Search

Begin New Search Topic Community Political Geography Global Focus

1. Alternative Aid Modalities: Community development

Author:
Scott Guggenheim and Charles Petrie
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
Economic sanctions and restrictions on development aid in fragile and conflict-affected states have become an increasingly prominent part of the international toolkit for dealing with regimes that violate international norms and rules or are beset by conflict. However, there is a well-known problem: sanctions and cessations of development aid often end up hurting the poor more than the rich, particularly the political elites who the sanctions are most meant to target. Donors try to limit the impact of sanctions on the poor through humanitarian assistance, usually run by United Nations (UN) agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). However, in all but the smallest countries, this is extremely expensive as well as a major organizational and logistical challenge. Most recently, situations such as those in Myanmar and Afghanistan have thrown the spotlight on the complexity of the discussion. In a world of no first-best solutions, a close look at empirical experience will show (provided certain pre-conditions can be met) that donors can partially bridge the challenge of simultaneously upholding human rights values and protecting the poorest from the economic fallout caused by sanctions. These solutions require close attention to unpacking complex environments and using a difficult-to-wield set of tools spread over diplomacy, economic power, and development aid. While not all risks can be eliminated, a variety of flexible tools already exists so that donors can help the poor in sanctioned and conflict-affected countries without undermining diplomatic goals of shunning the government elites or inadvertently financing insurgencies. With a growing number of donor-funded community programs in fragile or conflict-affected states, there are also donor concerns about legitimating national authorities, risks of financial diversion, and capture by armed combatants or local elites (full list of major concerns listed below). This paper highlights and addresses these concerns in detail and offers a series of recommendations, which in addition to good donor program design and management could mitigate some of the risks (but not fully eliminate them). This paper aims to present a case on how to use one tool—community-based approaches for delivering and monitoring aid—in fragile or sanctioned contexts, as community-based local governance type development models have been used successfully in a variety of fragile, conflict, and sanctioned countries. Additionally, this paper will extract real-world illustrations of how these approaches can address donor concerns on providing post-humanitarian aid to poor people without unintentionally undermining sanctions on illegitimate regimes. Because the case literature on delivering aid under sanctions is small, the brief includes illustrations taken from aid delivery in conflict-affected countries, where governments may not be under sanction, but deep concerns remain about aid capture or aid further fueling conflict. Finally, in addition to selections from the literature, the report draws from the personal and professional experiences of the two authors, who have overseen or managed large-scale community-type humanitarian, peacebuilding, and development programs in Afghanistan, Burundi, East Timor, Gaza, Indonesia (including Aceh and West Papua), Myanmar, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, and Syria, and have been part of discussions over development options for countries under sanction in Ethiopia and Sudan. In this paper, authors propose ten recommendations for donors coming out of this research on how they can incorporate community-driven approaches for aid in sanctioned and fragile states situations.
Topic:
Development, Humanitarian Aid, Sanctions, and Community
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Global Focus

2. Large-Scale Land Deals and Social Conflict: Evidence and Policy Implications

Author:
Alexander De Juan, Daniel Geissel, Jann Lay, and Rebecca Lohmann
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Global and Area Studies
Abstract:
How do large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) increase the risk of conflict, and what kind of policies can mitigate this effect? We address these questions with a systematic and poli-cy-oriented synthesis of prior research. First, we suggest a simple conceptual framework linking LSLAs to social conflict through relative deprivation. Second, we present empirical evidence on the associations between land investments and social conflict, drawing on pre-existing quantitative and qualitative studies as well as on own descriptive analyses and case studies. Taken together, this evidence suggests that conflicts accompany a sub-stantive share of LSLAs (10 to 20 percent). Specifically, contentious dynamics often start with violations of community interests, which spur largely peaceful community protests that trigger coercion and violence at the hands of armed actors associated with national governments and investors. Third, we develop a set of policy recommendations in high-lighting the need for thorough regulatory frameworks, meaningful consultation, and full transparency.
Topic:
Reform, Regulation, Conflict, Transparency, Land, and Community
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Breakthrough to Policy Use Reinvigorating Impact Evaluation for Global Development

