|
|
|
May 26, 2002
REVIEW: Experiment in partnership
IN his book, Stakeholders in rural development John M. Riley raises a critical question: despite investment in LDCs over the decades, why is the “improvement in the lives and livelihoods of the people of the third world” less than expected?
Scholars and practitioners have hotly debated the process of development and the feasible method which should be adopted. The general understanding is that no single factor can be held responsible, since “underdevelopment is the result of multiple, and interrelated causal factors”.
There is also a realization that governments suffer from certain shortcomings, such as, lack of personnel and other resources to respond to every local claim of contention over resource use. Given this constraint, indigenous NGOs are being heralded as an alternate solution to the problems of inequitable resource use. Even though most NGOs lack the resources, size, authority or expertise to solve widespread problems, they are still seen as better equipped to reach out to the rural poor.
Yet development continues to be closely controlled by the government. Considering this fact, under what conditions can government organizations (GOs)and NGOs best work together? This is the central question raised in this study. To learn about this “critical collaboration”, the author examines the GO and NGO relationship involved in environmental and natural resource issues in the state of Tamil Nadu in India.
Before analyzing case studies, the author first reviews the role of the state and the bureaucracy in India’s development. He notes that the government of India has, like other developing countries, undergone “substantial changes” in its approach to development. But, despite some degree of decentralization, several impediments — constitutional, bureaucratic and institutional — still prevail that limit rural development in India.
Central to this is the failure of successive governments to attach high priority to the welfare of their impoverished citizens. This is largely because the poor are unorganized and lack political clout.
Riley examines in some detail environmental politics in India. He regards 1971 as the “watershed year” for the emergence of environmental issues in the country. Indira Gandhi focused on the environment and raised awareness. The government passed a number of environmental laws between 1974 and 1986. This was accompanied by the creation of several official agencies. Despite these measures and mass protests and demonstrations, the Indian government has been unable to effectively address environmental problems which have increased.
One analyst suggests this is due to the “gap between policy objectives and policy performance”. Government reports continue to “emphasize activities, rather than achievements”. The government has chosen to address environmental deterioration through “regulation rather than working cooperatively with industries, individuals, and other polluters”.
Also, there is a tendency to see the environmental problem in simplistic terms, as being caused by the most visible, “single, isolated phenomenon”. There is also a tendency to apply “one set of solutions in a wholesale fashion, overlooking the myriad of local differences that require the adaptation of programmes”. Couching the problem in such simplistic terms can be attributed to politics — as politicians in their term of office cannot “concentrate funds and attention to problems which are multidimensional and seemingly long term in nature”.
These are some reasons why the participation of the people, for whom the development efforts are intended, in “identifying and shaping development policies” is crucial. In India, it is interesting to note, the government itself is encouraging grassroots support organizations and NGOs to make the bureaucracies “more responsive”.
One advantage of NGOs is their “autonomy” — their informal organizational structures and freedom from government constraints. Over the years, NGOs are themselves changing — from being service providers to an “agent of social and political change”. Given the nature of their focus, NGOs decide whether they would like to forgo any involvement in government programmes, to complement these or to collaborate.
Interestingly, India is home to a large number of NGOs, with estimates varying from “thousands to the tens and hundreds of thousands”. Most are small, concentrating on the delivery of services with a focus on poverty alleviation and empowerment of the poor. The second approach of NGOs is based on the idea of “social action” — “mobilizing the poor to make direct challenges and demands on government for equitable service delivery, improved wages and working conditions”. Their focus is on the underlying causes of poverty and underdevelopment.
NGOs are at an advantage over the GOs as their organizational structures are more informal and flexible while government organizations suffer from several constraints. NGOs also have a bottom up approach, enjoying a close relationship with rural constituents. These are some factors that help to make them more successful than government bodies in attaining goals of rural development.
Yet the record of NGOs and GOs working together to address problems of rural development is not widespread in developing countries. The question is, how can the number of such efforts be increased, when their relationship is often marked by mistrust and hostility?
In India perhaps there are better prospects for mutual cooperation between certain NGOs and GOs. Most NGOs there prefer government funding to foreign donors. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, auditing is easier; secondly, this helps to protect NGOs from harassment by local vested interests; and finally, a strong “nationalist tradition” exists among NGOs that “abjures foreign funding on the grounds that it undermines their independence and limits their freedom to determine programme priorities”.
Other reasons why certain NGOs cooperate with the government agencies is that it “enables the poor to assert their rights and (helps) them from getting benefits from the government but it also ensures that grassroots experiences flow and are integrated into the planning process”.
While there are real benefits in cooperating with the government, doing so may also lead to a number of unwanted changes in the NGO operation, dilute their autonomy and flexibility. In this process, the NGOs can lose their “institutional identity”.
In this context, some questions that arise are: can NGOs collaborate and still oppose wrong policies? And what are the essentials for NGO-GO relationship? To learn this, Riley studied NGO-GO relationships in Tamil Nadu in 1996 and 1997, focusing on five NGOs involved with GOs in joint effort to address environmental and natural resource issues.
The findings are interesting. For successful NGO-GO collaboration and sharing of power, particularly by the government organization, it is essential for the NGO to have “some countervailing power — in the form of capability, or recognizable attributes(s) — that would make that particular NGO a credible partner in the estimation of a government agency”.
He further adds that a collaborative relationship is based on a set of “mutual perceptions: that each is a legitimate actor; that each is capable of contributing to the solution of that problem; that it is to the greater advantage of all parties to work in partnership than to work separately; and that stakeholders have agreed to share the authority to both define the problem and its solution/s”. These are the essentials for collaborative alliances.
Stakeholders in rural development is a well researched book. John M. Riley has clearly done painstaking work in compiling the needed information. The book can provide scholars and practitioners several insights on how to improve the conditions of the rural poor. NGOs and government agencies can also benefit as they will gain a better understanding on the essentials of collaborative relationship, if this is required to address development problems.
Stakeholders in rural development: critical collaboration in state-NGO partnerships
By John M. Riley
Sage Publications, M 32 Market, Greater Kailash 1, New Delhi-110 048
Email: marketing@indiasage.com
ISBN 0-7619-9578-1
214pp. Indian Rs250
|
|
|
|
