The World Bank Gramscian Approach to Dealing with NGOs - Essay Example

Running Head: Report on the World Bank Gramscian Approach to Dealing with NGOs REPORT ON THE WORLD BANK GRAMSCIAN APPROACH TO DEALING WITH NGOSName: Course Title: Institution: Instructor: Date: Introduction The World Bank being an international financial institution with membership all over the world is keenly involved in the development process of its member countries. Its role includes project design and support both in terms of capacity building initiatives and financial assistance. Over the years however, there have been numerous criticisms of the manner in which development projects have been handled and the results attained (Mcllwaine, 2007, p 2). Some of the criticism as been targeted at the approaches used in the development projects. One highly criticized area is the choice by the Bank to use Civil Society as agents of development (Mcllwaine, 2007, p 2). The Civil Society Unit of the Bank is directly charged with overseeing the carrying out of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and related projects. This report is compiled on behalf of the unit with the aim of shedding some light on what considerations and choices are made in conceptualizing such projects. The unit believes that whereas some of the concerns leveled at the Bank are genuine and well founded, the vast majority of them are based on lack of information on the theoretical framework of carrying out the projects (The World Bank, 2005, 4). The main approach used by the Bank in dealing with civil society in general is grounded on the Gramscian approach originally postulated by Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci. This paper aims at shedding light on this approach so as to allay some of the criticisms that may be based on misinformation about the approach. The Gramscian Approach The post Marxist or Gramscian approach to the understanding of civil society is grounded in the works of sociology scholars Karl Marx, Georg Hegel and Gramsci. It came up in opposing response to the liberal democratic approach which was mainly propagated by philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. Both approaches aimed at explaining the nature and role of civil society. The development of civil society dates back to Roman Empire in which it was known by the Latin term societas civilis. The term refers to the range of organizations, groupings and societies that operate outside the formal government. They include registered NGOs and more informal groupings such as pressure groups and other small movements (Mcllwaine, 2007, p 5). According to Liberal Democratic Approach proposed by Tocqueville and others, Civil Society is a mainly autonomous sphere of liberty incorporating an organizational culture that morphs into both political and economic democracy. It is therefore a productive force and a useful link between the larger state and the individual. It can act as a useful counterweight to check state excesses in the use of power and also to force accountability. It is useful in inculcating a sense of duty, a volunteering spirit and a high level of tolerance among the masses (Lewis 2002, p 569). The Gramscian approach on the other hand views civil society not as homogeneous, normative set of organizations, but as a highly varied antagonistic collection of groupings acting in constant competition and conflict with each other. The approach conceptualizes civil society as divided the social axes of gender, ethnicity, race and social classes. They are also divided by divergent interests referred to by Gramsci as the ‘relation of forces’ (Cox, 1999, p 3). This approach is well grounded in the Marxist Social Conflict theory which portrays society as being held together not by mutual interests but by opposing forces always in conflict with one another. In a nutshell this theory postulates that where such opposing forces cancel each other out, there is peace and where they do not, there is social disorder. They go further to state that peace will not hold for long as unbridled greed and selfishness are the central drivers in any capitalist economy (Marx, 2001, p 124). This perspective is commonly used to describe how civil society acts as praxis of resistance, counter-hegemony and revolution depending on the particular context. This point of view has been quite relevant in the context of resistance to autocratic rule in Eastern Europe and Latin America in the 1980s and 90s and more recently in Africa. Moreover, it is generally associated with the emergence and convergence of social movement forces as important in challenging domination and initiating activism in politics, against poverty, for gender equity or environmental conservation (Edwards, 1994, p 504). The Gramscian Approach of the World Bank Given this explanations of the two approaches, it is easy to understand why the World Bank has opted to employ the latter approach in its development programs involving civil society. According to Mary Kaldor et al (2004, pp 1-2) there is a global civil society that acts as an interface between the family and the state, the market and polities. This interface is understood in the context of Iraq where there exists a heavily guarded political Green Zone consisting of elitist Iraqi government officials and foreign expatriates and troops; and the Red zone consisting of ordinary facing the vibrant life of danger, grinding poverty, bombs, debates and general contempt for the Green zone (Kaldor et al, 2004, p 2). This is reminiscent of the social structures around the World. The only way in which the voice of the Red Zone is heard loudly enough to influence policy in the Green Zone is through groupings known as Civil Society. The policies formulated by the Green Zone, though aimed at improving the lot of all Iraqis, are heavily influenced by the whimsical desires of the zone and the interests of the Western forces that prop up and guard the government. Consequently, the input of the Red Zone remains at best peripheral and at worst irrelevant. It is only through the intervention of civil society that Iraqi policymakers are forced to listen to views of this group that comprises the significant majority of the population of Iraq. This Iraqi situation is merely a miniature of how things are the world over, hence Civil Society is not