore organizational self-assessment or an
interactive process involving both outside partners and the NGO being assessed
is usually more useful than any kind of external evaluation. After all, the
most important clients of any evaluation are the managers who can buy-in to and
then act on the information.
This said, it may be useful to consider a set of generic categories of
NGO organizational capacity, recognizing the importance of adapting these to
any particular setting.
I have reviewed a number of the excellent organizational assessment
tools proposed in recent years (several developed with USAID assistance). There
is a great deal of similarity among these frameworks reflecting an emerging
consensus on the attributes that make for effective and sustainable
organizations. Drawing from this good work I propose the following composite
set of measurement categories in three clusters, organizational resources,
organizational performance, and organizational sustainability.
Organizational Resources represents the attributes an organization
possesses or controls and consists of its basic legal structure, assured access
to human, financial, technical, and other resources, and its management systems
and structure, including performance management systems. In short, this
category captures what the organization has to work with at a given point in
time.
Organizational Performance measures an organization’s programs, services,
or other impacts as a result of how effectively it employs its organizational
resources. For NGOs, external relations (for example, networks and linkages)
and the empowerment of constituents or broader civil society frequently are
intended outcomes. Organizational performance assesses both efficiency and
effectiveness or, in short, what an organization does with the resources it
possesses.
Organizational Sustainability incorporates more forward-looking
attributes such as autonomy, learning capacity, and leadership which, in turn,
help ensure sustainability and self-reliance in the future. This category
attempts to capture where the organization is going in the future. We will
return to the issue of organizational sustainability later on.
Now, in case any of you want a magic bullet for external organizational
assessment, let me suggest the following: Ask members of the organization from
the top echelon to the bottom what the mission of that organization is. In most
cases you will get no coherent answer or a mix of contradictory answers. In the
rare case that you get a confident and consistent articulation of the mission,
vision, or purpose of the organization you will know you have a winner. This
method, which can be done in an hour or less, will tell you more about the
quality and, especially, the future of an organization than most high powered
(and expensive) external organizational assessments! Page 5
3 NGOs and Advocacy
If, for example, an NGO involved in advocacy or planning to do so was to
engage in an assessment process, then it would probably want to generate some
relevant indicators in the organizational resources and organizational
performance categories as a basis for benchmarking and defining a spectrum of
performance expectations. Typically such an index of accomplishment might range
from a defined level of advocacy-based research and analysis capacity through
some specific communications and influence activities (such as, for example,
what Luis Crouch, my former colleague at RTI International, called “the power
of convocation”) to, finally, some distinct policy changes or new legislation
resulting from the advocacy efforts.
Because advocacy is such an important activity for NGOs moving into the
policy arena or, in Clark’s terms, intending to have broad societal impact, the
topic is worth some more detailed attention here.
Legitimate NGOs typically are driven by values and focus on social
change. Their flexibility and mobility may vest them with particular
opportunity to take and learn from strategic risks. These and other common NGO
attributes create unique opportunities for policy influence, especially at the
local level where, as Julie Fisher notes, government may be more susceptible to
independent sector influence.
3.1 Government Policy Toward NGOs
There are, of course, great variations in government receptiveness to
NGO voice be it in the form of well-researched policy advocacy or the pleadings
of loosely organized pressure groups. At the extreme, governments may actively
repress all independent citizen voice, including NGOs, except as they serve as
a mouthpiece for official policy.
More commonly, government may effectively control NGOs by co-opting them
with either carrot or stick kinds of incentives (and corresponding
disincentives to straying from the script). This approach is particularly
common when a controlling government sees political benefit in facilitating
expansion of NGO service delivery activities.
In a more positive vein, governments may encourage NGOs to engage in
gap-filling service delivery activities. This, in fact, is very common at local
levels in the United States where non-profit organizations play a large role in
such services as homeless shelters, health services, and affordable housing.
In some cases, where mutual trust develops, government may invite NGOs
to the policy making table to benefit from their experience and, in some cases,
research on a public policy issue. Of course, such a partnership is rarely
characterized by an adversarial stance on key policy questions, a dilemma to
which we shall return later.
The nature of government policy toward the NGO sector is determined by a
number of factors including the type of regime, political culture, and the
degree of political stability in a given country. As you would expect,
pluralism and political space” correlate with a healthy and active NGO sector.
Page 6
3.2 NGO Policy toward
Government
Meanwhile, NGOs themselves also have a choice regarding their policy
toward government. Some may consciously choose political isolation in order to
focus on building an appropriate base of support, independent networks, and
their own approaches to development. NGOs that adopt this strategy normally are
focused on service delivery more than advocacy. In some cases, however, it can
be a tactic to maintain legitimacy in countries where governments are seen as
failing or corrupt.
