Tag Archives development narratives

Development Dialogue 19 | Dealing with difference in collaborative research

By Posted on 1884 views

Collaborative research is increasingly promoted as an ethical and participatory form of knowledge generation. However, as innovative as the approach is, collaboration can lead to frustration or conflict and may require much more resources in comparison to ‘classic’ research methodologies. While this has already been acknowledged, empirical evidence on the challenges researchers face when collaborating is still lacking. It is therefore pertinent to communicate about field experiences so that practitioners as well as educational and funding institutions can realistically consider the limits and requirements of this approach — something PhD researcher Maria Fernanda Córdova Suxo does in this article.

Image by Author

Collaborative research is a methodology used increasingly and especially by researchers from academic institutions, interdisciplinary teams, and community organizations to foster inclusive knowledge creation. This methodological approach emphasizes active participation in the knowledge production process, shared decision-making, and inclusive contributions from various stakeholders.[1] An anti-colonial critique is strongly present in this methodological approach, since it challenges dominant research practices, driving a change from conventional research roles of ‘the researcher’ and ‘the researched’ to a partnership where both parties actively co-create knowledge. In addition to challenging traditional research roles, the methodology aims to avoid the extraction and appropriation of knowledge that largely benefits the interests of the researcher instead of those of the target group. In this regard, collaboration has been positioned as a relevant approach for fostering inclusive development practices.

 

But does an ethical and participative approach suffice?

Simply considering collaborative research through the lens of equality and horizontal partnership dynamics doesn’t suffice to dismantle harmful knowledge production practices and to ensure an inclusive process of knowledge creation. Reality shows that relationships operate on multifaceted levels beyond ethical intentions alone. For one, fieldwork roles beyond the renaming and allocation of labels like ‘partner,’ ‘participant,’ or ‘co-researcher’ often stem from preconceptions influenced by past experiences and entrenched power structures, while additional or incompatible responsibilities and interests, influenced by historical, economic, and political conditions, will define collaboration. Drawing on my fieldwork experience during which I adopted a collaborative approach, in this article I review two situations where I encountered limits to doing collaborative research and discuss the way forward.

 

Does everybody aspire to be a co-researcher?

For my PhD research on the narrative construction of indigenous subjectivities within development discourses, I collaborated with the community of Caluyo, situated in the highlands near the historic ruins of Tiwanaku in La Paz, Bolivia. The aim was to collaborate in understanding and shaping collective identities, practices, and belief systems that inform a shared development perspective. I sought permission from the community assembly to initiate our collaboration by presenting my research topic and expressing my intention to work together during a community gathering in October 2021. I was granted permission and we could then start collaborating. I have visited the community for a period of three months each year for the past three years, participating in local activities such as assemblies, football tournaments, celebrations, planting and harvesting activities, as well as organizing workshops and conducting interviews.

Despite being from the same region and not encountering any language barriers, my presence brought with it pre-existing expectations. I wasn’t the first researcher to visit, nor was my collaborative engagement approach uncommon or unknown to them. Also, they were interested more in my educational experience — not necessarily in directly participating in the research but rather in how their ties to me could help foster opportunities for their children or grandchildren to access higher education or scholarships abroad.

During the several assemblies I attended, participants also expressed their desire to attract more researchers to the area to collaborate with the community, which they believed would aid in the systematization of knowledge. They were particularly interested in research on their culture and traditions that could further explain the pre-colonial era and the ruins that surrounded them. Their heavy labour on their land and farms, and their bureaucratic duties in the city, did not allow them to prioritize this task, as they perceived that it was important to communicate their traditional knowledge when interacting with visitors interested in it.

In this situation, I was thus asked to assume a traditional researcher role. Moreover, in Caluyo, the ancestral knowledge that researchers want to know about still needs to be understood by the community itself, with external researchers being seen as playing a role in helping facilitate this task. The traditional role of the researcher is found not only in this context but has also generated practices and trades that are predominantly — if not exclusively — located and validated in their interaction with the outside world.

