5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 1/27

 

Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices

Author(s): William F. FisherReviewed work(s):Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26 (1997), pp. 439-464Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952530 .

Accessed: 22/11/2011 10:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

 Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of 

 Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 2/27

 

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.1997. 26:439-64Copyright? 1997 byAnnual ReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

DOINGGOOD?ThePolitics andAntipoliticsof NGO Practices

WilliamF. Fisher

Departmentof Anthropology,HarvardUniversity, Cambridge,Massachusetts02138

KEYWORDS: ivil society,collectiveaction,development,ongovernmentalrganizations,

globalization

ABSTRACT

This review surveys current iteratureconcernedwith the growing numbers,

changing functions,andintensifyingnetworks of nongovernmentalorganiza-

tions which havehadsignificant impactsupon globalization,international nd

national politics, and local lives. Studies of these changes illuminateunder-

standingsof translocal flows of ideas, knowledge, funding,andpeople; shed

light on changing relationships among citizenry, associations, and the state;

andencouragea reconsiderationof connections between the personaland the

political. Attention is given to the political implicationsof discourses about

NGOs, the complex micropoliticsof these associations,andthe importanceof

situating hemas evolving processeswithincomplexes of competingandover-

lapping practicesand discourses.

If I knew someone was coming over with the expressed intention of doing

good, I would flee.Henry David Thoreau

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade, the conception of new world orders (Edwards & Hulme

1996b, Ekins 1992, Holm & Sorenson 1995) has been encouraged by a per-

ceived turbulence in world politics (R Kothari 1993, p. 59; Finger 1994a, p. 48;

Rivera 1992; Rosenau 1990), the volatility of culturally plural societies, the

acceleration of globalization (Appadurai 1991, Lash & Urry 1994), and thesense that nation-states are no longer obvious and legitimate sources of author-

ity over civil society (Lash & Urry 1994, p. 281). During this period, local, re-

439

0084-6570/97/101 5-0439$08.00

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 3/27

 

440 FISHER

gional, and transnational ollective action has attractedheightened attention

from developmentpractitioners,politicians, andsocial scientists. In the politi-

cal space createdby shifting interdependenciesamong political actors, by the

globalizationof capitalismand power, and by the decline of the state, growingnumbers of groups loosely identified as nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) have undertakenan enormouslyvariedrangeof activities, including

implementing grass-roots or sustainable development, promoting human

rights and social justice, protesting environmentaldegradation,and pursuing

many other objectivesformerly gnored or left to governmentalagencies.1

Many analysts have noted and commentedon the scale of this growth in

NGOs (Carroll 1992, Clarke 1993, Edwards& Hulme 1996a, Farrington&

Lewis 1993, Fisher 1993,Fowler 1991, Fowler& James 1995, S Kothari1993,Princen & Finger 1994, Rademacher& Tamang1993).2 In the views of some

observers,the thirdworld in particular s being swept by a nongovernmental,

associational, or "quiet"revolution that at least one analyst believes may

6"proveo be as significant to the latter twentieth centuryas the rise of the

nation-statewas to the latternineteenthcentury" Salamon 1993, p. 1, 1994, p.109; see also Clarke1996, Edwards& Hulme 1996a,Fisher 1993).

The potential of the global associational explosion has captivated the

imaginationof a wide variety of developmentplanners,policy makers,activ-ists, and analysts. Economistsand developmentplanners aud the role of local

associations in alleviating ruralpoverty and helping communities adapt to

modernization Annis 1988, Bongartzet al 1992,Brown & Korten 1989,FAO

1994, Korten 1990, Padron 1987, Semboja & Therkildsen 1995, Thomson1992, World Bank 1991,UNDP 1993); political scientists are reevaluating he

role of voluntary associationsin building vibrantcivil societies andtheirim-

pacton therelationshipbetweensociety andthe state(Barghouti1994;Bratton

1989; Chazan 1992; Fowler 1991; Fox & Hernandez 1992; Frantz 1987;

Ndegwa 1993, 1996;Ng'ethe &Kanyinga1992; Sanyal 1994;Sethi 1993a,b);scholarsof international elations have begunto examinethe impactof NGO

coalitions and networkson international olitics and theirrole in the formationof an international ivil society (Brysk 1993; Carroll1988;Ghils 1992;Link-

lThe evidence of this growth is widespreadand includes the increased numbersof officiallyregistered associations, the thousands of NGOs representedat internationalconferences, the

increased proportionof development funding directed through NGOs, the attentionpaid to

cooperationwith NGOs by the WorldBanik nd other nternational gencies,thehighly publicized

success of lobbyingeffortsof NGOcoalitions,andthe growingsupportprovided o NGOsthroughglobal networks, ncludinghundredsof World WideWeb sites.

2See Princen& Finger's commentson the difficultyof accuratelyestimating he exact dimensions

of the growthof the nongovernmental ector (1994, p. 15).

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 4/27

 

NGOPRACTICES441

enbach1994;Lipschutz1992;Peterson1992;Princen1994;Princen&Finger1994; Shaw 1992; Sikkink 1993, 1995; Spiro 1994; Udall 1995; Wapner1994); and some activists and analysts are reconsideringthe relationship of

NGOs to social movementsandtheirabilityto bothempowerpeople andcon-tribute o alternativediscoursesof developmentanddemocratizationEscobar1992, Patkar1995, Wignaraja1993a).

Any discussion of NGOs is furthercomplicated by the fact thatthey havenot only increasedin numberandtaken on new functions,but they have alsoforged innovative and increasingly complex and wide-ranging formal andinformal linkages with one another,with governmentagencies, with socialmovements, with internationaldevelopment agencies, with individual IN-GOs (internationalNGOs), and with transnational ssue networks (Carroll

1988; Finger 1994a,b;Fisher 1995b; Lopez et al 1995; Shaw 1992; Sikkink1993, 1995; Peterson 1992; Princen & Finger 1994). These relationshipshave begun to have profound impacts both on globalization and on locallives.

These changes in the natureof local andglobal forms of collective actionintersect with issues of vital concern to anthropologists. Study of thesechanges not only enriches ourunderstandingof local andtranslocalconnec-tions that enable and constrain lows of ideas,knowledge,funding,andpeople,

but also invites us to reconsiderboth conventionalnotions of governanceandFoucaultian deas of governmentalityand how technologies of control affectboth the personal and the political, and to examine changing relationshipsamongcitizenry,associations,andthe state.However,while the associationalrevolutionhasgenerated remendousenthusiasmand a largenew interdiscipli-naryliterature, nthropologists, o date,have maderelativelylimitedcontribu-tions to it. This literatureas a whole is basedmoreon faith thanfact: There arerelatively few detailed studies of what is happeningin particularplaces orwithinspecific organizations, ew analysesof the impactof NGOpracticesonrelationsof poweramongindividuals,communities,and the state, and little at-tention to the discoursewithin which NGOs are presentedas the solution toproblemsof welfare service delivery, development,anddemocratization.Anenhancedanthropologicalcontributionwould enrich a literature he majorityof which is repletewith sweepinggeneralizations;optimisticstatementsaboutthepotentialsof NGOs fordeliveringwelfareservices, implementingdevelop-mentprojects,and facilitatingdemocratization; nd instrumental reatises onbuildingthe capacityof NGOs to perform hese functions.Unpackingthis lit-

erature,much of which obscures its political stance in simple categoriesandgeneralizations,requiresattentionto three sets of issues thathave concernedsome anthropologists: a) how discourses aboutNGOs createknowledge, de-fine sets of appropriate ractices, andfacilitate andencourageNGO behavior

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 5/27

 

442 FISHER

defined as appropriate;b) how complex sets of relationshipsamongvariouskinds of associations,the agencies and agents of the state,andindividualsand

communitieshave had an impactin specific locales at specific times; and (c)

how we can avoidreductionistviews of NGOs as fixed and generalizableenti-ties with essential characteristicsandcontextualizethemwithinevolving pro-cesses of associating.

IMAGININGNGOs

The need forunpacking he literaturebecomes clear whenwe consider the de-gree to which the literature n NGOsrelies upon severalkey terms participa-tion, empowerment, ocal, andcommunity each of which has been given a

varietyof meanings andlinkedin differentways to analysts' perceptionsof theorigins, capacities, objectives, and impacts of NGOs. Ironically,with refer-ence to these terms, NGOs have been embracedandpromoted n thepastdec-ade by internationaldevelopmentagencies like the WorldBank as well as byradicalcriticsof top-down development.WhetherNGOsare seen as aprogres-sive arm of anirresistiblemarch oward iberaldemocracy hatmarks"theend

of history,"an extensionof the pushtowardprivatization,or a means to resistthe imposition of Westernvalues, knowledge, and development regimes de-

pends on the perspectiveandagendaof the imaginer.At least since the Rio Conferenceof 1992 (and the parallelGlobalForumat

which gatheredrepresentatives romover 9000 organizations rom 171 coun-

tries), nothingshort of miracles has been expectedfromNGOs (Little 1995).The optimism of the proponentsof NGOs derives from a general sense ofNGOs as "doing good," unencumberedand untaintedby the politics of gov-ernmentor thegreedof the market Zivetz 1991).This is reflectedin thedesig-nationsthatdescribethese associationsin terms of whatthey arenot:nongov-ernmentalandnonprofit.NGOs are idealized as organizations hroughwhich

people help others for reasonsotherthanprofit or politics (Brown & Korten

1989, Fisher 1993). This idealizationof NGOs as disinterestedapoliticalpar-ticipants n a field of otherwiseimplicatedplayershas led theoristsandpracti-tionersalike to expect much of them. But as Milton Friedmanhas observed,"thepower to do good is also the power to do harm,"a process thatis all themore difficultto sort outwhen "whatone manregardsas good, anothermayre-

gardas harm" Friedman1962).NGOs have become the "favoredchild" of official development agencies,

hailed as the new panaceato curethe ills thathave befallen the developmentprocess (Edwards& Hulme 1996a, p. 3), and imaginedas a "magicbullet"

which will mysteriouslybut effectively find its target(Dichter 1993, p. vii;Vivian 1994). Sharpcriticism of previous interventionist, op-downdevelop-

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 6/27

 

NGO PRACTICES 443

ment efforts,widespreadevidencethat developmentstrategiesof the past fewdecades have failed to adequatelyassist the poorest of the world's poor, andgrowing supportfor developmentefforts that are "sustainable"and that in-

clude the participationof intendedbeneficiarieshave stimulatedexisting de-velopment agencies to search for alternativemeans to integrateindividualsinto markets,to deliver welfare services, and to involve local populationsindevelopmentprojects.