A second choice is cooperation with government, whether at the project
or strategic level. This strategy provides leverage for both sides and, at its
best, allows for constructive dialogue on development issues. As noted earlier,
however, cooperating NGOs may feel comfortable only with a limited set of
policy influence tactics – those that are not likely to upset the cooperative
relationship with government that, among other things, is an important source
of funding. I sense that most USAID registered PVOs have adopted this strategy
of cooperation.
A third strategy, not necessarily contradictory with cooperation, is one
of more active policy advocacy where an NGO engages in legal and lobbying
efforts and even electoral politics. This approach probably is most often
associated with some environmental groups in this country but there are, of
course, any number of non-governmental interest groups that choose this option
whether or not they engage in any programmatic activity of the type we would
associate with developmental NGOs.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive; an organization may try to
take all these paths at the same time. But there are likely to be some bumps in
the road.
3.3 Successful NGO Involvement in the Policy Arena
Research into NGO policy involvement tells us a good bit about the
organizational attributes that correlate with effective policy engagement. We
may summarize these as:
- Credibility, based on technical expertise, especially if drawn
from a mix of field experience and sound analysis;
- Scale of Influence, reflected in the scope of activities, the
strength of institutional alliances, and the power of the NGO’s constituency;
and
- Autonomy, reflected in independence and the freedom to innovate
and make decisions with a high degree of discretion.
These attributes add up to leverage which, of course, is enhanced if the
political environment is relatively favorable.
3.4 Dilemmas for Local NGOs
This range of issues surrounding NGO advocacy points to several
trade-offs that any NGO needs to carefully consider before making a strategic decision
to enter the policy arena or, indeed, to Page 7
not do so. Discussion around
these issues, in the context of an organizational self assessment that
facilitates some serious reflection, can be a learning opportunity for any
local NGO. These dilemmas are:
- Investment in learning versus investment in doing: Serious
policy influence usually requires documented learning. But most NGOs pride
themselves on being action-oriented, quick to respond to needs or to adapt to
particular local situations. The values and skills that support commendable NGO
flexibility and action-orientation, however, are not always consistent with
reflection and learning nor the investment they require. Nor is research a
particularly compelling draw for fund-raising. So this trade-off between
learning and doing becomes a strategic dilemma that an NGO needs address
proactively.
- Policy awareness versus policy influence: Understanding and
mastering the environment is a key tenet of good strategic management. So every
NGO should develop the skills and mechanisms to understand the policy
environment and how it will affect what they are trying to do. Whether,
however, any NGO goes beyond policy awareness to policy influence is another
key strategic choice that may have significant ramifications for its future
work, both positive and negative.
- Insulation versus influence: As we noted earlier, insulation
from government attention or other activities that bring attention to an NGO,
especially controversy, can be a deliberately chosen and effective strategy in
some circumstances and for some organizations. Such a strategy, however, may
often be inconsistent with any drive toward policy advocacy and influence
whether direct or indirect. Here again the issue is not whether one option is
inherently better than the other but rather that any given NGO make the choice
deliberately and control its own future strategy.
- Independence versus partnership: There is a price to any
partnership ranging from the need to make strategic compromises to being
co-opted by a larger partner with its own agenda. The risks are especially
large when a local NGO partners with a large foreign partner or any NGO or PVO
partners with government. The risks may be worth it in the interests of
expanding scale or obtaining support for key activities. And many U.S. PVOs,
for example, are working creatively to build partnerships with local NGOs based
on equality and mutual self-respect. But even the appearance of being co-opted
by a foreign partner may damage a local NGO’s credibility and effectiveness,
especially as a voice in the policy arena.
These dilemmas represent opportunities for effective strategic choice by
an NGO. Too often, however, organizations back into one or the other horns of
these dilemmas due to external pressures, usually the pressure to raise funds
or satisfy a stronger partner.
This reality brings us back to the heart of the issue for this
conference – NGO sustainability. Organizations with sustainable capacity are
much more likely to make independent decisions than organizations with what we
might call dependent capacity. Page 8
4 From Capacity to
Sustainability
Thinking about autonomous decision making capacity as a key marker of
NGO sustainability takes us back to the third category of organizational
assessment that I suggested earlier, organizational sustainability. I propose
your consideration of three sub-categories of organizational sustainability: autonomy,
learning, and leadership. These attributes enable the organization to transcend
the sum of its component parts. They also are the most predictive indicators I
can think of to assess future organizational capacity.
