Comments

Fair enough. No major disagreement. Two points as coda perhaps? (1) The conclusion then perhaps is to look at the funding mechanisms donor governments provide. EIDHR is no exception the EC usual requirement for results-based management and project delivery but (eg in places like eastern DRC) I've very much seen it focused on the co-creation at community level of good frameworks. So if we must deliver projects, more like this please. Doing projects & building networks etc aren't totally incompatible. (2) Generalizing, one of the reasons project management is a problem for civil society is because we're so rubbish at it. Better ground-game & skills in this area would see us all spend less time struggling to do things right and more able to focus energies and attention on doing and advocating toward doing the right thing. Bit of a twee response sorry but I think that sums it up!

Joanne and Pyone, thank you for this piece. The MDG Suco Program is something I have been reading about with interest so your outline of the challenges was really interesting. While it is really heartening to see the GoTL working to direct its attention and resources to the most vulnerable, I also wondered why it didn't use the opportunity to more actively engage local labour and use local materials in the construction process, particularly given the youth unemployment challenge and the very limited access to economic opportunities or training in the districts. It is my understanding that construction courses are being taught at DIT and elsewhere--the Suco project would seem like an excellent opportunity to partner with these training organisations to upskill people in the districts and to provide practical experience in construction and an opportunity for access to paid work. This also could have created more of a sense of community ownership in the project and a sense of pride about the houses. (Though perhaps something like this may have been an overstretch, given the already slow implementation of the project). As you note, it also seems that the project was conceived without fully assessing the needs of communities or those needing access to social housing. Given that access to education, health services, WASH and livelihoods is already such a challenge for vulnerable individuals and families, it's a concern that this hasn't been taken into account. There's also the question of infrastructure maintenance -- who owns the houses? The government, the vulnerable persons, or the suco or aldeia? Who is responsible for their maintenance? Perhaps you know this, but I'm also unclear on whether the houses are a gift from the government to the vulnerable or whether they remain community property i.e. if an elderly person living in one of the houses dies, or if a person moves from the house, is the house reallocated to another vulnerable person and how is this decided? Given that this is a decently sized rollout of social housing, it would seem wise for there to be some kind of social policy to guide the allocation and management of the houses so that they continue to be a useful community resource for vulnerable persons,so that expectations are clear and there isn't the potential for conflict in the communities.

Great summary. I've heard some of these points before about the changing environment of iNGOs but not in such a systematic way. I would add one caveat to the BRAC example. BRAC itself could be considered a new generation of INGO with a presence in Kenya, Sri Lanka, South Sudan and elsewhere - they are an iNGO that emerged from a developing country. Not a traditional iNGO, but still multi-national in scope. Looking forward to the next post!

Thanks Bill. Do you think a <a href="http://progressivedevelopmentforum.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Progressive Development Forum</a> or <a href="http://www.mcleodgroup.ca/" rel="nofollow">Mcleod Group</a> is needed in Australia?

Zee, I totally agree with you that INGOs getting out of the way is often the best thing they can do. I also agree that there is still a potentially important role for INGOs see post 2 in this series. However I would also submit that a) the strengthening and protection of civil society in the ways you suggest is often shunned at the expense of 'project delivery' and b) that facilitating and brokering strong social, economic and political relationships between people in order to learn together about how to address collective problems often comes second (or third) too.

Hi Chris, thanks for your response, and the link to that Civicus report. I recall seeing it when it came out. I guess I have a very different conception to the role of the (international) NGO, and I don't take fright at social movements like the Arab Spring of 2011 going ahead without them. I think its the role of (I)NGOs to lay the groundwork over time for such action to take place (eg if nothing else by maintaining a pool of ideas, observers, and civil space to talk about and seek the upholding of human rights) and then when they lift off, to really just get out of the way. If that is accepting disintermediation then OK 🙂 but I think there's still very valid ongoing roles before and after such events; and sadly still no shortage of countries where national civil society is under threat and can do with support, material or otherwise. And at the other side of the equation: unless migration flows from poor to rich countries increases enormously (which would be against the grain of policy in the UK, US, Australia etc right now), and all the Joe and Jane Smiths in OECDland don't in fact end up with great numbers of Ghanaian, Somali, Papuan and Bangladeshi neighbours over the fence and as genuine acquaintances & facebook friends, intermediation in that relationship and those narratives will continue. (Alas!)

Article and interview with John Hilary about his new book "The Poverty of Capitalism", and the decline in radicalism of NGOs: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/22/john-hilary-uk-charities-lost-radical-soul

Zee thanks for that. You make a good point. However even if one believes Kiva is like child sponsorship with added internet pixie dust (love the term!) I don't think one can dismiss the general argument about 'disintermediation' so easily. See for example see <a href="http://hausercenter.org/iha/2011/10/07/have-ngos-become-irrelevant/" rel="nofollow">here </a>or <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2009/12/04/networked-journalism-challenges-to-ngos-and-mainstream-media/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

The insight that a foreign ministry can administer an effective aid program is critical in the debates ahead. I am not yet hearing from DFAT that it's aiming for an effective aid program- but important to note that it's possible. Most excellent, Jo, can't wait to read more.

So will the end result be DFAT Posts acting more like banks, approving micro-credit loans? What about all those other pre-requisites for economic prosperity like health, education, food security, water and sanitation, etc? Who is best-placed to deliver services when government corruption is rife?

I'm sorry Chris, but I always have to laugh when I see Kiva presented as some radical change or indication of a new paradigm. Kiva is an INGOmediary sure as eggs, one which works through partner organisations to 'facilitate direct linkages' between rich-country and poor-country people. But then so did World Vision child sponsorship in the 1970s. Shouldn't the lesson here be that with a bit of internet pixie dust in the direction of scalability, the old models of intermediation are apparently just as saleable, relevant and necessary as ever?

A very precise analysis of the 2014 Budget, easy to understand by lay person like me but what is of great concern are the many uncertainities posed throughout the narrative. Will the government be able to sustain itself from 2015 onwards? Is there any contingencies should the country be struck by natural disasters? or Are we going to be dependent on the goodwill of other countries? Will the revenue collection machinery achieve its target? or is the government too overconfident on its strategies? Will the election go smoothly as anticipated? or will the current rumblings of political parties explode into civil unrests should suspicions of vote rigging come to the fore? These are pertinent questions which everyone hope will be amicably addressed by the authority. God save Fiji.