However, the acceptanceof NGOs by the developmentindustryhas been

limited,and the transfer o them of some of the responsibility or the successfulimplementationof developmenteffortsis notwithoutrisk to the autonomyand

existence of NGOs. Developmenthas been a fickle industry,first embracingand then casting off a long series of enthusiasticallytouted new strategies.

NGOs, now so widely praised,can anticipatebecomingvictims of the currentunrealisticexpectationsandbeing abandonedas rapidlyand as widely as theyhave been embraced.3

The appropriate ole imagined for NGOs in developmentdepends on the

criticalstance one takestowardthe development ndustry.Critics of develop-ment can be situatedwithin one of two general camps(Ferguson1990).4The

first views contemporarydevelopmentprocessesas flawed butbasically posi-tive andinevitable (Cernea1988;Clark1991, 1995; Olsen 1995;Patel 1995).

From this perspective,NGOs provide a means to mitigate some of the weak-nesses in the developmentprocess.The secondfinds both the dominantdevel-

opment paradigmandthe implementationof it fundamentally lawed (see, in

particular,Escobar'sinfluentialandprovocativework, 1995; see also Esteva

1987; S Kothari1993;Patkar1995;Rahnema1992;Udall 1995). Theysee de-

velopment as a historically produced discourse "which created a space in

which only certainthingscould be said and even imagined" Escobar1995, p.39). For the more radicalcritics,NGOs and "local" or "community"associa-tions are valuablein so far as theyare apotentialsourceof alternativedevelop-

ment discourses andpractices.Criticsfrom each campmay promoteNGOs fortheirabilityto facilitateparticipationandempowerment,but the meanings at-tached to these terms differ.

3There is already evidence of disillusionment with the promise of NGOs as deliverers of

developmentand democracy.For an example, see the 1993 UNDP HumanDevelopmentReport(UNDP 1993). Smillie & Helmich (1993, p. 15) argue that, in discussions of the potentialcontributions of NGOs, "it has become fashionable to move quickly from their positive

attributes., to theirobviousweaknesses."

40f course, thereare many variationswithin these two positions.Fora fuller discussionof theseissues as they affect anthropology, ee Escobar (1991) and Little& Painter's (1995) response to

Escobar.

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 7/27

 

444 FISHER

The first set of critics is strongly represented n the literatureon NGOs, agreat portion of which takes an instrumentalview of NGOs, regardingthemas apolitical tools that can be wielded to further a variety of slightly modi-

fied development goals. Development agencies and internationalNGOs, inparticular, support local NGOs for their effectiveness in pursuing the goalsof what some have called a "newpolicy agenda,"a heterogenousset of poli-cies based on a faith in two basic values neoliberal economics and liberaldemocratictheory (Biggs & Neame 1996, Edwards& Hulme 1996a, Moore1993, Robinson 1993).As these proponentsenvision them, NGOs have the ca-pacity to efficiently transfer training and skills that assist individuals andcommunitiesto compete in markets, o providewelfare services to those whoare marginalized by the market,and to contributedemocratizationand the

growth of a robust civil society, all of which areconsideredas criticalto thesuccess of the neoliberaleconomicpolicies (Fowler 1991,Frantz1987, Hyden1998).

These analysts see NGOs as everythingthatgovernmentsare not: unbur-dened with large bureaucracies,relatively flexible and open to innovation,more effective and faster at implementing development efforts, and able toidentify and respond to grass-rootsneeds (Edwards& Hulme 1996a, Fowler1988, FAO 1994). The common assertion hatNGOs have arisen n the face of

internaland externalexigencies andwhere state-directed hangehas failed orfaces severe limitations(Adam 1993, Ndegwa 1993) supportsthe view thatNGOs are an importantalternative o the stateundersome circumstances.Asthe WorldBank(1991) has noted,NGOs "have become an important orce inthe developmentprocess [mitigating] he costs of developingcountries'insti-tutionalweakness"(p. 135). Fromthisperspective,"local"NGOs area meansthroughwhich impedimentsto developmentcan be overcome, and interna-tional NGOs are useful insofar as they serve as intermediaries hat can facili-tate the work of local NGOs (see, for instance,Olsen 1995).

NGOShave also been supportedby advocatesof thenewpolicy agendabe-causeit is believed thattheycontribute o democratizingprocesses. Optimisticexpectationsfor democratizationhave been boosted in the past decadeby thesuccessful challenges citizens made to formerly strong states in EasternEuropeandLatinAmerica. But while NGOs are valued as partof a growingcivil societythatcanengagewith thestate,few scholarshave examinedtheac-tual contributionNGOsmakeeithertopolitical changeand democratization rto political continuity(forexceptions,see Bongartzet al 1992, Ndegwa 1993).

The connectionsamong development,empowerment,and democratization e-mainspeculativeand rhetorical.Certainly,democraticoptimismreflectsa nar-rowly progressiveview of NGOs that s notborne outby thepolitical varietyofNGOs. Whileprevailingpolicies assume that democratizations a by-product

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 8/27

 

NGOPRACTICES445

of development,5some analystshave arguedthat the objectives of develop-ment and democratization equirecontradictory fforts(see, for example,Car-

roll 1992).

The secondset of developmentcritics,those who seek alternatives o exist-ing developmentparadigms,emphasizerather handownplayNGOs' potential

for moraland political influence, seeing NGOs as vehicles for challenges to

and transformationsof relationshipsof power. Grass-rootsorganizations, n

particular,are seen as engaged in a struggle for ideological autonomy from

the state, political parties, and the development apparatus Friedman1992,

Lind1992).Activists andrevolutionaryheoristsattribute ignificanceto local

voluntaryassociationsnot because they see these groupsas partof a growingcivil society thatengageswith the statebut becausethey see them aspartof a

process that is capableof transforming he state and society.6 They envisionthe emergenceof alternativediscoursesand practices of developmentandan-

ticipate the contributionof NGOs to an "insurrectionof subjugatedknowl-

edges" (Foucault 1980, p. 81; see also Fisher 1993, Patkar1995, S Kothari1993). Seeking alternatives o development,rather handevelopmentalterna-

tives, andskepticalabout so-called democratizationprocesses, these analysts,activists, and radicalcritics of neoliberaldevelopment agendasvalue NGOs

for their ability to politicize issues that were not formerly politicized or that

wereironicallydepoliticizedthrough hediscoursesof developmentor"demo-cratic"participationR Kothari1993, S Kothari1993,Patkar1995, Wignaraja

1993a).Some of these critics of thedevelopment ndustryview thedevelopmentap-

paratusas identifying "problems" hat impede (or that result from) an imag-ined linearmarchof progress,and that require he interventionof government

or multilateraldevelopment agencies (Escobar 1995, Ferguson 1990, Rah-

nema 1992). Such critics haverecognizedas a dangerposedto NGOsthe resil-ient abilityof the development ndustry o absorbandtransform deas andin-

stitutions.In theirview, NGOs are at risk of becoming the new "technical" o-lutions to development"problems," olutions that can be promotedby interna-tional developmentagenciesin situations n which the stateis seenan inhibitor

(Biggs & Neame 1996).From the perspective of these critics, the developmentindustry'sview of

NGOs as efficient new instrumentsof development largely ignores, down-

51npractice,mostofficial inancial nd ogistical upporto NGOsgoes fordevelopmentfforts

andnotdemocratization.n his opic, ee thediscussionsnEdwards1996)andPearce 1993).

6NGOs seen as contributingn alternative erspective re often distinguishedrom moremainstream,ooperativeGOs.See,forexample,hedirectoryf alternativeGOs n SouthAsiacompiled y Nachowitz1990).

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 9/27

 

446 FISHER

plays, or attemptsto coopt the political role of NGOs. Throughdepoliticiza-tion, NGOs are in danger of becoming the new attachments o the "antipoli-tics"machine of development,the practicesof which JamesFerguson (1990)

has described in his seminal work on development in Lesotho. The descrip-tion of NGOs as part of a voluntary(Brown& Korten1989), nonprofit, nde-pendent(Fisher 1993) or "third" ector (Hulme 1994;Korten1990; Salamon1993, 1994) that is separate rom bothmarketand state(Wolfe 1991) contrib-utes to the image of these associations as partof a segment of society that isseparate from politics.7 If politics, however, is taken to refer to power-structured elationshipsmaintainedby techniques of control,as it is by theseradicalcritics, thenpolitics is not confinedto institutionsbutpervades everyaspect of life (Foucault 1991, Gordon 1991, Kauffman 1990, Millett 1971).Antipolitics refersto theobscuringof theserelationships.Justas the"develop-mentapparatus" asgenerallydepoliticizedthe need fordevelopment hroughits practice of treating ocal conditions as "problems" hat required echnicaland not structural rpolitical solutions(Ferguson1990), it now defines prob-lems thatcan be addressedvia the mechanisms of NGOs rather hanthroughpolitical solutions.

WhetherNGOs are seen as collections of individualsengaged in what deTocqueville called the democratic"artof associating,"or engaged in a Hege-

lian struggle for respect and recognition as humanbeings with dignity, de-pends a greatdeal on the lens throughwhich they areviewed. PerceptionsofNGOs reflect the tensions between those who arguethat new or alternativemeans areneeded to reachthe goals of developmentandthose who argueforareconceptionof the ends of development and an acknowledgmentthat themeans by which we strive for or make decisions aboutthose ends matterasmuch as the ends themselves (Escobar 1995, Ferguson 1990, Fisher 1995c).Theseperceptionsof NGOs are tiedupwithcontestednotions of what it means

to "dogood."At stake are theverynotion of the "good"and theprocessof de-ciding what it is and how to pursueit.