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Amanda Glassman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
In 2006, when a CGD working group, led by Ruth Levine, Bill Savedoff, and Nancy Birdsall, published its report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, very few social programs benefitted from studies that could determine whether or not they actually make a difference. Since then, the world has seen tremendous progress in harnessing better evidence to inform public policy decision making, especially from impact evaluations of programs in low- and middle-income countries. But COVID-19 has put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda, underscoring the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence—for both effectiveness and political credibility of the response. The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods lost when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data. Given the potential real-world benefits, why have decision makers within governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence—including from impact evaluations—for better public policies? Looking ahead, how can the development community renew momentum and broaden bases of support for impact evaluation and the wider evidence agenda? These questions were the focus of a CGD Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact, which set out to understand why these social benefits continue to go unrealized and to chart out a renewed funding agenda for greater value in government policymaking.
Topic:
Development, Leadership, Community, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Learning where it matters: Piloting action learning with frontline humanitarian staff

Author:
Jennifer Doherty
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
ALNAP: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance
Abstract:
The knowledge of frontline staff – those directly involved in programme implementation and monitoring – is fundamental to good humanitarian action. These individuals make decisions and solve problems every day in their work with crisis-affected populations. The interactions they have with communities produce important information on how to implement projects most effectively to meet local needs. Despite the central importance of this knowledge to effective programming, frontline learning has consistently lacked support. ALNAP created an action learning resource pack and supported training on action learning with 26 frontline staff from local, national and international humanitarian NGOs between December 2020 and October 2021. This study explores the learning and reflections from that pilot on using action learning with frontline staff in humanitarian contexts.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Community, Project Management, and Implementation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Where are the Global COVID-19 Resources for LGBTI Communities?

Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
As COVID-19 spread across the globe in 2020, and its health and broader political and socioeconomic implications became evident, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI)2 communities organized. To meet new challenges, LGBTI organizations across the world stepped up, aware that legal and social discrimination and marginalization would make their communities particularly vulnerable to impacts of the pandemic. LGBTI community response included: delivering essential food to communities of unemployed trans men in rural Guatemala; providing housing for LGBTI communities escaping unsafe living environments in Macedonia; ensuring that lesbian, bisexual, and queer female sex workers have access to essential medicines in Uganda; and other examples in communities around the world. As governments, donors, and service providers have largely failed to acknowledge the specific needs of LGBTI people in responding to COVID-19, LGBTI organizations have filled the void to provide basic protection and support for their communities. Many of these organizations have traditionally focused on advocacy and community organizing to advance and protect the human rights of LGBTI people. Now, in the era of COVID-19, they have become direct service providers, out of necessity—albeit with limited resources and capacity. In April 2020, the Global Philanthropy Project launched a short survey to understand the initial response of global LGBTI philanthropy to the pandemic, soliciting data from all GPP member organizations as well as non-GPP members within the top 20 funders of global LGBTI issues. A key outcome from that report was an identified role for GPP to monitor shifts in resources flowing to LGBTI movements and communities, as well as the broader impact of COVID-19 on international development and humanitarian assistance funding.
Topic:
Health, Discrimination, LGBT+, Advocacy, Community, and Marginalization
Political Geography:
Global Focus and Global South

6. Transparency for Whom? Grounding Land Investment Transparency in the Needs of Local Actors

Author:
Sam Szoke-Burke
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
Transparency is often seen as a means of improving governance and accountability of investment, but its potential to do so is hindered by vague definitions and failures to focus on the needs of key local actors. In a new report focusing on agribusiness, forestry, and renewable energy projects (“land investments”), CCSI grounds transparency in the needs of project-affected communities and other local actors. Transparency efforts that seek to inform and empower communities can also help governments, companies, and other actors to more effectively manage operational risk linked to social conflict.
Topic:
Agriculture, Governance, Transparency, Sustainability, and Community
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Recognizing Communities: Local Level Responses to the Pathfinders Grand Challenges

