Exam prep Flashcards
Outline the reasons why participatory processes at community, district or national levels are not necessarily very representative.
There are always critical questions about who participates and whose interests prevail. The public nature of discussions, and the need for consensus, silences some voices and privileges others. Women in particular often have unequal access to participatory processes. Existing elite and powerful groups and those who are already organised are advantaged over those who are not. Civil society organisations are highly diverse with different interests and there are also questions about their legitimacy and mandate to represent poor people.
(Unit 9 self-assessment Q1)
In what ways do rights-based approaches and the notion of citizenship seek to confront the critique of project level participation?
Community-based project participation was criticised for ignoring the politics and power dynamics of participation. Rights-based approaches and the notion of citizenship are, in contrast, seeking actively to engage with the politics of participation. The focus is on participation as a right and a responsibility, and includes participation that is not asked for – activism and political opposition – as well as participation that is asked for. This is balanced by a focus on the need for public institutions to seek out and respond to citizen needs and priorities, and to be held accountable.
(Unit 9 self-assessment Q2)
Outline the reasons why donors may be reluctant to support kinship and religious-based civil society groups.
These groups can often represent the views of many poor people, and they are growing in size and influence. However, their interests may have little to do with poverty reduction and fostering greater social equality. Their values can be very conservative and their structures hierarchical. Support can carry dangers of fostering factionalism and destabilising fragile democracies.
9
Initiatives to deepen democracy
To build more constructive relationships between citizens and governments requires work on both sides of the equation, civil society and the state.
1. initiatives for the empowerment of citizens to claim their rights, and hold governments accountable:
creating the pre-conditions for popular engagement with policy debates through awareness raising, disseminating policy-related information in an accessible format, and capacity building
establishing arenas for citizens and government to meet and share in decision-making eg joint management of public services
supporting citizen’s advocacy and lobbying activities
supporting citizen monitoring of government budgets and performance
developing accountability measures such as service delivery score cards
standard setting citizen initiatives, eg the UK Citizen’s Charter
initiatives that support building of social movements
- initiatives to ensure accountable and efficient public institutions able and willing to respond to their citizens needs and priorities:
government mandated forms of citizen consultation
setting standards for citizens to hold government accountable
incentives for officials to be responsive to citizens
changes in organisational culture
PRS monitoring systems oriented towards reporting progress to citizens rather than donors.
putting information about aid instruments into the public domain
(UNIT 9.2.2)
Rationales of deepening democracy
Though the idea is to move away from technical towards political participation, the rationales of deepening democracy are two fold: The political rationale is empowerment of citizens to claim their rights; the instrumental/technical rationale is for citizens hold governments accountable for fulfilling policy commitments.
9
internal vs. external accountability of CSOs
Internal accountability concerns financial and performance management and reporting;
External accountability concerns accountability towards stake holders:
- social movements: ability to mobilise support
- social organisations: accountability to members and beneficiaries;
- national and religious organisations: true to experiences and values they promote
- NGOs: to donors for good use of funding (policy advocacy); to beneficiaries for support. Conflict: weak or absent link to beneficiaries in new environment, no service delivery.
9
“Internal Governance”
“Political efficacy”
What’s the impact of donor funding on CSO i.g. and p.e.?
3 Key ingredients for political efficacy?
“internal governance”:processes of internal participation enabling organisations to give citizens a voice in public debate
“political efficacy”: ability of CSOs to influence government policy and legislation through consultation, lobbying, and direct pressure.
Donor-funded organisations are ineffective in influencing policy = political efficacy, though existing trends of democratisation were strengthened;
Participation, capacity-building, and improve tolerance and consensus-building = internal governance and voice improved (Robinson and Friedman).
3 Key ingredients for political efficacy:
- strong organisational capacity
- perceived political legitimacy and access to gvt officials
- adequate financial resources
9
3 key themes in current policy environment
- Poverty reduction - MDGs, PRSP
- Rights
- Good governance
Unit 7.1
The importance of 1995 SD summit (WSSD) in Copenhagen
WSSD ‘95: Emphasizes the importance of integrating social and economic policy rather than treating poverty as an issue tackled only by achievement of economic growth. Growth has to be made to work for the poor.
Heads of most governments agreed on Programme of Action (poverty, unemployment, social integration), which laid the foundation for the Millennium Declaration. The MD was adopted by 189 world leaders in 2000 (millennium summit). The MD committed UN member states to achieving 8 MDGs by 2015.