CONCEPTUALLYLOCATINGNGOs

How is it thatNGOs have come to be seen as centralto such widely differentpolicy and political agendas?It may seem as though the analysts described

7Not surprisingly,many of these organizationsand their members describe their organizationsdifferently,emphasizing nsteadpositive qualities of theirpracticesandideology. SmituKothari(1993) has observed hat n India,movementswith massparticipation,nparticular,may resentandrejectoutright he externally mposedclassification as NGOs and insteaddesignatethemselves associal action groups,political actiongroups, or social movements.

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 10/27

 

NGO PRACTICES 447

above cannot all be talking aboutthe same set of associations. The fact is thatthey are not: Divorced from ethnographicparticulars, hese debateshinge ontwo essentialized categories-civil society and NGOs-which areused in dif-

ferent ways by differenttheorists. Civil society, when it is not used as a syno-nym for society in general,is used to refer to "thatsegment of society that in-

teracts with the state, influences the state and yet is distinct from the state"(Chazan 1992, p. 281). The term "NGO" s shorthand or a wide rangeof for-mal and informalassociations.There is little agreementabout whatNGOs areand perhaps even less about what they should be called. The generalizationsabout the NGO sectorobscure the tremendousdiversity found within it. This

diversitymeansthat t is nota simpletask to analyzethe impactof NGOs at thelocal, national, and global levels (Carroll 1992, Fisher 1993, Fowler & James

1995, Princen & Finger 1994). Varying terminology, ideological biases, andunanalyzedassertioncontribute o an obfuscation of widely varied functionsandforms of organizations.How can we breakdown the "blackbox" catego-ries of NGO and civil societyand examine the way organizations o designated

operate n local, regional,national,and transnational ontexts?UnderstandingNGO practicesrequires hatwe questionthe selective use of examplesto illus-

trate he claimed advantagesof theseorganizations,unpack he assertedgener-alizations aboutthe relative advantagesof NGOs, and attendto the ideology

and politics of both the associationsandthe analysts.Associations designatedas NGOs differfrom one another n functions;the

levels at which they operate;and organizationalstructures,goals, and mem-bership. They include, but are not limited to, charitable,religious, research,humanrights, and environmental rganizationsandrangefromloosely organ-ized groupswith a few unpaidstaff membersto organizationswith multimil-lion dollarbudgets employinghundreds.WhileNGOs are oftenpurelyvolun-tary groupswithno governmentalaffiliation orsupport, ome groupsso desig-nated are created and maintainedby governments.The termNGOs has beenapplied to groups providing social welfare services; developmentsupportor-ganizations; social action groups strugglingfor social justice and structuralchanges; support groups providing legal, research,or communicationssup-port;andlocallybasedgroups.Some arefocusedon a single issue oroperate na specific location. Othersprovidelegal, research,or communicationssupportto morelocally basedgroups.Thedesignationhasbeen appliedto groupswithmass membershipas well as claimed by small, opportunistic"brief-case"NGOs formedby membersof an urbanmiddle class to seek funding.

In an attempt o conceptuallyorganize such diverse groups,analystshavedistinguishedamongassociationsaccording o various sets of criteria, itteringthe literaturewith acronyms.Designations like CBOs (community-basedor-

ganizations), GROs (grass-rootsorganizations),or POs (people's organiza-

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 11/27

 

448 FISHER

tions)distinguishmembership-based, ocally autonomousgroups fromgroupsof urban ntellectualsworkingin relatively impoverishedsettingsas interme-diarysupportorganizations ISOs),which are sometimesvaryinglydesignatedas MSOs (membership upportorganizations)

or GSOsor GRSOs(grass-rootssupportorganizations)(see, in particular,Carroll1992, Fisher 1993, Korten1987, 1990). Otheracronymscall attention o the varyingautonomyof NGOs,distinguishing fully autonomousNGOs from government-organizedor -su-pportedgroups or GONGOs (Brown & Korten 1989, Ching 1994), quasi-autonomousNGOs orQUANGOs(Sinaga 1995), anddonor-organizedNGOsor DONGOs. Still other distinctions are made among NNGOs (NGOs inNorthernorindustrialized ountries),SNGOs(NGOs basedin Southernorde-veloping countries), and INGOs (internationalNGOs). Acronyms like VOs

(voluntaryorganizations)and PVOs (privatevoluntaryorganizations)differ-entiatethose organizations hat are nonprofitand voluntaryfrom those withprofessional staffs, while others like LDAs (local developmentassociations)identifythe primaryactivityof the organization.8

The distinctionsidentified by these variousdesignationscan be importantin specific instances,but the creation and use of acronymsremainsinconsis-tent within the field andin any specific case oftenderivesfrom anarrowobjec-tive on the partof the analyst. Categorizations hatdistinguishamongNGOs

based on function, organizational tructure,andrelationship o a localityortoa state aretypical of thatportionof the literature hataddresses the meansbywhich NGOs, or at least some categoriesof NGOs, can be facilitatedby orbuilt into the developmentarmof internationaland state development agen-cies. These categorizationsare a poor basis either for forming development

8More omprehensivettemptso organizehe fieldcall attentiono changesnthe field and hepractices f the associations vertime. In an essentialworkon NGOs,Korten ddresseshediversityf the ieldbydistinguishinghree enerationsfNGOs:he irst ommittedo reliefandwelfare, secondattendingo small-scale,ocaldevelopmentrojects, nda third onsisting fcommunityrganizationsnterestednbuilding oalitions1990,pp. 115-27).Elliot 1987)hasoutlineda similar ypologyof NGOs basedon distinctionsmongcharity,development,ndempowerment ork. In Korten'sview, first-generationelief and welfareNGOs, whichpredominaten thedeveloping orld, ftenhaveclose ies to stateand nternationalevelopmentaidorganizationsnddo notovertly ngagenpolitical ctivities. econd-generationevelopmentNGOs organize ndividualsocally to address ssues like public health and agriculturaldevelopment.hesegroupsrequentlyelp heir onstituentsoovercometructuralonstraints,ochallengeocaland egional lites,and o avoiddependencyelationships.hird-generationNGOsexplicitlyarget oliticalonstraints,ngagingnmobilizationnd"conscientization."heir ocus

is on coordinatingommunicationsnd inkages mongwebs of people'sorganizations.hesenetworks elp to spread wareness f thepracticalocal successesof somesecond-generationdevelopmenttrategiesnd o serveascatalystsorwider ocialmovements.Whilehese ypesofdistinctionselp o clarifyhe different ractices f NGOs, heyarestill more deal han eal. npractice,hese hree ategories rgenerationsf NGOsarenotexclusive.

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 12/27

 

NGOPRACTICES449

policies or for guidingthe pursuitof socialjustice. The oft-statedaimof "do-ing good"is underminedby aninadequateunderstanding f what NGOs do inspecific circumstances.By constitutingNGOs as an areaof investigation,the

discourse of developmentrendersindependent groups as objects of "scien-tific" studywhich provides and defines klnowledgeof these objects in such away as to make them amenable o control.ObjectifyingdiscourseaboutNGOsfacilitates what Charles Reilly (1992) calls their colonizationby a variety ofactors ranging from local elites and governmentagentsto internationalagen-cies and INGOs (see also Jhamtani1992).

The trick is to differentiateamong variousforms of organizingwhile avoid-ing reified and reductionistuses of the conceptNGO. As noted above, not allNGOs operatein similarcultural,economic, and social contexts, nor do they

all have the samepolitical significance.Much of the literatureon local NGOs,for instance,is concernedwith thosegroupsthat are involved with challengingthe state and local elites. This bias ignoresthe diversityof the NGO field thatincludes numerous examples of NGOs organizedand financed by landlord,commercial, or political interests.9What is at issue is not what NGOs are good

for, nor whether a specific association is or isn't an NGO, a QUANGO, aCONGO,a GRO,ora GSO,butanunderstanding f whathappens n specific

places and at specific times. Anthropologicalstudiesthathave remainedalert

to specific contexts have mademoresignificantcontributions orethinking henatureof NGO relations.MaxineWeisgrau's (1997) excellent ethnographyofNGOs in northern ndia,forexample,which focuses on theongoing renegotia-tion and reinterpretation f development among NGOs, villagers, and devel-opment agents, helps us to understandwhat happens in a specific time and

place above and beyond the stated intentionsand goals for developmentplan-nersandNGOs. This kindof ethnographicdetailexposes the simplicityof uni-versalizing models of and discoursesaboutNGOs. By conceiving of NGOs as

"'an renawithin which battles fromsociety at largeare internalized" Clarke

1996, p. 5), rather han as a set of entities, and by focusing on fluid and chang-ing local, regional, national, and internationalprocesses and connections,which both potentially supportand suppress"an insurrectionof subjugatedknowledges,"such studies avoid simple generalizationsand reveal the rich

ideologicaland functionaldiversityof NGOs.

9Forexample, ee Silliman's1994) discussion f the SugarDevelopment oundationn the

Philippines.naddition, hile he focuson theNarmadaonflictnIndiahasemphasizedhoseNGOsopposedo theconstructionf theSardar arovar am, hecontroversyas nvolved widerangeof NGOswithdifferent oliticalnterests,deologies, ndstrategies. omeof theseNGOshave cooperated iththe governmentnd he WorldBank o ensurepropermplementationfresettlementolicies, nd omehave upportedheproject utrightFisher 995a).

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 13/27

 

450 FISHER

LINKINGTHE LOCALAND THE GLOBAL

Once firmlyrootedin an ethnographicunderstandingof the heterogeneityof

historiesand processesfrom whichNGOs emerge andwithin which theyoper-

ate, we are prepared o explorethe furtheropportunities or and constraintson

NGOs that stem from their multipletranslocal connections. Shifting the em-

phasis from a set of organizations o a fluid web of relationshipsreveals the

connections of NGOactionsto numerous evels and fields and drawsour atten-

tion to the flows of funding,knowledge, ideas, andpeople thatmove through

these levels, sites, and associations (Appadurai1991, Lash & Urry 1994).