just an Iraqi phenomenon, but a global one (Kaldor et al, 2004, p 2). The World Bank holds that the most effective way of reaching the majority of the population with poverty alleviation and development programs, is to directly engage the Civil Society Organizations [CSOs] which come up from time to time to voice their concerns (Hunter, 2002, p 2). This is based on the observation that Governments, which are the main players in initiating these activities, tend to reach a point where they ignore the wishes of the people, especially when addressing other concerns important to their immediate interests (Edwards, 1994, p 511). Whereas this cold shoulder to the needs of the majority is not intentional, formal organizations like governments are bound by policies and priorities which may not immediately cover the ever dynamic interests of a given sector of the population. Consequently, such a sector may be inclined to protest collectively and thus give rise to a new CSO (Kaldor et al, 2004, p 4). Conversely, the fact that CSOs are opposed to hegemony in society has led to the numerous protests against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund [IMF] policies and programs. This has been particularly common during meetings such as the World Trade Organization [WTO] summits organized in different cities in the world (Mitlin, 2007, p 3). The different emergent CSOs opposed to the World Bank policies in such cases are sometimes erroneously viewed as indicators of a strained relationship between the Bank and CSOs. However, this is only an indicator that once the Bank policies become part and parcel of mainstream development programs; they tend to become part of the hegemony that the CSOs are opposed to. The Bank therefore opts to listen to the issues raised by such protesters to help accommodate them where possible in the development process ( McIlwaine, 2007, p 5). Failure to do this would result in the Bank becoming just like the established governments which overlook certain concerns raised by the public. Another dichotomy that causes confusion in the relationship of the Bank and CSOs is the relationship of the latter to the state. It is imperative to note that the Bank always works with governments even as it engages CSOs directly. Some of the CSOs are opposed to the state while others are in constant collaboration with it. The state at times becomes suspicious of the Bank’s intentions when it engages with CSOs that are directly opposed to the state (Mitlin, 2007, p 3). In extreme cases, as in some African countries in the past, this is seen as an indirect attempt to depose authority from power. For instance Ugandan scholars Oloka Onyango and Barya (1997, p 113) state that CSOs are suspiciously alien in nature with convoluted pedigree and questionable validity. Quite on the contrary, the Bank has no real interest in deposing government authority, but at the same time it cannot join the government in ignoring the desires of the citizenry as expressed through such CSOs ( McIlwaine, 2007, p 7). As Claire Mercer points out in her paper “NGOs, civil society and democratization: a critical review of the literature” many people have tended to take the liberal view when talking about CSOs. They view them as an integral part of organized society acting in tandem with governments and donors to effect development projects. What is lost in such a view is the fact that CSOs are not necessarily a part of the social hegemony neither do they always work in tandem with governments. While registered Non-Governmental Organizations [NGOs] are more formalized with set rules and governance structures, many smaller community based CSOs are not and do not have written constitutions. Instead they are governed by loosely set rules which are easily changed to fit into new circumstances. So this view of that heavily borrows from the liberal democracy approach and lumps CSOs into one large group of NGOs is inaccurate. It is also misleading to allege that the CSOs operate in the same manner as part of the normative social process when in effect some of them are directly opposed to most such normative positions (Mercer, 2002, p 3). The World Bank and Good Governance Civil Society Organizations have mistakenly been equated on some quarters to democracy. The proponents of this view assume that so long as there are active CSOs then democracy thrives. However, democracy is can be broadly categorized into two types: procedural and substantive (Kaldor, 2002, p 6). Procedural democracy refers to the laid down processes such as representation, elections and separation of powers. Where these are carried out in a regular and transparent manner, there is a level of democracy. However, democracy is only complete where there is substantive democracy. Substantive democracy simply means that individual citizens have a means of making their views count towards the manner in which they are governed. This is usually the more elusive of the two types. It is in fact the minimal existence of substantive democracy that brings about the proliferation of CSOs acting as the voice of individuals (Mitlin, 2007, p 3). The interest of the World Bank in good governance is well known internationally. Since the collapse of the cold war, it has been generally accepted in most quarters that the presence of procedural democracy is intertwined irretrievably with national development (Mitlin, 2007, p 3). Good governance to the World Bank not only comprises elements of procedural democracy but is centrally interested in issues of accountability and transparency in government operations. The argument is that a government that is not accountable to its people is not likely to implement agreed upon development processes gainful to the same people as there is no compulsion to do so. The presence of genuine elections for instance forces the government to be accountable on the pain of being voted out if they do not (The World Bank, 2005). Moreover, if the government is not accountable, then it will not account to the World Bank either on the proper use of funds availed to it. This accountability can be enforced by CSOs which call the state to account every time and expose misdeeds that some in governance may try to hide. It is in this sense that the Bank finds the Gramscian approach to be more useful since the antagonistic nature of CSOs under