International Perspectives on Voluntary Action

Reshaping the Third Sector

David Lewis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134068975
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Development Economics
• Index: Economics

This text presents a perspective on the third sector. Rather than considering non-governmental development organizations and voluntary agencies separately, it explores the similarities, differences and growing connections between them in both northern and southern contexts. Authors in the field consider the differences in scale and priority that exist between different types of third sector organizations in different settings, as well as the common challenges of accountability, legitimacy, effectiveness and governance. Models of learning and communication, including southern ideas such as micro-credit provision, are also examined, as are the continuing barriers.

Part 1

Linkages and Learning

1	Crossing the Great Divide: Building Links and Learning Between NGOs and Community-Based Organizations in North and South

John Gaventa

INTRODUCTION

NGOs involved in development face a great geographical divide. On the one hand, we have those organizations which work on issues of poverty, community regeneration and the strengthening of civil society in the North. On the other hand, we find a vast range of NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs) and others which focus on similar development issues in the South. Historically there is little sharing and learning between these groups across the hemispheres. While many larger NGOs working in the South are in fact based in the North, they have had little contact with issues in their own countries similar to those upon which they focus elsewhere.

Increasingly, especially in a context of globalization, this division must change. For NGOs, globalization offers a series of challenges for developing new models for linking and learning on strategies for approaching common problems in both North and South. Fortunately, we are beginning to see a number of attempts by NGOs in North and South to forge such new ways of working.

In this chapter, I will share some concrete examples of exchanges of experience between NGOs and CBOs in poor regions of the US with their Southern counterparts. These exchanges took place, on the whole, in conjunction with the work of the Highlander Research and Education Center, based in Tennessee. Highlander has worked as an NGO for over 60 years in the poor regions of the US, especially in the rural south and the Appalachian regions. Its work in education for community empowerment and community development has contributed significantly to the strengthening of popular participation in areas of labour rights, civil rights, poverty alleviation, community regeneration and the environment. From 1976–1993, I worked as a staff member, and later as Director, at Highlander.

I will first of all look further at the context in which we worked – what we came to know as the ‘South within the North’. Secondly, I will examine the context of the voluntary sector in the US, suggesting that there are very differing understandings of its nature and character. Finally, I will turn to four examples of exchange of experience between NGOs and CBOs in the North and South, with some reflections on the lessons learned in the process.

THE ‘SOUTH WITHIN THE NORTH’

While we often think of poverty in the South and wealth in the North, these distinctions are increasingly misleading. While the North clearly is a place of relative wealth, it also contains within it large-scale poverty, increasing inequality and highly uneven development. In the US, we find areas within inner cities and vast rural areas where levels of poverty, unemployment, relatively poor education, illiteracy, lack of access to health care and so on provide similarities to certain parts of the South. With growing inequality in industrialized countries, the movement of jobs and industry to newly industrialized regions of the South, increasing issues of access to basic services such as health care for the poor in many countries, and the globalization of goods, services and information, the traditional distinctions between North and South need to be re-examined. In our work in the US, we came to recognize that there are ‘Souths within the North’, just as there may be ‘Norths within the South’ (Gaventa, 1991).

In a recent seminar series at the Institute for Development Studies on Social Exclusion in North and South, Simon Maxwell (1997) suggested that we could examine the new relationships between North and South in terms of comparisons, convergences and connections. Each is helpful in understanding issues of poverty, participation and social exclusion.

Comparisons

While poverty may not be of the same scale, nor perhaps in many places as desperate in poor areas in the North as in other parts of the world, there are parallel issues, including those of illiteracy, access to health care, environmental degradation, distribution of land and natural resources and the like. While globally, for instance, the levels of inequality are known to be increasing in the South and North, it is not often realized that the level of income inequality in the US is higher than in many other countries, including those in the South. According to one study:

The share of income among the lowest 40% of American households, in 1985, places the United States behind every one of the 25 nations with high-income economies, except for Australia and Singapore, according to the World Bank. Of the 21 low-and moderate income nations reporting income distribution, the U.S. falls behind nine of them, including Bangladesh, Ghana, India and Pakistan. The United States’ income distribution is more ‘equitable’ than only its client states of Central and Latin America: Guatemala, Peru, Colombia, Jamaica, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Brazil (Couto, 1994: 22, quoting World Bank, 1991: Table 30).