 

Perspectives converging, realities diverging

Moreover, collaboration doesn’t guarantee a smooth ride in the research process; frustration and misunderstandings can arise. While I was in Caluyo, community members asked me to help them craft a project proposal for building a cultural center — something beyond the scope of my research. They sought my help since an official from the municipal government was charging them 2,000 bolivianos (around 270 euro) for this task — which they considered costly — and since I had project management experience.

I proposed conducting a joint workshop to draft the proposal — I would provide tools and expertise, but the vision for the cultural center and the project objectives would be theirs. We held the workshop in March 2023, inviting local authorities to collaborate. After four hours of work, the proposal had taken shape. I presented the document we had worked on to them and assured them that I would print three copies and bring them back to the community during my next visit.

They were skeptical about the proposal, however, asking me if we followed the correct procedure and wondering whether we needed an architect, since the municipal official they would have hired was an architect. I assured them that our work followed the requested plan and the funding format. A woman stood up and shared her experience in another community, where she was involved in drafting a similar project proposal. She had given money to an architect, and in return he gave her a book. She expected that the workshop I had organized would have the same outcome in the form of a book.

Murmurs filled the room after her comment, indicating their dissatisfaction with the process and outcomes. We had done things completely differently. This was the first time they were engaged in working out a project proposal, and they found it strange that this would come from an exchange of ideas and not from a professional voice like the architect’s, which gave them the feeling that something was not done right or that they had wasted their time. Once again, I explained that we had filled out all the requirements requested by the form to apply for funds and that if necessary and required afterwards, we could ask an architect to help. But at the moment, nothing indicated that we would need one for this proposal. The meeting ended with a small celebration, an apthapi (the communal sharing of food), which masked the disappointment of all the participants, including mine.

Despite their misgivings, they expressed their gratitude and I sent the prints and copies of the project proposal a week later, as I had promised. I took care to make these copies look like the books that were expected. These were eventually handed to the mayor during the town’s anniversary in May last year. The mayor stated his approval of the proposal and pledged that the cultural center would be realized. Construction began a couple of months ago, suggesting a successful collaboration.

 

Difference can cause distress

Although this experience is rich in insights into the procedure of setting up projects, I would like to highlight here the distressing aspects of the situation. Such interactions can highlight the inequalities and differences between participants. In the case I describe above, despite having a joint goal, the project proposal, our language, representations, and expectations of it varied considerably. Even though the project outcome was realized in the end, the community’s expectations and mine diverged, making it difficult for us to feel like we were truly co-creating something. The research dynamics of collaboration therefore demands adapting to interactions that are not contemplated beforehand.

In general, conflict, misunderstandings, and different expectations are inherent in such interactions where multiple visions come together but end up playing out differently. Ultimately, it is up to those we work with — so-called ‘research participants’ — to decide whether the research is collaborative, as my colleague Beatrice Gilbertini argued during one of the Development Dialogue’s panel discussions.

 

A way forward: embracing our differences

Many researchers and practitioners that seek a more participatory and ethical way of creating knowledge engage in participatory research. To date, there is enough literature reflecting on positionality and creating awareness to avoid extractive and appropriative research. However, relying solely on a reflective and ethical intention is insufficient — collaborative processes expose the real extent of differences and the depth of inequalities underlying these processes. Each encounter creatively illustrates these disparities, sometimes manifesting as conflicts and clashes. The question is then, what to do with it?

One way forward is to embrace these conflicts as opportunities to make methodological and theoretical adjustments that respond to the demands of those involved. The complexity of such interactions should be conveyed not with the aim of achieving equality between participants and researchers, but rather to understand the origins of these cleavages that reflect different interests and needs. Emphasizing an equal partnership as the sole criterion may obscure these gaps, potentially perpetuating violence.

Last, while collaborative practice should be promoted, it’s essential to ensure the provision of necessary resources and qualities demanded by such endeavours while preserving its inherent flexibility. It prompts us to consider whether there’s a need for more comprehensive research that is better integrated with entities beyond academia, such as social movements and civil society spaces, where theoretical work can truly be grounded in practical realities.