These multiple relationships include those among intermediaries,govern-

ments,constituencies,communities, eaders,elites, municipalities,state insti-

tutions, other local, nationaland INGOs, social movements, andNGO coali-tions. As R Kothari(1993) has noted for NGOs in India's nongovernmental

sector,the establishmentof new linkagestranscendingocal andevennational

boundariescreatednew and innovativepossibilities forNGO practices.NGOs

networksandloose coalitionsnow connect local, regional,national, andinter-

nationallevels, and at each of these levels there areadditional nformal link-

ages to governments, nternational undingagencies,and INGOs (Brysk 1993;

Finger 1994a;Fisher 1993, 1995b;Kamarotos 1990; Leatherman t al 1994;

Lipschutz 1992;Lopez et al 1995; Peterson1992; Shaw 1992; Sikkink 1993,1995; Udall 1995). This proliferationand interweavingcreates numerousin-

tersectionsthat deserve anthropologicalattention.Some recent studiesbeginby acknowledging hatthedifferentagendasand

interestswithin complex local sites do not all originatethere,nor arethey all

played out there (Forbes 1995, Peters 1996). These studies of NGOs, whichboth alertus to the complexitiesof local sites and directour attention rom lo-

cal sites to largercontexts, are,as GeorgeMarcus 1995) hasobserved,bothin

andof the world system (see, for example,Baviskar'sinsightful 1995 studyof

adivasis along the NarmadaRiver). Unpackingthe micropoliticsof NGOs is

dependentupon placingthese associationswithinlargercontexts,understand-

ingthem notas local wholes subsumedwithinlargernationalandglobal politi-cal contextsbut as fragmented ites that have multipleconnections nationally

and transnationally Marcus 1995). Resistance to a particulardevelopmentproject,for example, is often conductedwith the assistanceof nationalcoali-

tions andtransnational ssue networksof individualsand INGOs even when

theagendasof these disparateplayersare notwholly consistent (Fisher1995b,

Patkar1995, Princen& Finger 1994, Rich 1994, Udall 1995).Some of the most importantnsights aboutcontemporary ollective action

and NGOshave emergedfrom the literatureon social movements.The best of

this work tends to avoid overessentializingNGOs, to attendto the multiple

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 14/27

 

NGOPRACTICES451

subjectivitiesof actors,and to take into accountthe fragmented ield withinwhich NGOs operate.Unfortunately, he importantanddynamicrelationshipsbetweenNGOs andsocial movementsatthe local and national evels have of-

ten been overlooked.10Thisoversightoccurs inpartbecauseanalystsof socialmovements generally stereotypeNGOs asprimarily ocial developmentagen-cies andcontrast he bureaucratizationr institutionalization haracteristicofsome NGOs with the more fluid and fragmentednatureof social movements(see, forexample,Frank& Fuentes1990). This view ignoresthe evidence thatNGOs often initiate or sustain social movements(Lehman 1990) orarethe in-stitutionalvehicles thatarticulateprotestand collective action (Diani 1992).As Clarke(1993) has demonstrated or the Philippines, some social move-ments are composed to a significant extent of NGO coalitions. Uniting the

separate iteratures hat have developed aroundsocial movementson the onehand and NGOs on the otherwould help illuminate theircomplex interrela-tionships and also encourageus to see how these processes of associationchange over time(see also Diani 1992, Wignaraja1993a). Acknowledging the

commonly stronglinks between NGOs andsocial movements does not meanthat NGOs shouldalways, or even generally,be seen as progressive.As Stamn

(I1995)has effectively argued,the motives behindthepracticesof individualsand associationsaremultiple,andboth NGOs and social movementsmay sup-

port the state or the statusquo as well as oppose it (see also Ndegwa 1993,1996; Ng'ethe & Kanyinga 1992).While the moniker "nongovernment organization" suggests autonomy

from government organizations,NGOs are often intimately connected withtheir home governmentsin relationshipsthat are both ambivalentand dy-namic,sometimescooperative,sometimescontentious,sometimesboth simul-taneously (Chazan 1992, Clarke 1993, Farrington& Lewis 1993, Ndegwa1996, Weisgrau 1997).Forexample,some analystshaveargued hat akey fac-tor affecting the orientationof NGOs and their ability to organize freely is

sympathetic public space provided by governments (Banuri 1993, Korten1990). This space may be provided unwillingly and only when governmentsareproddedby INGOs or internationaldevelopmentagencies. Inthe past dec-ade, many governments n the third world have been forced by economic ne-cessity and internationalagencies to cede recognition and autonomy o NGOs

(Bratton1989, Vergara 1989). Not surprisingly,governments,on theirpart,have often seen NGOs as undermining tatehegemony (Bratton 1989,Fowler1991, Ng'ethe &Kanyinga 1992)andhaveattempted o bringthemundercon-

trol through government agencies set up to service them (see, for example,Clarke 1996, Rademacher& Tamang 1993). This relationshipbecomes even

10Some exceptions to this include Bebbington(1996), Sethi(1993a,b), and Landim(1993).

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 15/27

 

452 FISHER

more tense when NGOs become competitorswith their governmentsfor for-eign development fundingor when the work of NGOs with humanrightsor-ganizationsto further he rightsof individualsand associations places them in

directconfrontationwith statepractices (Fowler 1991).The relationshipsbetween NGOs and governmentsare so heterogenous hatit is difficultto generalizeaboutthepotential mpactof NGOs on the stateand

patternsof governance.Some analystsassertthatNGOs are importantnew po-litical actors who make significant contributions o political life and politicalchange (see, in particular,Clarke'suseful 1996 study),but observersdisagreeabout the kind of impact NGOs can have. Some discuss the transformationalimpactof NGOs on politicalstructuresand processes (Fisher 1993) while oth-ers focus on theirability to influence legislation andpublic policy (Edwards

1996). The existing evidence suggests that so many factors influence the abil-ity or desire of any particularNGO to affect policy orpolitical structures hatno easy generalization s possible. There is no simple or consistent story of

goodNGOs confrontingevil governments.Justas the NGO field is a heteroge-nous one encompassing a wide range of groups with different ideologicalagendas,the state, too, needs to be acknowledgedas a complex, heterogenous,and often fragmentedactor. NGOs do not always successfully pressurelocalelites or local governments (Hirschman 1987, Sanyal 1994), and they are as

likely to maintainthe status quo as to change it (Chazan 1992, Fowler 1993,Ndegwa 1996, Starn1995). The insufficiencyof the data andthe lack of clearcomparativecategories have led some analysts to wisely suggest abandoningas unanswerable he questionabout which type of NGO has greaterpoliticalimpact (see, for example,Clarke1996).

Another factor that has differentially affected the relationshipbetweenSouthernNGOsandtheirhostgovernmentss the recentproliferation f innova-tive linkages involving local NGOs, social movements,andtransnational et-works (Brysk 1993; Fisher 1995b;Kamarotos1990; Leathermanet al 1994;

Lipschutz 1992; Lopez et al 1995; Princen& Finger 1994; Shaw 1992; Sikkink1993, 1995; Udall 1995). 1The thickeningwebs of transnational etworks in-volving SouthernNGOs andtransnationalssue networksare citedasevidenceforwhat some observershave identifiedas anemerginginternational ivil so-ciety (Lipschutz 1992; Lopez et al 1995; Shaw 1992; Sikkink 1993, 1995).Finger(1 994a) arguesthatthe clearestexampleof anemergingglobalcivil so-

ciety is apparentnthe international nvironmentalmovement(Princen& Fin-

ger 1994). In recent years, there has been an explosion of transnationalNGO

coalitions and communicationsnetworkspunctuatedby international onfer-

I"For a discussion of the effect of recent changes on the opportunities or NorthernNGOs, seeDichter (1991).

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 16/27

 

NGO PRACTICES 453

ences and aidedby regularuse of fax andthe Internet.These links bring ogether

Northern humanrights organizations,environmentalactivists, and Southerngrass-rootsgroupswithina "raucous, et highly structured attleground"Little

1995). The international ampaignagainst heWorldBank-fundedSardarSaro-varprojecton the Narmada iver n India s one exampleof an effective coalitionof SouthernNGOs andatransnational etwork Aufderheide& Rich 1988,Pat-kar1995, Rich 1994, Udall 1995, Fisher1995a).Inthe view of some theorists,specific campaignsthatcome togetherfor a shorttime andthen dissolve areenabledby an amorphous ollection of networks hatconstitutea more durable

"imagined"or "virtual" ommunityof activistsand associations.12More studiesonthe flows of informationamongthese networkswould clar-

ify whenand why local strugglesbecome international ndin whichcases they

do not; what encourages and constrains he internationalization f local inter-ventions; andhow the international ndthe local appropriate, ommodify,andaffect one another.The flows among sites are not seamless, smooth,orconsis-tent,andorganizational tructuresmay functionaspointsthat constrictaswellas encourageflows of money, people, information,developmentworkers,bu-reaucrats, ndactivists.Not all Southern oalitionshavebeenable to availthem-selves of transnational etworks,and coalitionsof northernNGOs have selec-tively assisted Southerngroups, dependingupon the utility of specific issues

forfurtheringheirown agendas.The Narmadacampaign s a case inpoint,se-lected by NorthernNGOs as an appropriateonflict to facilitatea strategy ink-

ing coalitions of environmentalists romboth the North and South, and fromcapital city andgrass roots,to lobby political forces with influence over devel-opmentbanks(Aufderheide& Rich 1988, Rich 1994, Udall 1995).

These translocalandtransnational onnectionsentailriskas well as opportu-nity,however. On the one hand hey mayoffer SouthernNGOs increased ever-age and autonomyin theirstrugglewith nationalgovernments,while on the

otherhand, they expose these NGOs to directionor controlby othersources.

The fact is that the heterogeneityof the NGO field makes it easy forpoliticalforcesto establishorcoopt NGOs.One of theways thisoccurs is through und-ing. Fundingof bothNorthernand SouthernNGOs by developmentagencies,for example,has increased so much thatNGOs not dependenton official aidforthemajorityof theirbudgets maybe the exceptionrather hanthe rule(Ed-wards& Hulme 1996a).Thedependencyof local SNGOsand GROs on the un-

12Despitegrowing evidence of widespread"imagined" ommunities f principle-based,transnationalssue networks nd idealisticpredictions f a growingglobalcommunity,omeobserversrguehat t is difficulto conceive f a single nternationalivilsociety. ntheir iew, tis more ignificanthatnational orders averemainednforced ndnationaloyaltieshavenotbeensupersededy globaloyalties Peterson 992).

