Week 5: Advocacy and Campaigning

Question 1

Andrews

Answer 1

(2014) - Zapatista

4 points:

1. Beneficiaries want more control = power relations in funding
2. NGOs = accountable upwards, downwards and horizontally / inwards
3. Some found ways to avoid constraints of upward accountability by seeking + flexible forms of funding
4. Prioritisation of downward ability: - Need for legitimacy with beneficiaries - Pressure of horizontal accountability
5. Donors’ economic power often outweigh influence of staff’s values / beneficiaries’ interests

Question 2

Kabeer et al.

Answer 2

(2012) - Bangladesh

2 points:

1. Most politically motivated NGOs –> strong political impacts
2. NGOs = strong economic impact, weak political impact (still bad governance in Bangladesh)

Question 3

Carpenter

Answer 3

(2011) - Agenda vetting

3 points:

1. Process of issue selection most central to advocacy network = significant
2. = Inequalities in the pool of issues that TANS take up
3. Network position shapes preferences and capacities –> variations in advocay network agenda (power)

Question 4

Glasius and Ishkanian

Answer 4

(2015) - Armenia Surreptitious Symbiosis

4 points:

1. Boundaries between formal and informal groups of activists = blurred
2. ++ cross-over and collaboration = Surreptitious Symbiosis
3. CS = permeated by material and coercive logics –> NGO-isation of CS and institutionalisation
4. Sustained activism vs CS industry

Question 5

Lecture

Answer 5

1. Def advocate: “one who pleads the cause of another”
2. Advocacy to address root causes of poverty, wider factors and empower beneficiaries
3. Need state and CS to interact -> bottom up
4. Successful advocacy: framing (adapt), alliances (power), strategies (scope)
5. Representation of a group requires understanding
6. Funding and regulation shape how NGOs advocate
7. Legitimacy = ++ important
8. 1997: Mine Ban Treaty - international campaign
9. Boomerang Effect: Sinkkink and Keck (1998) - Transnational Advocacy Networks
10. Partnerships = active vs dependent