this model help to keep authority on the long and narrow (Mercer, 2002, p 3). The Effectiveness of CSO Development Projects In spite of the many arguments back and forth on the interaction between the World Bank and CSOs, the most important issue is whether this approach to development really works. The success of the engagement with CSOs as development partners can be seen through many perspectives (The World Bank, 2005). The first is that CSOs have become an important avenue for delivery of crucial services to people especially in areas where government participation is either minimal or totally non-existent. In many countries experiencing financial stress, services such as health care and community development have been privatized thus being undertaken by CSOs. In this way CSOs have come to play an important role that government cannot possibly play (Hunter, 2002, p3). Examples abound of such organizations like the Red Cross, Red Crescent, World Hope and Oxfam which are almost always the first to reach disaster scenes helping in delivering and treating people long before government organizations. This happens especially in poorer countries where the capacity to mobilize personnel and resources is low (Mitlin, 2007, p 3). Secondly, the success of the CSOs can be seen in the highly significant role the organizations now play in global finance. A survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that total CSO grants globally total $10 billion in 2003 up from $ 5 billion in 1990. This is a hundred percent growth over the period. Larger CSOs now act as lenders to smaller organizations involved in agricultural, simple infrastructural development and epidemic control programs. It is imperative to note that such programs would not go on if normal funding through commercial banks and government grants were the only available options (The World Bank, 2005). Another indicator of the success of the CSO sector is the sheer increase in the number of CSOs engaged in the provision of social development programs. The number of international NGOs for instance increased from 6000 in the year 1990 to 26,000 in 1999 (The World Bank, 2005). This increase has been steady and the staying power of the CSOs has also increased. This shows that the organizations are not only stable and well managed but their success has attracted tremendous interest from more persons wiling to volunteer their services by joining the organizations (The World Bank, 2005). The CSOs have also had great success in advocacy against government malpractices thus ushering in more transparency and accountability by regimes that were once opaque in their operations (The World Bank, 2005). The presence of regular elections in certain countries where non-existed before especially in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South America; coupled with the collapse of dictatorships in the regions can to a great extent be attributed to the rise of CSOs. Internal pressure by the actors in the CSOs continues to influence change in more countries even today (Woods, 2000, p 12). A case in point is the recent elections in Iran in which civil organizations joined the public in protesting what was seen as skewed electoral practices. Finally, the influence of CSOs has increased tremendously due to their expertise and experience in dealing with varied situations. It is increasing common for government officials to consult CSO personnel for advice on tackling poverty, creating awareness and dealing with unexpected disasters (The World Bank, 2005). In fact, in many cases governments have resorted to cooperating with CSOs to get certain projects done much in the same way as the World Bank does. The advantage that CSOs have over governments is that there are directly in contact with the people on the ground much more and longer. This makes it easy for them to mobilize people to deal with certain situations more efficiently than government does (Mitlin, 2007, p 3). Conclusion It is true that there have been numerous challenges facing the World Banks involvement with CSOs. There are still areas that need to be ironed out to achieve more efficiency and better collaboration. Contradictions also tend to arise out of the fact that the sane CSOs that the Bank works with at times turn around and criticize it (Woods, 2000, p 12). However, the engagement of the Bank with the CSOs has been highly beneficial and is set to continue to help achieve greater development in the forgotten corners of the world. Moreover, the criticism leveled at the Banks policies only help to strengthen this collaboration by influencing new mutually beneficial policy approaches. Therefore, the Gramscian approach that the bank employs is still easily the most productive option available in this engagement. References Cox, R. W. (1999). “Civil society at the turn of the millennium: prospects for an alternative world order,” Review of International Studies 25, pp. 3–28. Edwards, M. (1994), “International non-governmental organizations, good government and the new policy agenda: lessons of experience at the programme level”. Democratization 1. Kaldor, Mary et al (2004), Global Civil Society, New York: Wiley and Blackwell. Hunter, Robert (2002), US hegemony and the World Bank: the fight over people and ideas, London: London School of Economics. Lewis, D. (2002), “Civil society in African contexts: reflections on the usefulness of a concept”, Development and Change 33, 569–586. McIlwaine, Cathy, (2007), From Local to Global to Transnational Civil Society: Re-Framing Development Perspectives on the Non-State Sector, London: University of London. Mitlin, Diana et al (2007), Reclaiming Development? NGOs and the Challenge of Alternatives, Manchester: University of Manchester. Marx, Carl, (2009), Capital Vol 2, New York: General Books. Mercer, Claire (2002), “NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization: A Critical Review of the Literature”, New York: Sage Publications. Oloka-Onyango, J., and Barya, J. J. (1997). Civil society and the political economy of foreign aid in Uganda. Democratization 7. The World Bank, (2005), Issues and Options for Improving Engagement Between the World Bank and Civil Society Organizations, Washington: The World Bank. Woods, Ngaire (2000), The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves, Oxford: OUP. Read More