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 17/27

 

454 FISHER

certain largess of donors has several direct and indirect effects (Desai &

Howes 1996, Edwards 1996, Gariyo1996, Hellinger1987,Lara1990, Smillie

1995, Smillie & Helmich 1993). It redirectsaccountability owardfundersand

awayfromthe group'sgrass-roots onstituencies Biggs & Neame 1996,Covey1996,Edwards&Hulme 1996a,Fisher1994b,Fowler 1996, Fox & Hernandez

1992, Smith1987,Tandon1994,Zadek& Gatward1996):NGOsbecomecon-

tractors,constituenciesbecome customers,and membersbecome clients. Ex-

tranationalconnections entail another dangerby exposing NGOs to attacks

within theirown countries,raisingquestionsaboutwhether hey "legitimately"

represent heir constituents(Bratton1989). In India,for example,NGOs with

foreignconnectionshave sometimesbeenregardedas antinationalist gentsof

capitalismandWesternpolitical andculturalvalues (Karat1988).

The vulnerabilityof their position as beneficiariesof outside fundingandsupportmaymake NGOs less willing to advocatepositionsthatrun counter o

those taken by the agencies fundingthem or their home governments(Clarke

1996). Multilateraldevelopmentagencies (MLAs) tend to select for funding

those NGOs that are MLA-friendly Pratt& Stone 1995). The effortsof these

selectedNGOs are divertedawayfrom social mobilizationand toward hepro-

vision of services anddevelopment nitiatives.Thisprocesshas a rippleeffect

when well-fundedSNGOsare abletoprovidemoreemploymentopportunities

andattractqualifiedindividuals away from otherlocal NGOs that continuetofocus on empowermentandsocial mobilization(Pearce1993). In the views of

some observers,the degree of cooptationof NGOs by developmentagencies

throughfundingand oint initiativesis so advanced hatNGOs are destinedto

become the organizationalmechanism for an internationalwelfare system,

doomedto be little morethanthe frontmen or the "lordsof poverty" Farring-ton & Bebbington 1993, Fowler 1996, Hancock 1989).

THEMICROPOLITICSOFNGOsAmid their wide range of translocalconnections, all NGO practicesremain

discursivelyconstructed hroughreference o the "local."Yet while anotionof

the local remains centrally mportanto the legitimacyof NGOs, it is frustrat-

ingly illusive (Forbes1995, Peters1996, Ribot 1996a).NGOs arepraisedand

valuedforconnectionsto local communitiesandthe grassroots,whether hese

connectionsaredirect,orindirect hrough he GROstheyservice.Theiraccep-

tance as legitimateNGOs dependson their connectionsto or usefulnessfor lo-

cal constituencies(Edwards& Hulme 1996a).The conceptof the local is cen-tralto the pursuitof the varyinglyinterpreted, ontemporarydevelopmentob-

jectives of participationandempowerment Vettivel 1993). The embracingof

these objectivesby the developmentestablishmentandthe use of national and

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 18/27

 

NGOPRACTICES455

international ntermediaryNGOs to facilitate, fund, promote, and provideplanning and organization assistance to so-called grass-rootsorganizationshave resulted in the paradoxicalattemptto generateparticipation hrougha

top-down process of planningandorganization Chambers1995).Like other popular and politicized buzzwords of development (Fisher1995c),participation ndempowerment re given differentmeaningsby differ-ent actors Rahnema1992).Inthe view of radicaldevelopmentcritics,develop-mentpolicies may now stressparticipation often confusing it with empower-ment), but this is little more than arhetorical lourishandis notreflectedin ac-tual or actualizablegoals. As Chambers 1995) hasnoted, top-downplanning,top-down funding, and upwardsaccountability negate participation.Ratherthanregardingparticipationas a generalgood, we needto ask in eachinstance

in which "participation"s a claimedobjective, "whatresponsibilities arebe-ing devolved and to whom?" These criticsquestionthe practices pursuedun-der the rubricsof participationandempowerment: ncorporationnto existingeconomic marketsandpolitical systemsmay bringadvantages,but incorpora-tion also bringsnew encumbrancesanddependencies.Governmentsand de-velopmentagencies express support or NGOs andparticipationeven as theyfindways to fit these new elementsintoold models of governanceordevelop-ment. Thus, the pursuitof participationby developmentagencies frequently

fails to live upto theirrhetoric,which seems to promoteit andyet can amountto no more than the restructuring f control(Ribot 1996). Developmentagen-cies may allow anNGO to "represent"ndigenouspeople atdecisions takeninWashington,DC, or elsewhere,but the selection of some NGO to stand in forpeople is quitedifferentfromensuring hatdecisionsaffectingthe lives andre-sources of indigenouspeople are not taken without theirinformed consent.

To be sure, studiesof specific cases havedemonstratedhatparticularNGOscan be said to stimulate effective local participationand set objectives thatcontribute o the political empowermentof marginalizedgroups.See, for ex-ample,Ahuja's (1994) studyof anNGO engagedin ruraldevelopment work,Marulasiddaiah's(1994) study of Swasti, Wacker's (1994) discussion ofKikuyuwomen, andViswanath's (1991) accountof women's groups nIndia.

However, thereis considerableevidence thatNGOs frequentlyfail to liveup to the expectations development agencies have of them (Bebbington &Thiele 1993; Carroll 1992; Farrington& Lewis 1993; Fowler 1991, 1993;Hashemi & Schuler 1992; Hogg 1992; Lehman 1990; Riddell & Robinson1995;Vivian 1994;Wellard& Copestake1993). Why, then, does thedevelop-

ment establishment continue to support them? As Ferguson (1990) demon-strated or development interventions n Lesotho, it maybe thatthe unspokenorunintendedconsequencesof developmentsupport or NGOs serve the pur-poses of governmentsanddevelopmentagencies.

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 19/27

 

456 FISHER

NGOs cannotbe understoodas a forum in which realpeople aresocial andpolitical actors without attentionto the micropolitics of these groups. Butwhile the need for local participationhas become an articleof faith in many

quarters,particularlyamongthe developmentcommunity (Annis 1988, Kor-ten 1990), most contemporary tudies of the "thickeningof civil society" (Fox1992) do not include systematic analyses of power relationships within thegroups andassociationsof civil society and the forms and channels of partici-pation that affect power relationships.

NGOs arevulnerableto all the problemsthatbefall otherkinds of institu-tions, including the dangersof routinizationand the gradual conversion ofdemocraticto oligarchicrule. Weisgrau (1997) and Mehta (1996) have ana-lyzed NGO practicesin Rajasthan o show how the relationshipsbetween or-

ganizations and their constituents come to replicate older patron/clientpat-terns. Baviskar(1995) has detailedthe gap between the rhetoricof NGOs (inhercase, the NarmadaBachaoAndolan)and the failure of these organizationsto live up to theirown egalitarian hetoric see also Bebbington& Thiele 1993,Carroll1992). Thetendencyof organizations o driftfromparticipatoryo oli-garchic political structureshas been presentedby some institutionalanalystsas an "iron aw of oligarchy" Fisher 1994a,Fox 1992, Michels 1959, Uphoff1996). Cases that supportthis "law" raise questions bound to trouble those

who look for the transformativepossibilities of NGOs: Are NGOs doomedtorepeat the patternsof the societies within which they emerge? Can they em-power without simultaneously victimizing? Can they enable as well as con-strain?Canthey do good withoutdoing wrong?

One way to answerthese questionsis througha conceptionof civil societynot as a sectorthatconteststhe will of governmentsbut as a "vectorof agonisticcontentionsovergovernmental elations" Gordon1991, p. 23). Thisemphasison the way NGOs contribute o civil society by fueling ongoing contentionsrather han merelythrough he multiplicationanddifferentiationof structures(Clarke 1996)refocuses our attentionon theprocessesand notmerelythe insti-tutions of civil society. The recent expansionin the numbersof associationsandthe strugglefornew linkagesand truthssupportAdamFerguson's proces-sual view of society as anentitythatrepeatedly ears itself apartandendlesslyremakes tself (Ferguson 1995; see also Gordon1991). Some theoristsfindop-timismin thisexpansionof civil society preciselybecausetheysee the transfor-mationof civil society leadingto transformation f the state,not the otherwayaround.Empowerment,RajniKothari(1986) has argued, emerges througha

decentralizedself-government.In his view, "conscientization"and the strug-gle for newalternativesandalternativeruths)producea new classof activists.

The view of observers like RajniKothari s built upon several significantassumptionsaboutthe connections of individuals, society, and the state and

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 20/27

 

NGOPRACTICES457

the possibilities fortransforminghem.First,this view sees macrogovemmen-tal rationalities emerging from the articulationof microprogramsand tech-nologies of power (Simon 1995). Those holding this view see modem govern-

mental mechanisms and rationalitiesas simultaneouslydirectedat individual-izing and totalizing; that is, they are about governing or making governableboth individualsandsociety (Gordon 1991). Foucault's view of modern civilsociety as "the concrete ensemble within which...economic men need to bepositioned in orderto be adequately manageable"also emphasizes the con-straints hat microlevelpracticesplace uponthe individual,and the shapetheygive to macrolevel governmental ationalities quoted n Gordon1991, p. 23).

Second, while this view acknowledgesthe participationof NGOs in a co-herentgeneralpolicy of order, t also holds outthepossibilityof changingthat

policy by changing the micropracticesand the discourse from which theyemerge. The process within which NGOs participatecan contribute o socialrestructuringaround and under the state and the market, undermining radi-tional foundations and forcing adaptations o changed practicesand circum-stances.Thischangerequiresandemergesfromthe"forging ogether,wrench-ing apartand recreation of discourseswhich breakwith theirpredecessors"(Adam 1993, p. 329). Theframingof calls forsustainabledevelopmentand so-cialjustice is an instanceof what Foucaulthas called "thestrategicreversibil-

ity" of power relations, a means by which the termsof governmentalpracticecanbe turned nto focuses of resistance(see also Gordon1991). Changerestson the abilityof individualsand associations to challengethe terms of govern-mental "truths"and struggle to change the limits of what is "thinkable."

"Change he way people think,"argued Stephen Biko, "andthingswill neverbe the same."

