Medir la Coherencia por el resultado: el ICPD en la región de Madrid

As an alternative type of international cooperation among NGDOs the coalition model, as exemplified by ActionAid International and the ACT Alliance, can be expected to strengthen the potential for contention of international policy advocacy conducted by NGDOs through a range of unique features. Due to a more integrated model of collaboration as compared to existing organisations and networks conducting IPA, and generally stronger links to southern-based organisations, the operational structure of NGDO coalitions potentially provides a number of advantages in policy advocacy strategies. These include improved resources for research, a more diverse base of information, more influence in decision-making forums due to size and enhanced knowledge of leverage points and the capacity to act in unity. Possessing these advantages entails that NGDO coalitions, as compared to existing advocacy structures, have a greater potential to promote an agenda of social justice alternative to the predominant economic agenda both on grassroots level in the South and in global decision-making forums.

Further, can NGDO coalitions due to their organisational structure with emphasis on the inclusion of southern-based organisations be considered to promote a more equal structure in the global network of development organisations and to a certain degree increase resistance to co-optation from dominant states and IGOs. In general this entails that NGDO coalitions have the potential to strengthen links among organisations in opposition to the existing hegemony.

In a neo-Gramscian perspective the features described here can all be considered to contribute to contending a hegemonic historic bloc. Considering the predominant presence of NGOs in the global civil society, the NGDO coalition model can be expected to significantly affect GCS in a contentious direction if the model becomes more widespread. However, pointing to a range of inadequacies of the organisations comprising GCS – primarily regarding the nature of these organisations – critics argue that the present structure of GCS cannot truly challenge the existing hegemony. NGDO coalitions cannot be expected to accommodate these inadequacies, so measured on these the formation of NGDO coalitions does not contribute significantly to the contentious features of GCS.

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS

The differing outcomes from discussing the contentious potential of the organisations comprising GCS in a neo-Gramscian framework vis-à-vis the critical approach promoted in literature derive from inherently opposite perceptions of GCS. The GCS critics basically argue that to oppose a given structure, organisations have to operate outside this structure, preventing GCS at its present state from being truly contentious. While the neo- Gramscian perspective acknowledges that hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces depend on and take shape after each other. Meaning that albeit the organisations comprising GCS in some areas share the nature and operational methods of the hegemonic forces, this does not eliminate the potential to contend the existing hegemony

REFERENCES

Bibliography

Anderson, I (2000). Northern NGO Advocacy: Perceptions, Reality, and the Challenge.

Development in Practice, 10, 445-452

Anderson, P. (1977). The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci. New Left Review, 100, 5-78 Anheier, H., Glasius, M. and Kaldor, M. (2001). Introducing Global Civil Society. In

Anheier, H. and Kaldor, M. (Eds.): Global Civil Society, 3-22. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bieler, A. and Morton, A. D. (2004). A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations. Capital

and Class, 28, 85-113

Brewington, D. W., Davis, D. R. and Murdie, A. (2009). The Ties that Bind: A Network Analysis of Human Rights INGOs. Annual Convention of the International Studies Association,

New York, February, 2009

Chandhoke, N. (2002). The Limits of Global Civil Society. In Glasius, M., Kaldor, M., and Anheier, H. (Eds.) Global Civil Society Yearbook, 2002, 35–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Corntassel, J. (2007). Partnership in Action? Indigenous Political Mobilization and Co- optation During the First UN Indigenous Decade (1995-2004). Human Rights Quarterly,

29, 137-166

Covey, J. G. (1993). Accountability and Effectiveness of NGO Policy Alliances. IDR

Reports, 11

Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10, 126-155

Cox, R. W. (1999). Civil Society at the Turn of the new Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order. Review of International Studies, 25, 3-28

Edwards, M. (1993). ‘Does the Doormat Influence the Boot?’: Critical Thoughts on UK NGOs and International Adovacy. Development in Practice, 3, 163-175

Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (1996). Too Close for Comfort? The Impact of Official Aid on Nongovernmental Organizations. World Development, 24, 961-973

Edwards, M., Hulme, D., and Wallace, T. (1999). NGOs in a Global Future: Marrying Local Delivery to Worldwide Leverage. Public Administration and Development, 19, 117-136 Fisher, W. F. (1997). Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices.

Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 439-464

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative

Inquiry, 12, 219-245

Fowler, A. F. (1998). Authentic NGDO Partnerships in the New Policy Agenda for International Aid: Dead End or Light Ahead? Development and Change, 29, 137-159

Hailey, J. (2009). International NGOs of the Future: Convergence and Fragmentation.

INTRAC Seminar on Future Directions in International NGO Structures

Jensen, L. (2010). NGOs in Transition. Current Challenges for International Organisations in

Development. Copenhagen: Tematisk Forum

Joachim, J. (2003). Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and Women’s Rights. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 247-274

Jordan, L. and van Tuijl, P. (2000). Political Responsibility in Transnational NGO Advocacy. World Development, 28, 2051-2065

Katz, H. (2006). Gramsci, Hegemony, and Global Civil Society Network. Voluntas, 17, 333-348

Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics. International Social Science Journal, 51, 89-101

Lewis, D. (1998). Development NGOs and the Challenge of Partnership: Changing Relations Between North and South. Social Policy and Administration, 32, 501-512

Lewis, D. and Sobhan, B. (1999). Routes of Funding, Roots of Trust? Northern NGOs, Southern NGOs, Donors, and the Rise of Direct Funding. Development in Practice, 9, 117- 129

Mably, P. (2006). Evidence Based Advocacy: NGO Research Capacities and Policy Influence in the Field of International Trade. IDRC Working Papers on Globalization,

Growth and Poverty, 4, Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Munch, R. (2010). Global Civil Society. In Taylor, R. (Ed.) Third Sector Research, 2010, 317-

326. New York: Springer.

Mundy, K. and Murphy, L. (2001). Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging evidence from the Field of Education. Comparative Education Review, 45, 85-126 Murphy, J. (2005). The World Bank, INGOs, and Civil Society: Converging Agendas? The

Case of Universal Basic Education in Niger. Voluntas, 16, 353-374

Nelson, P. (2000). Heroism and Ambiguity: NGO Advocacy in International Policy.

Development in Practice, 10, 478-490

Pasha, M. K. and Blaney, D. L. (1998). Elusive Paradise: The Promise and Peril of Global Civil Society. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 23, 417-450

Petras, J. (1997). Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America. Monthly Review, 49, 10-27

Scholte, J. A. (2002). Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance. Global

Governance, 8, 281-304

Shutt, C. (2009). Changing the World by Changing Ourselves: Reflections from a Bunch of BINGOs. IDS Practice Paper 3, Institute of Development Studies

Smillie, I. (1993). Changing Partners: Northern NGOs, Northern Governments. Voluntas,

5, 155-192

Srinivas, N. (2009). Against NGOs? A Critical Perspective on Nongovernmental Action.

Upchurch, M. (2009). The IFIs and Labour Reform in Post Communist Economies.

Globalizations, 6, 297-316

Yanacopulos, H. (2005). The strategies that bind: NGO coalitions and their influence.

Global Networks, 5, 93-110

Interview

Sørensen, K. H. (2011). Policy Advisor of MS ActionAid Denmark. Interview conducted June 28, 2011. The interview has not been transcribed, but can be forwarded electronically upon request to [email protected]

Other sources

ActionAid (2005). Rights to end poverty. ActionAid International Strategy 2005-2010 ActionAid (2009). Constitution of the Association of ActionAid International

ActionAid (2010). Good practices for ActionAid Governance

ActionAid (2011). Introduction to ActionAid’s International Strategy – Draft 4

Danida (2000). Strategi for dansk støtte til civilsamfundet i udviklingslandene – herunder samarbejdet med de danske NGO’er. Analysedokument og strategi. Copenhagen: Danida

GCE (2011). Global Campaign for Education, Principles and Demands,

http://www.campaign foreducation.org/en/about/principles-and-demands, September 27, 2011

Websites

Actalliance.org, http://www.actalliance.org/about/actmembers, September 27, 2011 Actionaid.org, http://www.actionaid.org/?intl=, September 27, 2011

Actionaid.org, http://www.actionaid.org/sierra-leone/what-we-do/our-campaigns, September 27, 2011 Csonet.org, http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=17, http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=30, September 27, 2011 Educationforallblog.org, http://www.educationforallblog.org/issues/success- stories/efaftiisnowtheglobalpartnershipforeducation, September 27, 2011 Sourcewatch.org, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amnesty_International, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenpeace, October 11, 2011