Author:
Tara Moayed
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
Communities are not homogenous. Within a single community, there are often divisions along class, ethnic, and gender lines. Further, not all communities are the same. Dynamics from one community to the next can widely differ, including power relations, land allocations, gender dynamics, mobility, and the level of government influence. James Scott, in Seeing Like A State, showed how much of the vocabulary of state administration carries with it the mechanisms to disempower local authority and invest it in state agents who can then wield state authority. Rebalancing this relationship requires finding ways to overcome the monopolies over information, decision-making, and convening power that state agents have, particularly in systems that emerged from an extractive colonial context. Ignoring these dynamics when designing a CDD project will most likely result in elite capture, and possibly lead to local conflict, increased inequality, and erode trust between citizens and the state. This research paper argues the importance of the role of the community within the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies discussion over inequality. The paper’s case studies are based largely on government-led community-driven development (CDD) programs that aim to ensure recognition of the complicated dynamics within the community itself. Unless the heterogeneity of communities is considered and fostered through an inclusive design and facilitation process, no program or project can hope to impact inclusion, empowerment, and the citizen-state relationship. A deep understanding of community dynamics and good facilitation are prerequisites for any CDD model to have a positive social impact.
Topic:
Citizenship, State, Community, Society, and Inclusion
Political Geography:
Global Focus

8. How is Global LGBTI Philanthropy Responding to COVID-19?

Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
In April 2020, GPP conducted a survey in order to understand emerging practices and principles for COVID-19 response among funders supporting global LGBTI issues, share common learnings and opportunities for collaboration, and inform how GPP can support the community of global LGBTI funders over the course of the pandemic and beyond. The survey focused on GPP member funds as well as non-GPP members in the top 20 funders of global LGBTI issues (based on the 2017-2018 Global Resources Report). The brief contains findings on: Common principles and innovative initiatives global LGBTI funders have commenced since the pandemic began; Key issues that LGBTI funders are hearing from grantee partners; Actions global LGBTI funders have taken to response to these issues; Initial planning or forecasting on implications for global LGBTI funders, including new resources; Recommendations for global LGBTI philanthropic community collaboration in response to COVID-19 impacts on LGBTI communities across the world. In response to the key recommendations from this survey, GPP will monitor shifts in resource flows to LGBTI movements and communities resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. We plan to undertake a follow up survey of these leading global LGBTI funders in July 2020 and will also publish those results here.
Topic:
Health, LGBT+, Coronavirus, Pandemic, Community, COVID-19, and Philanthropy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

9. Scaling Up Alternatives to Capitalism: A Social Movement Approach to Alternative Organizing (in) the Economy.

Author:
Simone Schiller-Merkens
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies
Abstract:
In these times of crises, capitalism and the far-reaching marketization of our societies has again become a subject of contestation and critique. Alternative organizing is one response to the critique of capitalism. As an embodied and constructive form of critique it takes place in prefigurative organizations and communities on the ground that experiment with alternative forms of organizing economic exchanges and lives. These prefigurative initiatives are seen as central actors in a social transformation toward an alternative economy. However, they oftentimes remain autonomous and disconnected, questioning their potential to contribute to a broader social change. This paper sets out to explore how and when alternative organizing as practiced in communities and organizations can scale upwards to lead to a more profound social transformation of our societies. Building on insights from scholarship on social movement outcomes, I discuss the collective actions, contextual conditions, and social mechanisms that are likely to allow an upward scale shift of alternative organizing.
Topic:
Economics, Social Movement, Capitalism, and Community
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. IPR Policies and Membership in Standard Setting Organizations: A Social Network Analysis

Author:
Jiaming Jiang, Xingyuan Zhang, and Rajeev K. Goel
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
Whereas technical standards and Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) are omnipresent and essential to mass production and communications, relatively little is formally known about the propensity of firms’ decisions to belong to certain SSOs. An understanding of such propensities can explain why some firms join SSOs (and others do not) and have implications for the regulation of SSOs. This paper uses a social network analysis technique to categorize/place firms in SSO communities and then empirically analyzes their propensities to belong to SSOs. We concentrate our study on standard setting organizations’ features and their intellectual property rights (IPR) policies such as licensing rules, disclosure requirements, as well as the features of the decision process of standards. Using data on more than 1060 member firms as participants in 28 SSOs, we are able to uniquely graph the membership of firms in SSOs by highlighting some important characteristics through community detection. The results provide some novel insights into why firms might choose certain SSO communities over others.
Topic:
Communications, Business, Community, and Production
Political Geography:
Global Focus