Oneperspectiveon how this changecan be broughtabout s contributedbyanalystsand activists interested n the connectionbetweenpersonaland socialchange. These scholarsfollow Foucaultinsofar as they "analyzeinstitutionsfrom the standpointof powerrelationsrather han vice versa"(Foucault1983,p. 222). Inpart, heiranalysisconsiders herelationshipbetween the attemptsofindividualsto free themselves from the constraintsof culturalor class back-

groundsandattempts o empoweror liberateothers.The focus onpersonalandsocietal emancipation urnstheirattention o "thetechnologies of dominationover othersand those of the self."Changing he self andchanging societybothrequirea rejectionof the representation f self imposed by relationshipswithothers.Individuals ndgroupsstruggle orthe freedom o definethemselvesand

their relationshipswith others on their own terms, an effort Carmichael&Hamilton(1967) called "the firstnecessity of a free people andthe firstrightany oppressormust suspend" p. 35). The work of some empowermentNGOscontributes o this emancipatoryprocess throughthe politicization of previ-

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 21/27

 

458 FISHER

ously depoliticized ealmsand issues forexample, ssuesconcerninggenderorthe environment.They turn ssues thatdirectlyengagetheself, subjectiveexpe-rience,and daily life intocrucialsites of politicalcontestation.The identitypoli-

tics that emerge from this process area meansby which local groupsmaintaintenuousautonomyand reducetheirsusceptibility o cooptationand colonializa-tion by externalpoliticalactors.TheyarewhatKauffmanhasdescribedasa"lib-eratingnew synthesisof thepersonalandthe political" Kauffman1990, p. 67).

Thisperspective emphasizesthe tight relationshipbetween ethics and poli-tics. ManyNGOs and the translocalcoalitions they participate n are "inspiredby aparticular ision of thesociety theywish to develop"(Tandon 1994, p. 53;see also Brown & Korten1989, Fisher 1993). These values differ-they maysee themselves humanizing hepolicies of structural djustment,helpingcon-

stituentsadjustto top-down developmentprojects,or inducing changesin so-cial and economic orders butthey arenotvalue neutral:Theirprimarymoti-vations are beliefs about what is right and wrong (Sikkink 1995). AlthoughNGOs may present ethical judgments as neutralstandardsof judgment thatstandoutsidepoliticalcontest(see Simon 1995, p. 67), thesejudgmentsare es-sentially political.

Inthis view, poweris exercisedthrough hestrategicmanipulation f theop-tions of the Other.Poweris thusless a confrontationbetweentwo adversaries

thanit is a questionof government, n which to governis to structure he fieldof possible actions of others(Ferguson1990).TherelationshipofNGOsto thispracticeof governingis complex. Since, asnotedabove, NGOs differ radicallyfrom one another n natureandcomposition, t follows thatNGOs may emergefrom,contribute o, or challengethe moralregulation nherent n governing.

Inpractice, specific NGOs maymove in either democraticoroligarchic di-rections, dependingon their constituenciesand theirparticular ircumstances.NGOs may serve both as extensionsof regimesorpractice, ike development,and as sources of alternatives o suchregimes.Thetransformative otentialofthe NGO sector may emerge less from orderedand controlled participationthan fromrelativelychaotic sets of multipleopportunitiesandinterdependen-cies. Liberty,arguedFoucault(1986), is "apractice... neverassuredby the in-stitutionsand laws thatareintendedto guarantee t"(p. 245). Foucaultfurtherargued hat"itcan neverbe inherent n the structureof thingsto guarantee heexercise of freedom" my emphasis).SomeNGOs faceroutinization,bureauc-ratization,and institutionalization hatencourage he drifttowardoligarchyor

sapthemof theircreativepotential,while otherNGOs are in a process of per-

manentresistanceagainstthat which is "never nherentlyevil butalways dan-gerous" (see Gordon1991, p. 47; Simon 1995, p. 87).

Thus,the objective of empowermentor "liberty"may not be served by in-stitutionbuildingorperpetuating xistentorganizations,andmay even be un-

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 22/27

 

NGO PRACTICES 459

derminedby bureaucratization.tmaybe inappropriateoregard hefluidityofthe NGO field as a weakness or the impermanenceof anygive NGO as a fail-ure. Rather, we might look for permanencein the rebellious process from

which many NGOs emerge and within which some NGOs remain engaged.NGOs and social movements may come and go, but the space created n their

passing maycontribute o new activism thatbuilds up afterthem.For a particu-larly interestingaccount of a conscious effort to avoid the dangersthat comewith formalorganizationandengagementwith the state, see Esteva (1987).

CONCLUSION

The growth of a multicentricworld andthe practices of growing numbersof

nonstatenational and transnationalactorshave had significantimpact on thesites and communities thathave been the focus of anthropologicalresearch.

Understandingwhat is happeningwithin and throughorganizationssuch asNGOs and adapting o thechangingconditionswithin whichthey operatepres-ent challenges to anthropologicalresearchers. Community-basedorganiza-tions may be close to the traditional ites of anthropological oncerns,but thenetworksandalliancesthey increasinglyhave come to formopen upnew sites

forethnographic esearch,and the wide cast of thesenetworks,whichmay ap-pear only throughchaoticpublic spectaclesof ritualperformance ike interna-

tional conferences, call for innovative research methodologies. As research-ers, we need to reconsiderhow to approachproblemslocated in or flowingthroughmultiplesites. Additionalwork by anthropologistswill not only con-tribute to knowledge of what NGOs are doing but will also provide insightsinto anthropologicalconceptions of communities, local and translocal net-

works, technologiesof control,and thepoliticalrole of intellectuals.The chal-lenge is to considernongovernmentalorganizationsas one specific possibleform of collective action and humancommunityandto set the stage for a com-

parative analysis of the different configurations hese forms of collective ac-tionhavetaken andare taking n acomplexly woven fieldof translocal lows.

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at

http://www.AnnualReviews.org.

LiteratureCited

Adam BD. 1993. Post-Marxism and the newsocial movements. Can. Rev. Soc. Anthro-pol. 30(3):316-36

Ahuja K. 1994. Mobilization of rural women

through voluntary efforts-a case study.Stud. Third WorldSoc. 51:1-10

Annis S. 1988. Can small-scale developmentbe large-scale policy? In Direct to the

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 23/27

 

460 FISHER

Poor: Grassroots Development in LatinAmerica, ed. S Annis, P Hakim, pp.209-18. Boulder: Reinner

AppaduraiA. 1991. Global ethnoscapes:notesand queries for a transnationalanthropol-

ogy. In RecapturingAnthropology:Work-ing in thePresent, ed. R Fox, pp. 191-2 10.Santa Fe: Sch. Am. Res.

Aufderheide P, Rich B. 1988. Environmentalreform and the multilateral banks. WorldPolicy J. 5(2):300-21

Banuri T. 1993. The landscape of diplomaticconflicts. InGlobalEcology:ANew Arenaof Global Conflict, ed. W Sachs, pp.49-67. London: Zed

Barghouti M. 1994. Palestinian NGOs andTheir Role in Building a Civil Society.Union Palest. Med. Relief Comm., WestBank

Baviskar A. 1995. In the Belly of the River:Tribal Conflicts over Developmentin theNarmada Valley.Delhi: Oxford

Bebbington AJ. 1996. Movements, moderni-zations, and markets.In LiberationEcolo-gies: Environment, Development, SocialMovements, ed. R Peet, M Watts, pp.86-109. London:Routledge

BebbingtonAJ,ThieleG. 1993. NGOs and theState in Latin America: RethinkingRolesin SustainableAgricultural Development.

London:RoutledgeBiggs SD, Neame AD. 1996. Negotiating

room to maneuver:reflections concerningNGO autonomy and accountabilitywiththe new policy agenda. See Edwards &Hulme 1996a, pp. 40-52

Bongartz H, DahalMK, Aditya A, DahalDR.1992.Foreign Aid and the Role of NGOs inthe Development Process of Nepal. Kath-mandu:Nepal Found.Adv. Stud.

Bratton M. 1989. The politics of NGO-government relations in Africa. World

Dev. 17(4):569-87BrownLD, KortenD. 1989. The role of volun-tary organizations in development. IDRWork. Pap. No. 8. Boston: Inst. Dev.Res./Boston Univ. Sch. Manage.

Brysk A. 1993. From above and below: socialmovements, the internationalsystem, andhuman rights in Argentina. Comp. Pol.Stud.26(3):259-85

Burchell G, Gordon C, Miller P, eds. 1991.The Foucault Effect: Studies in Govern-mentality.Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress

Carmichael S, Hamilton CV. 1967. BlackPower: ThePolitics ofLiberation in Amer-ica. New York:Vintage

CarrollJE, ed. 1988. International Environ-mental Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cam-bridgeUniv. Press

Carroll TF. 1992. Intermediary NGOs: TheSupporting Link in Grassroots Develop-ment. West Hartford,CT:Kumarian

Cernea M. 1988. Nongovernmental organiza-tions and ocal development.Discuss. Pap.

No. 40. Washington,DC: World BankChambers R. 1995. NGOs and development:the primacy of the personal. Inst. Dev.Stud. Work.Pap. 14. Brighton, Engl.

Chazan N. 1992. Africa's democratic chal-lenge. WorldPolicy J. 9(2):279-307

Ching F. 1994. Is it an NGO, or a GONGO?:new Chinese body rebuts U. S. report onhumanrights.Far East. Econ. Rev. (July 7)

Clark J. 1991. Democratizing Development:The Role of Voluntary Organizations.London: Earthscan

ClarkJ. 1995. Thestate, popularparticipation,and the voluntary sector. World Dev.23(4):593-602

Clarke G. 1993. People power? Non-governmental organizations and Philip-pine politics since 1986. Philipp. Q. Cult.Soc. 21:231-56

ClarkeG. 1996. Non-governmental organisa-tions (NGOs) and politics in the develop-ingworld.Pap. Int.Dev. No. 20. Swansea,Wales: Cent.Dev. Stud.