7.1.1 p. 9
Obstacles to gender mainstreaming
Policy evaporation due to:
LACK OF CAPACITY – the time, resources, skills, and positioning – of those responsible for spearheading gender mainstreaming within development organisations
ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT - organisational context – as staff at all levels often have little support, and resist, reinterpret, and ignore gender equality policy commitments
Typical findings:
- lack of reliable systems and procedures
- lack of understanding amongst staff
- initiatives reliant on individual staff with personal interest
- tendency to view women as sector vs. equality in standard processes
- gender equality not systematically included in Terms of Reference for staff
- gender awareness not translated to action: lack of practical tools
- reduction to a women’s component with tiny budget
- seen as imposed by donor agencies, leading to lip service
Unit 10.1
Recommendations from mainstreaming evaluations: 4 critical elements for improved practice within organisations
POLITICAL WILL and leadership – shown when top-level management publicly support gender mainstreaming, effectively communicate the organisations’ commitment to gender equality, commit staff time and financial resources, and institute needed policies and procedures.
TECHNICAL CAPACITY – demonstrated in increased staff skills in gender analysis and planning and use of gender sensitive tools and procedures.
ACCOUNTABILITY – demonstrated in INCENTIVES that encourage and reinforce gender-sensitive behaviours within individuals and within an organisation as a whole.
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE – evidenced in a gender-balanced staff, a gender-sensitive governance structure, and the equal valuing of women and men’s working styles.
10.1
Why are processes of organisational change to bring about gender equality so complex?
Goetz’ conceptual framework helps understand why processes of organisational change to bring about gender equality are so complex. How do development organisations reflect and reproduce gender inequality?
- Institutional/organisational history: what gender interests have shaped this wider institutional context?
- The gendered cognitive context: Ideologies and disciplines driving the organisations. How are these gendered?
- Gendered organisational culture: how are decisions made, what is the management structure? Does the organisational culture favour one sex over the other?
- Gendered participants: where are the men, where are the women?
- Gendered space and time: in how far do working hours and travel commitments reflect a gender bias?
- Sexuality of organisations: how do women and men behave, how are they treated as men and women?
- Gendered authority structure: to what extent are men and male characteristics associated with power?
- Gendered incentive and accountability systems: do performance targets unconsciously favour benefit to men over women? Does accountability to stakeholder group affect implementation of gender equality commitments?
10.2.2
How can organisational change (e.g. toward fostering gender equality) be brought about?
Challenges in new aid environment?
Change needs to take place at all three levels:
- Change rules in an organisation, i.e. “how” questions; underlying theories/assumptions not changed (SINGLE LOOP LEARNING)
- Change rules and underlying theories/assumptions, i.e. “why” questions; controversies are addressed, new insights found (DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING)
- Change theories/assumptions/ principles of organisation, transformative learning; “what for” questions about position, purpose, identity of organisation (TRIPLE LOOP LEARNING)
Examples: recruitment quotas at all levels for increased presence of women; gender equity concerns included in performance measurement; consult with female clients of public services; workshops to encourage reflection on staffing (gender audit methodologies), procedures, cultures (promotes understanding and ownership of change).
In new aid environment, the challenge consists for donors and CSOs to promote gender equality in male-dominated governments and little capacity on the topic. State bureaucracies are expected to drive the transformation. But the issue should be tackled in the political arena: progressive policies require political coalition building.
10.2.2
What are gender budgets?
What are the two main methods for analysing the gender implications of government budgets?
Two uses of information from gender budgets?
Gender budgets refers to gender analysis of government spending.
2 methods:
1. analyse beneficiary groups of budget allocation (differences in access, roles, needs), to identify constraints in accessing “gender neutral” services. – differential needs should be reflected in gvt spending.
“gender analysis of beneficiary groups, to uncover gendered implications of apparently gender neutral financial allocations”
2. analyse gender implications of policy or action plan lying behind the budget.
“Gender analysis of underlying policy commitments.” (u10 self-assessment)
Uses of gender budget information:
- Awareness raising (gender neutral policy ≠ gender neutral, reinforces inequality!), advocacy, training purposes
- Planning, monitoring, accountability purposes: promote processes that take into account diff. roles, needs, interests.
10.3
Key constraints to achieving budget changes through gender budget
Evidence: few budget changes are achieved due to constraints:
- Poor quality analysis (lack of access to budget/planning information, limited sex disaggregated data)
- Impact is compromised (those conducting analyses are marginal to decision making; little or no dialogue between analysts and those responsible for budgeting an planning; )
Most likely change only if support existing policy direction, otherwise main impact was to raise awareness of impact of allocations on women, and on how this information can be used for advocacy purposes. not significant achievement!
Critiques:
- no concrete analysis, just broad statements about impact
- government not receptive to CSO engagement with macroeconomic debates
- focus on women’s budget allocations: easy to identify, misunderstanding of initiative
- risk of lumping together studies of budget impact on different disadvantaged groups, disregardless of diverse needs.
10.3
