European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence-sitting, or adaptation?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Motivation: The paper examines the advocacy strategies used by European non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs). The literature on development aid has not put much emphasis on understanding the aid-related advocacy strategies of NGDOs, and the literature on interest groups has so far paid little attention to explaining why these select different advocacy strategies within the same policy area.
Purpose: The paper aims to explain how NGDOs have selected advocacy strategies during the process of reformulating the European Consensus in 2016/17, in response to the European Union’s attempts to divert aid from poverty reduction to three other goals: managing migration, funding climate change adaptation, and funding the private sector.
Approach and methods: Using insights from the interest group and social movements literatures, the paper develops a framework explaining NGDO strategy selection, looking at the politicization of the policy change, its impact on NGDOs’ funding, and its relation to the groups’ normative positions. The paper uses qualitative data from NGDO documents and interviews with senior staff and advocacy officers of NGDO networks based in Brussels.
Findings: NGDOs used very different strategies for the three cases of aid diversion: they contested aid diversion for managing migration; mainly choose fence-sitting in case of climate change adaptation; and gradually became more adaptive towards diverting aid to fund the private sector. The paper shows that the three variables of politicization, impact on funding, and relation to normative positions explain the strategies selected by NGDOs in all three cases.
Policy implications: The findings can help NGDOs in selecting the most appropriate advocacy strategies for changes in aid policy, and can thus become more effective in influencing the EU institutions and member state governments.
Original languageEnglish
JournalDevelopment Policy Review
Early online date1 Dec 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 1 Dec 2018

Fingerprint

advocacy
nongovernmental organization
non-governmental organization
aid
private sector
funding
aid policy
politicization
development aid
government and state
interest group
social movement
climate change
migration
European Union
poverty
policy area
Social Movements
EU
policy

Bibliographical note

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Rozbicka, P. and Szent‐Iványi, B. (2018), European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence‐sitting, or adaptation?. Dev Policy Rev. Accepted Author Manuscript, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12417.  This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

Cite this

@article{45d9bd69b4d94d5ba508c1dec64cd216,
title = "European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence-sitting, or adaptation?",
abstract = "Motivation: The paper examines the advocacy strategies used by European non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs). The literature on development aid has not put much emphasis on understanding the aid-related advocacy strategies of NGDOs, and the literature on interest groups has so far paid little attention to explaining why these select different advocacy strategies within the same policy area.Purpose: The paper aims to explain how NGDOs have selected advocacy strategies during the process of reformulating the European Consensus in 2016/17, in response to the European Union’s attempts to divert aid from poverty reduction to three other goals: managing migration, funding climate change adaptation, and funding the private sector.Approach and methods: Using insights from the interest group and social movements literatures, the paper develops a framework explaining NGDO strategy selection, looking at the politicization of the policy change, its impact on NGDOs’ funding, and its relation to the groups’ normative positions. The paper uses qualitative data from NGDO documents and interviews with senior staff and advocacy officers of NGDO networks based in Brussels.Findings: NGDOs used very different strategies for the three cases of aid diversion: they contested aid diversion for managing migration; mainly choose fence-sitting in case of climate change adaptation; and gradually became more adaptive towards diverting aid to fund the private sector. The paper shows that the three variables of politicization, impact on funding, and relation to normative positions explain the strategies selected by NGDOs in all three cases. Policy implications: The findings can help NGDOs in selecting the most appropriate advocacy strategies for changes in aid policy, and can thus become more effective in influencing the EU institutions and member state governments.",
author = "Patrycja Rozbicka and Bal{\'a}zs Szent-Iv{\'a}nyi",
note = "This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Rozbicka, P. and Szent‐Iv{\'a}nyi, B. (2018), European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence‐sitting, or adaptation?. Dev Policy Rev. Accepted Author Manuscript, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12417.  This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/dpr.12417",
language = "English",

}

European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence-sitting, or adaptation? / Rozbicka, Patrycja; Szent-Iványi, Balázs.

In: Development Policy Review, 01.12.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence-sitting, or adaptation?

AU - Rozbicka, Patrycja

AU - Szent-Iványi, Balázs

N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Rozbicka, P. and Szent‐Iványi, B. (2018), European development NGOs and the diversion of aid: Contestation, fence‐sitting, or adaptation?. Dev Policy Rev. Accepted Author Manuscript, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12417.  This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - Motivation: The paper examines the advocacy strategies used by European non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs). The literature on development aid has not put much emphasis on understanding the aid-related advocacy strategies of NGDOs, and the literature on interest groups has so far paid little attention to explaining why these select different advocacy strategies within the same policy area.Purpose: The paper aims to explain how NGDOs have selected advocacy strategies during the process of reformulating the European Consensus in 2016/17, in response to the European Union’s attempts to divert aid from poverty reduction to three other goals: managing migration, funding climate change adaptation, and funding the private sector.Approach and methods: Using insights from the interest group and social movements literatures, the paper develops a framework explaining NGDO strategy selection, looking at the politicization of the policy change, its impact on NGDOs’ funding, and its relation to the groups’ normative positions. The paper uses qualitative data from NGDO documents and interviews with senior staff and advocacy officers of NGDO networks based in Brussels.Findings: NGDOs used very different strategies for the three cases of aid diversion: they contested aid diversion for managing migration; mainly choose fence-sitting in case of climate change adaptation; and gradually became more adaptive towards diverting aid to fund the private sector. The paper shows that the three variables of politicization, impact on funding, and relation to normative positions explain the strategies selected by NGDOs in all three cases. Policy implications: The findings can help NGDOs in selecting the most appropriate advocacy strategies for changes in aid policy, and can thus become more effective in influencing the EU institutions and member state governments.

AB - Motivation: The paper examines the advocacy strategies used by European non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs). The literature on development aid has not put much emphasis on understanding the aid-related advocacy strategies of NGDOs, and the literature on interest groups has so far paid little attention to explaining why these select different advocacy strategies within the same policy area.Purpose: The paper aims to explain how NGDOs have selected advocacy strategies during the process of reformulating the European Consensus in 2016/17, in response to the European Union’s attempts to divert aid from poverty reduction to three other goals: managing migration, funding climate change adaptation, and funding the private sector.Approach and methods: Using insights from the interest group and social movements literatures, the paper develops a framework explaining NGDO strategy selection, looking at the politicization of the policy change, its impact on NGDOs’ funding, and its relation to the groups’ normative positions. The paper uses qualitative data from NGDO documents and interviews with senior staff and advocacy officers of NGDO networks based in Brussels.Findings: NGDOs used very different strategies for the three cases of aid diversion: they contested aid diversion for managing migration; mainly choose fence-sitting in case of climate change adaptation; and gradually became more adaptive towards diverting aid to fund the private sector. The paper shows that the three variables of politicization, impact on funding, and relation to normative positions explain the strategies selected by NGDOs in all three cases. Policy implications: The findings can help NGDOs in selecting the most appropriate advocacy strategies for changes in aid policy, and can thus become more effective in influencing the EU institutions and member state governments.

UR - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dpr.12417

U2 - 10.1111/dpr.12417

DO - 10.1111/dpr.12417

M3 - Article

ER -