Covey JG. 1996.Accountabilityand effective-ness in NGO policy alliances. See Ed-

wards & Hulme 1996a, pp. 198-214Desai V, Howes M. 1996. Accountabilityand

participation:a case study from Bombay.See Edwards & Hulme 1996a, pp.101-113

Diani M. 1992. The concept of social move-ment. Soc. Rev.40(1):1-25

Dichter T. 1991. The changing world ofNorthernNGOs: problems, paradoxesandpossibilities. Transnatl.Assoc. 2:66-70

Dichter T. 1993. Forward. See Fisher 1993,pp. vii-xiv

EdwardsM. 1996. Too close for comfort?theimpact of official aid on nongovernmen-tal organizations. World Dev. 24(6):961-72

EdwardsM, HulmeD, eds. 1996a. BeyondtheMagic Bullet: NGOPerformance and Ac-countability in the Post-Cold WarWorld.West Hartford,CT: Kumarian

Edwards M, Hulme D. 1996b. Beyond themagic bullet? Lessons and conclusions.See Edwards& Hulme 1996a, pp. 254-66

Elliot C. 1987. Some aspects of relations be-

tweentheNorthand Southinthe NGO sec-tor. WorldDev. 15(Suppl.):57-68Ekins P. 1992. A New World Order: Grass-

rootsMovementsforGlobal Change.Lon-don:Routledge

EscobarA. 1991. Anthropologyandthe devel-

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 24/27

 

NGO PRACTICES 461

opment encounter: he makingand market-ing of development anthropology. Am.Ethnol. 18(4):658-82

Escobar A. 1992. Reflections on "develop-ment": grassrootsapproachesand alterna-

tive politics in the third world. FuturesJune:411-35EscobarA. 1995.EncounteringDevelopment.

The Making and Unmaking of the ThirdWorld. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.Press

Esteva G. 1987. Regeneratingpeople's space.Alternatives 12(1):125-52

FarringtonJ, BebbingtonA, eds. 1993. Reluc-tant Partners? NongovernmentalOrgani-zations, the Stateand SustainableAgricul-turalDevelopment. London:Routledge

Farrington J, Lewis D, eds. 1993. Non-GovernmentalOrganisationsand the Statein Asia: Rethinking Roles in SustainableAgricultural Development.London: Rout-ledge

FergusonA. 1995. AnEssay on theHistory ofCivil Society, ed. F Ox-Salzberger. Cam-bridge: CambridgeUniv. Press

FergusonJ. 1990. TheAnti-Politics Machine:"Development,"Depoliticization, and Bu-reaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press

Finger M. 1994a. NGOs and transformation:

beyondsocial movementtheory.See Prin-cen & Finger 1994, pp. 48-66

FingerM. 1994b. EnvironmentalNGOs in theUNCED process. See Princen & Finger1994, pp. 186-213

Fisher J. 1993. The Roadfrom Rio: Sustain-able Developmentand theNongovernmen-tal Movement in the Third World.West-port,CT:Praeger

Fisher J. 1994a. Is the iron law of oligarchyrusting away in the third world? WorldDev. 22(2):129-43

Fisher J. 1994b.ThirdworldNGOs: a missingpiece to the population puzzle. Environ-ment36(7):6-16

Fisher WF, ed. 1995a. Toward SustainableDevelopment? Struggling Over India'sNarmadaRiver. Armonk,NY: Sharpe

Fisher WF. 1995b. Development and resis-tance in the NarmadaValley. See Fisher1995a, pp. 3-46

Fisher WF. 1995c. Full of sound and fury?Struggling toward sustainable develop-ment in India's Narmada Valley. See

Fisher 1995a, pp. 445-61Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO). 1994. FAO Col-laboration withAsianNGOsfor Participa-toryRural Development:The Case ofAN-GOC. Rome: FAO

Forbes A. 1995. The importance of being lo-cal: villagers, NGOs, and the WorldBankin the Arun Valley, Nepal. Presented atAnnu. Meet.Am. Anthropol.Assoc., 94th,Washington,DC

Foucault M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Se-lected Interviewsand Other Writings,ed.C Gordon.New York: Pantheon

FoucaultM. 1983. The subject and power. InMichel Foucault: Beyond Structuralismand Hermeneutics,ed. HL Dreyfus, P Ra-binow, pp. 208-26. Chicago: Univ. Chi-cago Press

Foucault M. 1986. Space, knowledge, power.In The Foucault Reader, ed. P Rabinow,pp. 239-56. New York: Penguin

Foucault M. 1991. Governmentality. SeeBurchell et al 1991, pp. 87-104

Fowler A. 1988. NGOs in Africa: achievingcomparativeadvantage nrelief andmicro-development.IDS Discuss. Pap. 249. Sus-sex: Inst. Dev. Stud.

FowlerA. 1991. The role of NGOs in chang-ing state-society relations: perspectivesfrom Eastern and Southern Africa. Dev.Policy Rev. 9:53-84

FowlerA. 1993.NGOs as agentsof democrati-sation:an African perspective.J. Int.Dev.5(3):325-39

Fowler A. 1996. Assessing NGO perform-

ance: difficulties, dilemmas, and a wayahead. See Edwards& Hulme 1996a, pp.169-86

FowlerA, James R. 1995. The role of South-em NGOs in development cooperation:areview. Occas. Pap. Ser. 1(2). Oxford:Int.NGO Train.Res. Cent.

Fox J. 1992. Democratic ruraldevelopment:leadershipaccountability n regionalpeas-ant organizations. Dev. Change 23(2):1-36

Fox J, HernandezL. 1992. Mexico's difficult

democracy: grassroots movements,NGOs, and local government.Alternatives17(2):165-208

FrankAG, Fuentes M. 1990. Civil democracy:social movements in recent world history.In Transforming the Revolution: SocialMovements and the WorldSystem, ed. SAmin, G Arrighi,A Gunder-Frank, Wal-lerstein, pp. 139-80. New York:MonthlyReview

FrantzTR. 1987. The Role of NGOs in thestrengtheningof civil society. WorldDev.

15(Suppl.):121-27Friedman D. 1992. Empowerment:ThePoli-tics of Alternative Development. Oxford:Blackwell

FriedmanM. 1962. Capitalismand Freedom.Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 25/27

 

462 FISHER

Gariyo Z. 1996. NGOs and development inEast Africa. See Edwards& Hulme 1996a,pp. 156-65

Ghils P. 1992. Internationalcivil society: in-ternational non-governmental organiza-

tions in the internationalsystem. Int.Soc.Sci. J. 44(3):417-31GordonC. 1991. Governmentalrationality:an

introduction.See Burchell et al 1991, pp.1-53

Hancock G. 1989. Lords of Poverty: ThePower, Prestige, and Corruptionof theIn-ternationalAid Business. New York: At-lantic MonthlyPress

Hashemi S, Schuler S. 1992. State and NGOSupport Networks in Rural Bangladesh:Concepts and Coalitionsfor Control. Co-penhagen:Cent.Dev. Res.

Hellinger D. 1987.NGOs andthe large aid do-nors: changing the terms of engagement.WorldDev. 15(Suppl.):135-43

HirschmanAO. 1987. Getting Ahead Collec-tively: Grassroots Experiences in LatinAmerica. New York:Pergamon

Hogg R. 1992. NGOs, pastoralists and themyth of community: three case studies ofpastoral development from East Africa.Nomadic Peoples 30:122-46

Holm H, SorensonG. 1995. Whose WorldOr-der? Uneven Globalization and the End of

the Cold War.Boulder:WestviewHulme D. 1994. Social development research

and the third sector: NGOs as users andsubjects of social enquiry. In RethinkingSocial Development: Theory, Researchand Practice, ed. D Booth, pp. 251-75.Harlow:Longman

Hyden G. 1998. State andnation under stress.InRecovery inAfrica:A Challenge or De-velopment Cooperation in the 90s, pp.145-57. Stockholm: Swed. Minist. For-eign Aff. In press

JhamtaniH. 1992. The imperialismof North-ern NGOs. Earth Island J. 7(June):10Kamarotos AS. 1990. A view into NGO net-

works in humanrightsactivities:NGO ac-tionwith specialreferenceto theUN Com-mission on Human Rights and its sub-commission. Presented at Int. Polit. Sci.Assoc., April 10-14, Washington,DC

KaratP. 1988. Foreign Funding and the Phi-losophy of Voluntary Organisations: AFactor inImperialistStrategy.New Delhi:Natl. Book Cent.

KauffmanLA. 1990. Theanti-politicsof iden-tity. Social. Rev. 20(1):67-80KortenDC. 1990. Gettingto the21st Century:

VoluntaryAction and the Global Agenda.West Hartford,CT: Kumarian

Korten DC. 1987. Third generation NGO

strategies: a key to people-centered de-velopment. World Dev. 15(Suppl.):145-60

Kothari R. 1986. NGOs, the state and worldcapitalism. Econ. Polit. Weekly21(Dec):

2177-82KothariR. 1993. Masses, classes and the state.See Wignaraja1993a, pp. 59-75

KothariS. 1993. Social movements and the re-definition of democracy.In India Briefing1993, ed. P Oldenburg,pp. 131-62. Boul-der: Westview

Landim L. 1993. Brazilian crossroads: peo-ple's groups, walls and bridges. See Wig-naraja 1993a, pp. 218-29

Lara L Jr. 1990. The impact offoreign aid onpeoples initiatives in agrarian reform.Philipp.Peasant Inst.Res. Pap., Manila

Lash S, Urry J. 1994. Economies of Signs andSpace. New York:Sage

LeathermanJ, Pagnucco R, Smith J. 1994. In-ternational institutions and transnationalsocial movement organizations: challeng-ing the statein athree-level gameof globaltransformation. Work.Pap. Ser. Joan B.Kroc Inst. Int.Peace Stud., Univ. NotreDame

Lehman D. 1990. Democracy and Develop-ment in Latin America: Economics, Poli-tics, and Religion in the Postwar Period.