In addition to these comparisons of conditions, there have also been comparative analyses and explanations for the underlying causes of these conditions. It has not been uncommon in literature on community and regional development in the US for rural areas such as Appalachia, the Black Belt south or native reservations to be analysed using colonial or third world analogies, or to be understood as peripheral regions in the larger world economy.

Convergences

The growth of parts of the South and the decline of parts of the North argue for a convergence of conditions in the ‘low end’ of the North and the ‘high end’ of the South. For instance, industries which used to look to low-wage rural areas for resources and labour, such as the Appalachian Region of the US or the Welsh valleys in the UK, have now left for other parts of the world, leaving behind large scale areas of de-industrialization. These convergences have led in some instances to new reversals – for instance, a South Korean plant recently came to South Wales, lured by the low-wage labour and favourable business incentives.

Connections

Beyond parallels and convergences there are also increasingly connections between poor regions of the North and South, as we are reminded by the literature on globalization. While these connections are often articulated in terms of economic connections brought on by multinationals or capital mobility, or by cultural connections encouraged by global media and information technologies, there are also social and intellectual connections involving shared development strategies and concepts – including in the voluntary sector.

THE ROLE OF NGOS AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS IN THE US – TWO VIEWS

Around the world, especially in the context of a development crisis, NGOs are increasingly being put forward as a vehicle for development, for social action and as a means of popular participation in social problem-solving. NGOs are becoming a measure of citizen’s participation, and in turn, the civil society of which they are a part is seen as a critical part of democracy. As in other areas, there are important parallels between the roles that NGOs and CBOs are being called upon to play as civil society actors in the South, and the role which they have played in the North. The strength of these parallels depends, though, on what kind of voluntary organization we choose to examine.

In the US, for instance, there is a long history of voluntary associations and CBOs. Though the US has lagged behind many other Western democracies (and indeed democracies in other parts of the world) in terms of voter participation or worker participation, it has long been known for its ‘civic culture’. In his book Democracy in America, written in 1835, the French scholar Alexander de Tocqueville wrote of this American art of forming associations:

Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America …In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others … (de Tocqueville, 1966: 666).

Following de Tocqueville’s lead, many others have written of the importance of voluntary organizations as mediating organizations between large, bureaucratic institutions such as the state and the corporation, and the individual. Others acknowledge that voluntary organizations have been at the cutting edge of major social reforms and social movements, ranging from the temperance movement to the civil rights movement.

In modern times, the voluntary sector is composed of thousands of groups, many of which are organized and registered as nonprofit organizations – that is, as private groups which exist for a public or charitable purpose. In the last 20 years, these nonprofits have grown rapidly, joining the public and private sectors as key forces for social and economic action. As a generic group, these nonprofits are a vast category, including churches, schools, colleges and universities, research institutions, hospitals, foundations, social action movements, welfare agencies, arts and cultural organizations, community development groups, mutual benefit societies and others (see, for instance, work by Lester Salamon).

Drawing upon this rich but diverse tradition of civic association, there are those who have argued that such a model of civil society should be developed and promoted for strengthening democracy and development in other parts of the world. The number of associations or NGOs is seen as a proxy indicator for a pluralist and robust civil society. Yet perhaps we need to look more closely and critically at the nature of association in American society. While the contribution of voluntary, nonprofit organizations has been great, there is nothing inherent in the status of a voluntary nonprofit organization which leads it to work to remedy the inequalities or problems of society, or to strengthen the participation of the poor in dealing with development issues. In fact, within the literature on participation in the US itself, a number of critiques have been made of pluralist and open models of democracy and civil society which we often seek now to export to other parts of the world.

First, while many may participate in civic life and voluntary associations in the US, some are more able to participate than others. It is a well-known sociological fact that those who are the most privileged in socio-economic status are also the ones most likely to participate in such civic organizations. This produces a paradox of democracy: those that are most badly affected by the pressing problems of poverty, and may need to participate the most to change their conditions, are often the least able or likely to do so (see for example, Verba and Nie, 1972). The increasing inequality between the rich and poor in the US and other countries also has profound effects upon patterns of participation and organization.