[1] See The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, for example.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Maria Fernanda Cordova Suxo is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Kassel, specializing in the exploration of alternatives to development through the lens of social movements and indigenous peoples’ experiences. She holds a Master of Science degree in Critical Development Studies and a Master of Arts in Peace and Conflict Studies. Her professional background has predominantly revolved around international cooperation and humanitarian aid agencies. She currently teaches at the university and conducts workshops on global learning.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

Development Studies cannot become an apology for the status quo

By Posted on 2329 views

Development Studies must always be critical, or it becomes just an apology for the status quo, for exploitation, for the reproduction of inequality within and between nations, and for the destruction of the conditions of life on Earth.

We live in times of converging crises, across the economy, democracy, health, the environment and more, with sprawling implications for ways of living around the globe. These crises and their mutual relationships offer the opportunity for new understandings of the problems of development and possible ways forward, which will inevitably be contested. These debates can be examined historically, focusing on the implications for our discipline.

An overview can start from the period before the Washington Consensus. Politically, it was marked by a strong anti-communism, with the Soviet model offering a plausible alternative to developing countries going through a rapid process of decolonisation and intense left activity. Economically, the dominant notion of development in the West was related to the idea of modernisation as the pathway to an ideal-type advanced capitalism, illustrated by the USA. In turn, economic policy referred to state intervention to provide the economic infrastructure for industrialisation, including public ownership of key industries, substantial aid distributed according to Western policy imperatives and commercial interests, and support for authoritarian regimes aligned with the West. Although the pre-Washington Consensus would now appear extraordinarily progressive, it was heavily contested by scholarship, with Latin American structuralism and dependency theory figuring prominently, and highlighting the inequitable economic structures, social relations and processes that systematically disadvantaged countries in the Global South.

The Washington Consensus emerged in the late 1970s as a dramatic right-wing reaction against the perceived economic and political weaknesses of the previous Keynesian-developmentalist consensus. The Washington Consensus included three main elements. First, the hegemony of mainstream economics within development theory. Second, the hegemony of the World Bank and the IMF setting the agenda for the study of development and the implementation of development policy and, third, ideologically, the attachment of the Washington Consensus to neoliberalism, including the commitment to a notion of ‘free markets’ standing inconsistently between Hayek and Friedman, but unified in claiming that governments were the source of both inefficiency and corruption. While the Washington Consensus claimed to be leaving as much as possible to the market, what it really did was to rebuild the state to intervene on a discretionary basis to promote a globalising and financialised capitalism.

The Washington Consensus was followed, in the 1990s, by the post-Washington Consensus, which was more sensitive to the non-economic domain, and rationalised the ongoing transitions to political democracy in the Global South through appeals to institution-building and the imperative of good governance to limit corruption. Presumably, these goals would be better achieved in a democracy, leading to the conclusion that democracy was good for growth. The promotion of democracy in the South was supported by a development industry parasitic on the poor countries which, suddenly, found reasons to support the World Bank and the IMF, instead of criticising them from financially parched margins.

 

Financialisation and the degradation of state capacity

Retrospectively, it appears that, from a mainstream perspective, the Washington institutions had stumbled upon the best of all possible worlds: the neoliberal reforms transferred the power to allocate resources to a globalised financial market, while political democracy legitimised the neoliberal state. At the same time, the neoliberal reforms degraded state capacity; multiparty legislatures weakened the Executive; and a supposedly independent judiciary ensured that the neoliberal reforms, an independent central bank, inflation targeting regimes and the conditionalities imposed in return for aid were locked in – all in the name of “democracy” and the “rule of law”.

This arrangement was criticised heavily within Development Studies. The first criticism came through the notion of the developmental state, that was shown to have violated Washington’s prescriptions across the board, for example, through protectionism, directed finance, price and wage controls, and so on. The second criticism focused on the notion of adjustment with a human face, and the impact of the neoliberal reforms on the poor. The third criticism came through the notion of post-development, which highlighted the value and agency of the subaltern.

The field of development has now been transformed again, by the ongoing slowdown in the advanced economies, with global repercussions: even former star performers have been affected, especially since their own transitions to neoliberalism. In parallel, we notice the degradation of neoliberal democracies. They were already circumscribed by an institutional apparatus to insulate economic policy from any form of “interference” by the majority, which dramatically reduced the policy space available to nominally democratic states. The consequence in practice was that those who lost out the most under neoliberalism also tended to be ignored by its institutions.