4.1 Organizational Autonomy
Autonomy is the organization's degree of independence from other
organizations or forces in its environment. Effective autonomy is reflected in
the power to make decisions about basic matters such as organizational goals,
policy, budget, hiring practices, pay and incentives, and external linkages.
Julie Fisher identifies several keys to organizational autonomy. These
include
- being driven by mission
rather than by donors or other funding sources,
- financial diversification
from any single-source patron,
- a mass constituency,
- technical expertise,
- strategic knowledge on
development issues, and
- social and managerial knowledge.
I’d also like to emphasize the importance for building autonomy of
commitment to a clear sense of purpose. Institutions with a clear vision and
internal consensus regarding that vision (often referred to as “alignment”)
usually employ resources effectively toward goal achievement because they
understand what they stand for. Autonomous organizations also tend to conduct
programs or activities that earn a high degree of acceptance by relevant
stakeholders and, in turn, contribute in demonstrable ways to organizational
resources and performance -- for example, by attracting new funding, enhancing
organizational learning, or broadening organizational influence.
4.2 Organizational Learning
Much has been written and said about learning organizations and time
does not permit much examination of the topic this morning. Recall, however,
that organizational assessment itself can be a powerful learning experience if
done by an organization for itself or done in a highly interactive faction with
a facilitating donor, consultant or partner organization. In fact just about
anything an NGO does can be turned into a learning experience if done with
creative attention to process. In my view, fundamental organizational functions
like planning, organizing, performance management, and human resource
management all should be seen as key learning opportunities. For this reason,
such functions should never be turned over to outsiders though consulting
expertise may be employed in a supportive role. Page 9
Appropriate monitoring and
evaluation of an NGO’s actual programmatic or other activities also is an
obvious tool for learning. These functions, too, should be handled internally
and for the primary purpose of informing the organization’s managers and staff,
not just outsiders.
Learning from programmatic activities serves both better management and
also, in many cases, better support for efforts to influence policymakers or
civil society.
The keys, as USAID has noted as important capacity-building lessons
learned, include creating a flow of information to support continuous
improvements, the incorporation of diverse perspectives, and creating access to
needed technical expertise.
Alan Fowler in his fine book on NGO management, Striking a Balance, provides
some practical hints for building this kind of learning capacity. For example,
an organization might establish a designated fund which staff can draw on for
specific learning activities. A team-building emphasis can bring together
different perspectives on the same issue, project, or evaluation. Planned
thematic studies carried out each year can enhance a learning focus on key
issues. Organizational incentives can be recast to reward learning, its
application and its dissemination.
4.3 Leadership
Leadership is the most essential ingredient in organizational
sustainability and the most important determinant of organizational
performance. Key elements of leadership are vision, innovation, decisiveness,
and a strong people orientation.
Vision comes from values. The management dimension of vision is having a focus.
The leader with vision defines a clear and compelling agenda that is
communicated effectively within the institution and leads to broad alignment
with that agenda. Innovation means a willingness to constantly question
and challenge what is going on. It means acceptance of intelligent risk-taking
and openness to change. Decisiveness means being proactive --- taking
the initiative to shape and influence the organization's future. A people
orientation means, above all, an emphasis on enabling others in the
organization to do their best through learning and growing.
Leadership is the controlling force in organizational development. It is
the key to realistic assessment of problems and opportunities, establishment of
priorities, and the marshalling of internal and external resources to address
these priorities. In effective institutions, leadership does not reside only at
the top; elements of it are evident at various levels of the organization.
One function of leaders is to serve as a symbol -- a focal point for the
organization's successes and failures. At the same time, good leaders maintain
a sense of balance between future vision and everyday operational matters, or
as Peter Drucker has said, "keeping your nose to the grindstone and your
eyes to the hills."
The importance of leadership of this kind and of the resulting core
values and internal alignment to those values in an organization cannot be
overemphasized. These factors are key to sustaining and enhancing an
institution's capacity to meet its objectives in a changing environment. Page 10
5 NGOs and Civil Society
While many countries have developed decentralization programs,
corresponding policies of political liberalization that foster the growth of
civil society are often lacking or weak. This is not surprising since civil
society represents potentially uncontrollable opposition to political elites.
The development of civil society varies greatly among countries and
regions. Latin America and the Philippines, for example, have a fairly rich
tradition of professional and community associations that play a large role in
the political and economic life of the countries. On the other hand, North and
West Africa tend to have weak associative movements for historic cultural and
political reasons. In the transition countries of the former Soviet Union, the
NGO sector is booming but possesses little institutional history or tradition
in terms of roles in society and relation to government.