Secondly, another body of literature has argued that the lack of participation in civil society is partly the result of barriers which have developed through power relationships that impede participation of certain actors and prevent certain issues from being raised. Rather than looking at who participates to understand civil and political life, we must examine who does not, and why (see, for instance, Bachrach and Baratz, 1970; Gaventa, 1980). From this point of view, American democracy is not necessarily as open to voluntary action as we often suggest, and the pluralism of American democracy is more a pluralism of elites than an indicator of democracy at the grassroots.

Thirdly, recent evidence suggests that civic engagement in the US may itself be on the decline. Robert Putnam (1995: 65), for instance, writes:

To those concerned with the weakness of civil societies in the developing or postcommunist world, the advanced Western democracies and above all the United States have typically been taken as models to be emulated. There is striking evidence, however, that the vibrancy of American civil society has notably declined over the past several decades.

Despite the declines, we often continue to present to the rest of the world an image of a healthy civil society.

A View from the Grassroots

Within the US, partly in response to these arguments about shortcomings in civic participation, we have seen the growth of a new kind of organization: the grassroots community organization, or community-based group, as a vehicle for participation by the most disenfranchized. While this grassroots, community-based movement also has deep historical roots, its particular form grew out of the War on Poverty, and the civil rights and women’s movements of the 1960s and 1970s. With the vacuum in social services and social policy left by the 1980s, this sector has continued to play more of a leadership role in social change. Boyte (1980; Boyte et al, 1986) and others have written about a new American populism, as communities organize to re-democratize the political system. In a recent report, Delgado (1993) argues that there are now over 6000 community organizations in operation in the US, mostly ‘local, unaffiliated groups, initiated out of local residents’ need to exert control over development in their communities’ (10). Among the accomplishments of community organizations has been ‘the redress of the balance of power – by holding public servants accountable, CO has managed in many localities to put the “dispossessed at the table” with bankers, planners and politicians’ (10–11).

These grassroots organizations are as diverse as the rest of the nonprofit world. They may be organized around communities, neighbourhoods or issues. They are usually local, but increasingly are organizing into state, regional and national associations. They are supported by a vast array of intermediary organizations and NGOs which help to provide funding, training, technical assistance, research and education for their efforts. While diverse, this grassroots movement within the nonprofit sector is bound together by a common set of values and characteristics, as outlined below.

• They give organization and voice to the under-represented in society, and usually are controlled by them. Grassroots organizations have played important roles in the civil rights movements, the women’s movement and poor people’s movements.

• They raise key issues for the rest of society, serving as a conscience for the nation, advocates for change and sources of innovation and action.

• They often work to deliver needed services – such as housing, education or child care – to groups not reached by, or failed by, the government programmes. In doing so, they seek not just to provide charity to the poor and powerless, but to organize them and to deal with the causes of the problems rathe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures, Tables and Boxes
• List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
• Foreword
• Contributors
• Introduction: The Parallel Universes of Third Sector Research and the Changing Context of Voluntary Action David Lewis
• Part 1: Linkages and Learning
• 1 Crossing the Great Divide: Building Links and Learning Between NGOs and Community-Based Organizations in North and South John Gaventa
• 2 Social Learning in South–North Coalitions: Constructing Knowledge Systems Across Social Chasms L David Brown
• 3 The Third World’s Third Sector in Comparative Perspective Lester M Salamon and Helmut Anheier
• Part 2: Contrasts and Complementarities
• 4 Voluntary Sector Governance – Problems in Practice and Theory in the United Kingdom and North America Margaret Harris
• 5 NGO Governing Bodies and Beyond: A Southern Perspective on Third Sector Governance Issues Qadeer Baig
• 6 Building NGO Legitimacy in Bangladesh: The Contested Domain Syed Hashemi and Mirza Hassan
• 7 The Trouble with Values Rob Paton
• 8 Citizen Organizations as Policy Entrepreneurs Adil Najam
• 9 Influencing Policy: A UK Voluntary Sector Perspective Marilyn Taylor
• 10 Evaluation and the Voluntary (Nonprofit) Sector: Emerging Issues Jeremy Kendall and Martin Knapp
• 11 Evaluating NGO Development Interventions Roger C Riddell
• 12 Advocacy and Third Sector Organizations: A Composite Perspective Alan Fowler
• 13 Legitimacy and Values in NGOs and Voluntary Organizations: Some Sceptical Thoughts Michael Edwards
• Postscript: Reshaping the Third Sector David Lewis
• Index