With the destruction of the left in the previous period, these tensions opened spaces for anti-systemic forces polarised by what may be called ‘spectacular’ authoritarian leaders. These are supposedly ‘strong’ people, that cultivate a politics of resentment, appeal to common sense, claim to be able to ‘get things done’ by force of will, and promise to confront the outsiders who undermine ‘our’ nation and harm ‘our’ people. But, when they reach power, those spectacular leaders always impose policies intensifying neoliberalism, under the veil of nationalism and a more or less explicit racism, and they are often shadowed by the rise of neo-fascist movements. This was the situation until early 2020, and the pandemic only intensified those tensions. Economies imploded, and authoritarian neoliberal systems became catastrophically perverse, often imposing health policies that killed millions and entrenched Covid-19 so it will never be eliminated.

 

Authoritarianism and Environmental Collapse call for a Transformation of Development Studies

Contemporary economic and political systems are being slowly but relentlessly overwhelmed by the environmental crisis. This crisis relates, fundamentally, to the contradiction between the limitless search for profits and the limited capacity of the Earth to sustain a climate compatible with the continuation of life as we know it. In turn, the search for solutions is limited by tensions between the accumulated emissions by leading Western economies and the rising emissions in developing countries claiming the right to development today, and by the structure of the global economy, in which several countries are invested in the production of fossil fuels even though this is unsustainable, but they refuse to exit. These tensions have been intensified by financialisation, that tends to raise emissions and block mitigation because financialisation feeds procyclical behaviours that reinforce existing economic structures, increase volatility, and concentrate income, wealth and power. This is incompatible with climate adaptation, strategic industrial policy, or redistribution.

Development Studies must always be critical, or it becomes just an apology for the status quo, for exploitation, for the reproduction of inequality within and between nations, and for the destruction of the conditions of life on Earth. Today, Development Studies faces a neoliberal modality of capitalism whose prosperity relies on speculation, despoliation, extraction and fraud, and which may be sliding into permanent economic underperformance, new forms of fascism and environmental collapse. It is urgent to advance a transformative agenda from within Development Studies. These crises ought to be confronted together for reasons of practicality and legitimacy, through a democratic economic strategy, including political democracy, focusing on the restoration of a collective sphere of citizenship, the expansion of rights, the distribution of income, wealth and power (focusing on the decommodification and definancialisation of social reproduction, starting with universal public services), and a green transition in the economy.

The difficulty is that those alternatives must be underpinned by new social movements and new structures of representation, from political parties to trade unions to community associations, corresponding to the current mode of existence of a society that has been extensively decomposed domestically, imperfectly integrated globally, that has distinct cultures but is connected through internet-based tools. There is nothing more important for Development Studies, today, than to support these critiques of neoliberalism, and support the new movements to reshape our mode of existence.

This blog was first published by EADI.

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Alfredo Saad-Filho is Professor of Political Economy and International Development at the Department of International Development, King’s College London.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

Le ONG europee si adattano ancora al registro dei loro interlocutori – ma ci sono segnali di cambiamento

By Posted on 4388 views

Pensando all’Unione Europea (UE), si tende ad immaginare un corpo unico che parla con una sola voce. Una percezione simile vale anche per le ONG europee, ma uno studio recente mostra che nell’ultimo decennio diversi quadri teorici, perlopiù riformisti, hanno ispirato la visione ed i discorsi delle ONG riguardo allo sviluppo. Questo articolo esplora cosa significhi tale riformismo per le ONG, mostrando che un’agenda di sviluppo più radicale, che si distanzi dal modello di crescita economica e dal retaggio coloniale dell’Europa, stia potenzialmente emergendo, anche se le discussioni a riguardo avvengono ancora prevalentemente internamente.

Create allo scopo di cooperare per lo ‘sviluppo’ e la ‘giustizia sociale’ nei paesi del Sud globale, le Organizzazioni Non Governative (Internazionali) (ONGI) operanti su tematiche legate allo sviluppo hanno prospettive e discorsi specifici su temi globali, che influenzano le loro attività di lobbying e advocacy a vari livelli decisionali. Tali discorsi, radicati in specifiche teorie di sviluppo, possono successivamente influenzare le politiche. Ciò motiva un’analisi critica dei discorsi e delle teorie sulle quali questi ultimi si basano.