London: PolityLind AC. 1992. Power, gender and develop-

ment: popularwomen's organisations andthe politics of needs in Ecuador. In TheMaking of Social Movements in LatinAmerica: Identity, Strategy, and Democ-racy, ed. A Escobar, S Alvarez, pp.139-49. Boulder: Westview

LinkenbachA. 1994. Ecological movementsand the critique of development: agentsandinterpretors.Thesis Eleven 39:63-85

Lipschutz RD. 1992. Reconstructing world

politics: the emergence of global civil so-ciety. Millennium21(3):389-420Little PD, Painter M. 1995. Discourse, poli-

tics, andthe development process: reflec-tions on Escobar's"Anthropologyand theDevelopment Encounter." Am. Ethnol.22(3):602-9

Little PE. 1995. Ritual, power and ethnogra-phy at the Rio EarthSummit. Crit. Anthro-pol. 15(3):265-88

Lopez GA, SmithJG, PagnuccoR. 1995. Theglobal tide. Bull. Atomic Sci. July/Aug.:

33-39Marcus G. 1995. Ethnographyin/out of theworld system: the emergence of multi-sided ethnography.Annu. Rev. Anthropol.24:95-117

MarulasiddaiahHM. 1994. Image of an ele-

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 26/27

 

NGO PRACTICES 463

phant in a small mirror: Swasti-an or-ganization for social change and devel-opment.Stud ThirdWorldSoc. 51: 49-75

Mehta AS. 1996. Micro politics of voluntaryaction: an anatomy of change in two vil-

lages. Cult.Surv. 20(3):26-30Michels R. 1959. PoliticalParties. New York:Dover

Millett K. 1971. Sexual Politics. New York:Avon

Moore M. 1993. Good government? ntroduc-tion. IDS Bull. 24(1):1-6

Nachowitz T. 1990. An AlternativeDirectoryof Nongovernmental Organizations inSouth Asia. Syracuse:Maxwell Sch. Citi-zensh. Public Aff., SyracuseUniv.

Ndegwa SN. 1993. NGOs as pluralizingagents in civil society in Kenya. Work.Pap. No. 491. Nairobi:Inst. Dev. Stud.

Ndegwa SN. 1996. The TwoFaces of CivilSo-ciety: NGOs and Politics in Africa. WestHartford,CT: Kumarian

Ng'ethe N, KanyingaK. 1992. Thepolitics ofdevelopmentspace: the state and NGOs inthe delivery of basic services in Kenya.Work. Pap. No. 486. Nairobi: Inst. Dev.Stud.

Olsen GR. 1995. NGOs and the internationalenvironment nthe 1990s. Cent.Dev. Stud.Work. Pap., Copenhagen

PadronMC. 1987. Non-governmental devel-opment organizations:from developmentAID to development cooperation. WorldDev. 15(Suppl.):69-77

Patel A. 1995. What do the NarmadaValleytribals want? See Fisher 1995, pp. 179-200

PatkarM. 1995. The struggleforparticipationand justice: a historical narrative. SeeFisher 1995, pp. 157-78

Pearce J. 1993. NGOs and social change:agents or facilitators?Dev. Practice 3(3):

222-27Peters P, ed. 1996. Who's local here? the poli-tics of participation n development. Cult.Surviv.Q.20(3):22-60

Peterson MJ. 1992. Transnationalactivity, in-ternational ociety and worldpolitics. Mil-lennium21(3):371-88

PrattB, Stone A. 1995. Multilateralagenciesand NGOs: a position paper.Oxford:Int.NGO Train. Res. Cent.

PrincenT. 1994.NGOs: creatinganiche inen-vironmental diplomacy. See Princen &

Finger 1994b, pp. 29-47Princen T, Finger M. 1994. EnvironmentalNGOs in WorldPolitics: Linking heLocaland the Global. London/New York:Rout-ledge

RademacherA, TamangD. 1993. Democracy,

Development and NGOs. Kathmandu:SEARCH

Rahnema M. 1992. Participation.In TheDe-velopment Dictionary, ed. W Sachs, pp.116-31. London:Zed

Reilly C. 1992. Foreword. See Carroll 1992,pp. X-XiiRibot J. 1996. Participationwithout represen-

tation: chiefs, councils andforestry law inthe West African Sahel. Cult. Surviv.20(3):40-44

Rich B. 1994. Mortgaging the Earth: TheWorld Bank, EnvironmentalImpoverish-ment, and the Crisis of Development.Bos-ton: Beacon

Riddel RC, Robinson M. 1995. Non-Governmental Organizations and RuralPoverty Alleviation. New York: OxfordUniv. Press

Rivera T. 1992. The new world order: prob-lems and prospectsfor the people's move-ment in the Philippines. In Beyond theCold War,ed. C Karagdag,A Miclat, pp.187-94. Quezon City:People's Train.Pro-gram Phillipp. NGOs

Robinson M. 1993. Governance, democracyand conditionality:NGOs andthe new po-licy agenda. In Governance, DemocracyAndConditionality:WhatRole or NGOs?ed. A Clayton, pp.. Oxford: Int. NGO

Train. Res. Cent.Rosenau J. 1990. Turbulencein WorldPoli-

tics: A Theory of Change and Continuity.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press

Salamon LM. 1993. The global associa-tional revolution: the rise of thirdsectoron the world scene. Occas. Pap. 15. Balti-more: Inst. Policy Stud., Johns HopkinsUniv.

SalamonLM. 1994. The rise of the nonprofitsector. Foreign Aff:73(4):109-22

Sanyal B. 1994. Cooperative autonomy: the

dialectics of state-NGO relationships indeveloping countries. Res. Ser. 100. Ge-neva:ILO

Semboja J, Therkildsen0, eds. 1995. ServiceProvision UnderStress in East Africa: TheState, NGOs, and People's Organizationsin Kenya, Tanzania,and Uganda. Copen-hagen:Cent. Dev. Res.

Sethi H. 1993a. Survivalanddemocracy:eco-logical struggles in India. See Wignaraja1993a, pp. 122-48

Sethi H. 1993b. Action groupsin thenew poli-

tics. See Wignaraja1993a, pp. 230-55Shaw M. 1992. Global society and global re-sponsibility: the theoretical,historical andpolitical limits of "international ociety."Millennium21(3):421-34

Sikkink K. 1993. Human rights, principled

5/11/2018 2952530 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2952530 27/27

 

464 FISHER

issue-networks, and sovereignty in LatinAmerica.Int. Organ. 47(3):411-41

SikkinkK. 1995.Non-governmentalorganiza-tions and transnational ssue networks ininternational politics. Proc. Annu. Meet.

Am. Soc. Int. Law 89:413-15Silliman GS. 1994. Humanrightsand he tran-sition to democracy.In Patterns of Powerand Politics in the Philippines: Implica-tions for Development, ed. J Eder, RYoungblood, pp. 103-46. Tempe: Ariz.State Univ.

Simon J. 1995. Foucault and the Political.New York: Routledge

Sinaga K. 1995. NGOs in Indonesia:A Studyof the Role of Non GovernmentalOrgani-zations in theDevelopmentProcess. Saar-brucken:Verlag Entwicklungspolit.

Smillie I. 1995. TheAlms Bazar:AltruismUn-der Fire: Non-Profit Organizations andInternational Development. Ottawa: Int.Dev. Res. Cent.

Smillie I, Helmich H. 1993. Non-GovernmentalOrganisationsandGovern-ments: Stakeholders for Development.Paris:Dev. Cent. Organ.Econ. Coop. Dev.

Smith BH. 1987. An agendaof future asksforinternationalandindigenousNGOs:viewsfrom the north. World Dev. 15(Suppl.):87-93

Society for ParticipatoryResearch in Asia.NGO-GovernmentRelations:A Source ofLife or theKiss of Death. New Delhi

Spiro PJ. 1994. New global communities:non-governmental organizations in interna-tional decision-making nstitutions. Wash.Q. 18(1):45-56

Starn0. 1995. To revolt against the revolu-tion: war and resistance in Peru's Andes.Cult.Anthropol. 10(4):547-80

Tandon R. 1994. Civil society, the state andthe role of NGOs. In Civil Society in the

Asia-Pacific Region, ed. I Serrano, pp.117-36. Washington,DC: CIVICUSThomson A. 1992. TheWorldBank and Coop-

eration withNGOs. Ottawa:CODEUdall L. 1995. The internationalNarmada

campaign: a case of sustained advocacy.See Fisher 1995a, pp. 210-27

UNDP. 1993. Human Development Report1993. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Uphoff N. 1996. Why NGOs are not a thirdsector: a sectoral analysis with somethoughtson accountability, sustainability,

and evaluation. See Edwards & Hulme1996a, pp. 23-39

VergaraC. 1989. The new context of socialpolicy in Chile andthe space for nongov-ernmental organisations.In Social Policy

from the Grassroots: NongovernmentalOrganisations in Chile, ed. C Downs, GSolimano, C Vergara, L Zuniga, pp. 1-8.Boulder: Westview

Vettivel SK. 1993. Participation and Sustain-able Development: Theoryand Practice inGovernmentand NGOs. New Delhi: Vetri

Viswanath V. 1991. NGOs and Women'sDe-velopment in Rural South India: A Com-parative Analysis. Boulder: Westview

Vivian J. 1994. NGOs and sustainable devel-opment in Zimbabwe: no magic bullets.Dev. Change 25:181-209

Wacker C. 1994. Sustainable developmentthrough women's groups: a cultural ap-proach to sustainable development. InFeminist Perspectives on SustainableDe-velopment, ed. W Harcourt,pp. 128-42.London: Zed

WapnerP. 1994. Environmentalactivism andglobal civil society. Dissent 41:389-93

Weisgrau M. 1997. Interpreting Develop-ment: Local Histories, Local Strategies.New York:UniversityPressAm.

WellardK, Copestake J, eds. 1993. Nongov-

ernmentalOrganisations and the State inAfrica: Rethinking Roles in SustainableAgriculture. London:Routledge

Wignaraja P, ed. 1993a. New Social Move-ments in the South:Empoweringthe Peo-ple. London: Zed

WignarajaP. 1993b. Rethinkingdevelopmentanddemocracy.See Wignaraja1993a, pp.4-35

Wolfe A. 1991. Threepaths to development:market, state, and civil society. Presentedat Int. Meet. NGOs UN System Agencies,

Aug. 6-9, Rio de JaneiroWorld Bank. 1991. WorldDevelopmentRe-port 1991: TheChallenge ofDevelopment.Washington, DC: World Bank/OxfordUniv. Press

ZadekS, GatwardM. 1996. Transforming hetransnational NGOs: Social auditing orbust? See Edwards & Hulme 1996a, pp.226-40

Zivetz L. 1991. Doing Good: TheAustralianNGO Community.North Sydney, NSW:Allen & Unwin