We noted earlier that strengthening relations between government and
civil society is a key leverage point for increasing citizen access and
influence and that two principal strategies improve these relations: creating
linkages and building capacity. Elections, public hearings, and other
mechanisms for holding leaders accountable are a fundamental linkage that
provides citizens the ability to influence decisions. Other linkages exist as a
result of legislation that requires the local government to gather information
from citizens regarding their needs and opinions, grant citizens access to
council deliberations, or inform citizens of a pending government decision. For
example, in the United States, state legislation typically requires local
governments to have open meetings and public hearings before making certain key
decisions such as budget approval, regulatory changes, and rezoning.
For the governance link between public officials and citizens to be
effective, a useful interface incorporating communication, collaboration,
problem-solving, and mutually beneficial interaction must be created between
government and a local community. These two sides generally have their own
major goals and value systems that often are not well understood or closely linked.
Indeed, they can be at odds with each other.
At the same time, as my Duke colleague Anirudh Krishna has argued, local
government actions can energize communities and community engagement can
improve local government performance. Local NGOs can help foster consent and
participation that local governments cannot often muster on their own. And
local governments can provide technical resources and arrange for coordination
with higher levels of government, which NGOs may find hard to manage by
themselves. Appropriately structured, partnerships between NGOs and local
governments also can provide a basis of mutual learning at the local level.
Krishna adds that prospects for efficiency and sustainability are
enhanced substantially when large numbers of citizens are well informed, when
they can participate in making public decisions, and when they act collectively
in support of these decisions. Accountability improves when citizens empowered
with adequate information can collectively mount pressure on local officials.
And democracy and equity are better served when large numbers of citizens know
about programs and processes, when they can gain relatively easily access to
public decision making forums, and when they act collectively to enforce their
rights. NGOs can serve as key facilitators in this process of citizen
awareness, empowerment, and voice. Page
11
John Clark presents the
challenge in these terms: Local NGOs, he says, can blaze a new path and pull
politicians with them; there is an emerging community of local NGO activists
who are, with varying degrees of formality and design, networking globally to
tackle common issues that concern citizens and citizenship throughout the
world.
The concepts of NGO networking and partnership and the growing role of
civil society all come together in the context of globalization and a
revolution in technology to create a potent opportunity for local NGOs.
As partners of these NGOs, you from the USAID and the U.S. PVO
communities have a significant facilitating role to play. It is my hope that
the issues we have discussed this morning will trigger thought and action among
you and your colleagues that will help you fulfill this powerful mandate.
Thank you. Page 12
References
Kofi Annan, Nobel Prize speech, December 10, 2001.
John Clark, Worlds Apart: Civil Society and the Battle for Ethical
Globalization (Kumarian, 2003)
Julie Fisher, Non Governments: NGOs and the Political Development of
the Third World (Kumarian, 1998).
Alan Fowler, Striking a Balance (Earthscan Publications, 1997).
Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (Anchor Books,
2000).
David C. Korten, “Third Generation NGO Strategies: A Key to
People-Centered Development,” (World Development, Vol 15, supplement,
pp.145-159, 1987).
Anirudh Krishna, Partnerships between Elected Local Governments and
Community-Based Organizations: Exploring the Scope for Synergy (Public
Administration and Development, August 2003 forthcoming).
Marc Lindenberg and Coralie Bryant, Going Global: Transforming Relief
and Development NGOs (Kumarian 2002).
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Knopf, 1999).
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), AAide Memoire@ regarding the Asia Ministerial Conference on Governance for Sustainable
Growth and Equity in Lahore, Pakistan, 18-21 November 1996 (UNDP, July, 1996).
U.S. Agency for International Development, Lessons in Implementation:
the NGO Story (USAID, Bureau for Eastern Europe and Eurasia, Office of
Democracy and Governance, October 1999).
Jerry VanSant, Governance as Stewardship: Decentralization and
Sustainable Human Development (Occasional Paper Series, American Society
for Public Administration, Section on International and Cooperative
Administration, June 1997).
Jerry VanSant, Opportunities and Risks for Private Voluntary
Organizations as Agents of LDC Policy Change (World Development, Vol. 17,
No. 11, pp.1723-1731, 1989).
Jerry VanSant, Institutional Self-Reliance: A Framework for
Assessment (Research Triangle Institute, Center for International Development
Working Paper, January, 1991).
Special thanks to Anirudh
Krishna and Mikki Lee at Duke University for thoughtful review of earlier
drafts of these remarks
1) Créativité :