Nella mia ricerca dottorale in corso, analizzo il discorso generale sullo ‘sviluppo’ proposto da CONCORD, che rappresenta circa 2600 ONG a livello europeo. Comparo il discorso di CONCORD con quello di organizzazioni pan-Africane attive in Europa. Tale paragone può essere utile per rivelare punti comuni e divergenze relativamente alla problematizzazione di vari temi (es: le diseguaglianze globali sono accidentali? hanno radici storiche?), alle soluzioni proposte (es: più crescita, più commercio internazionale, redistribuzione delle risorse), o alla percezione del ruolo di vari attori (es: l’UE, le ONG stesse), in particolar modo per quanto riguarda lo ‘sviluppo’ in Africa.

L’obiettivo generale è quello di capire quali teorie di sviluppo influenzino i dibattiti a livello europeo tra le organizzazioni della società civile come quelle che studio, così da vedere quanto critici siano i messaggi che raggiungono l’UE attraverso queste organizzazioni. Per far ciò, ho intervistato membri del personale di alcune organizzazioni membre, osservato riunioni, analizzato documenti ufficiali che mostrino le posizioni delle organizzazioni.

È stato affermato come, a livello UE, le ONG debbano essere ‘critiche ma non troppo’[i] se vogliono mantenere le loro relazioni con le istituzioni UE che adottano politiche o che le finanziano. Per capire come le ONG di sviluppo europee riescano a farsi strada nelle relazioni stato-società civile, ho suddiviso le teorie di sviluppo tra convenzionali (quelle che mantengono lo status quo neoliberale), riformiste (quelle che propongono cambiamenti di alcuni elementi del sistema economico, politico e sociale) o radicali (quelle che criticano il sistema nel suo complesso e tentano di proporre un cambio di paradigma). Se l’affermazione di Smismans è valida anche per il settore dello sviluppo, allora le ONG di sviluppo europee dovrebbero tendere, nei loro discorsi, verso teorie presenti nella seconda categoria. Il caso dell’advocacy di CONCORD verso le istituzioni UE sembra confermare questo postulato generale.

La mia ricerca descrive come il discorso cambi nel corso del tempo, in particolare quello di CONCORD nel decennio scorso. Si può notare come sia applicato un insieme di teorie ed approcci, concetti e quadri teorici piuttosto riformisti (es: approcci come quello dello sviluppo umano, dei diritti umani o dello sviluppo sostenibile). Vari quadri teorici possono essere applicati simultaneamente nella costituzione dei discorsi, ed è ciò che sembra avvenire in CONCORD. La presenza sporadica di riferimenti convenzionali (quali quelli alla ‘crescita a favore dei poveri’ verso il 2010)[ii] e di altri ben più radicali (come quelli alla ‘post-crescita’ a partire dal 2019)[iii] aggiungono sfumature rilevanti a questo quadro generale.

Allora perché si tende a posture e teorie riformiste? Questo risultato, che è prima di tutto teoretico, ha anche uno scopo strategico: si tratta di posizionare la confederazione all’interno della governance internazionale dello sviluppo, accettandone la grammatica generale (fatta di paesi donatori, istituzioni e agenzie, attori che implementano, paesi e comunità riceventi, pratiche di valutazione, linguaggio), operando al contempo per dare a tale grammatica dei significati più rispettosi da un punto di vista sociale ed ambientale, mantenendo quindi l’attenzione sugli obiettivi ultimi dello sviluppo (le popolazioni locali ed i loro bisogni). Ciò implica strategie di advocacy e proposte di soluzioni che facciano da ponte tra i bisogni locali (così come percepiti dalla confederazione) e le politiche ed i comportamenti delle istituzioni (così come analizzati dalla confederazione). Significa anche cercare costantemente un equilibrio tra ciò che si considera necessario e ciò che si ritiene raggiungibile (cioè accettabile da donatori e decisori politici).

La ricerca di consenso interno, insieme all’imperativo della rappresentatività di un insieme così grande di ONG, contribuisce inoltre a questa postura riformista. La rappresentatività è una risorsa di credibilità fondamentale nei confronti delle istituzioni politiche, ma può avere come contropartita quella di portare ad un consenso a minima, basato cioè sui temi che il settore ritiene da sempre imprescindibili. Fare lobby per un aumento dell’Aiuto Pubblico allo Sviluppo (APS) dell’UE e degli stati membri è uno di questi: l’aiuto allo sviluppo[iv] è considerato una priorità dalla maggior parte dei membri; il lavoro relativo al finanziamento dello sviluppo è, di conseguenza, un caposaldo della confederazione.

Le discussioni interne alla confederazione stanno però cambiando alla luce dei cambiamenti dell’ambiente esterno e di nuove sfide. Ciò si vede, per esempio, nel recente focus su un’economia al di là della crescita[v], ma anche in dibattiti interni su colonialismo[vi], neo-colonialismo e relazioni UE-Africa[vii]. Anche se questi non indicano necessariamente un cambiamento decisivo nel modo in cui lo sviluppo sia compreso e praticato, mostrano però una tendenza potenziale verso un discorso sullo sviluppo che sia più radicale, più focalizzato su come rimediare passate ingiustizie.

References

[i] S. Smismans, “European civil society and citizenship: Complementary or exclusionary concepts?”, Policy and Society, vol. and So  vol. and Soci

[ii] CONCORD, “EU responsibilities for a just and sustainable world CONCORD Narrative on Development” (https://concordeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CONCORD-Narrative-on-Development.pdf)

[iii] Cox, T. “Economic growth will not cure inequalities”, 25 June 2019, (https://concordeurope.org/2019/06/25/directors-blog-economic-growth-will-not-cure-inequalities/)

[iv] CONCORD, “EU ODA up, but far from levels promised and needed amid international crises – CONCORD press release: OECD DAC 2020 preliminary statistics”, 13 April 2021 (https://concordeurope.org/2021/04/13/eu-oda-up-but-far-from-levels-promised-and-needed-amid-international-crises/)

[v] CONCORD, Talking Development Ep. 1 “Beyond Growth: An Economic Model that works for Everyone”, 09 May 2019 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmHHEfx4G6k&t=8s)

[vi] Poissonnier, L. tweet on CONCORD General Assembly 2020, 17 November 2020 (https://twitter.com/Lonne_CONCORD/status/1328711315016339459)

[vii] CONCORD, Talking Development Ep. 8 “How civil society can keep up with the speed of change”, January 2021, mins 7:00 to 12:30, accessed 10 January 2021 (https://soundcloud.com/concord-europe-ngo/how-civil-society-can-keep-up-with-the-speed-of-change)

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Valentina Brogna è dottoranda al Centro di Ricerca in Scienza Politica (CReSPo), Université Saint-Louis – Bruxelles (Belgium), attraverso una borsa FRESH (F.R.S. – FNRS). La sua ricerca compara i discorsi relative allo sviluppo di ONG di sviluppo internazionali e Organizzazioni Pan-Africane della diaspora in Europa, operative perlopiù a livello UE. Tali discorsi di riferiscono a varie teorie di sviluppo, in uno spettro che va dallo Sviluppo sostenibile al Rinascimento africano. Prima di intraprendere la ricercar dottorale, ha lavorato in organizzazioni della società civile nel campo dello sviluppo e femministe a livello italiano e UE.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

 

European NGOs still dance to the tune of their interlocutors – but this might be changing

By Posted on 5793 views

When we think of the European Union (EU), we tend to see a unified body that speaks with one voice. While this perception also holds true for European NGOs, a recent study has shown that in the last decade, a multitude of different, mostly reformist theoretical framings have been informing how these NGOs view and talk about development. This article explores what this reformism means for such NGOs, showing that a more radical development agenda that moves away from an economic growth model and Europe’s colonial legacy might be emerging, even if discussions are still mostly taking place internally.

Created to support ‘development’ and ‘social justice’ in the Global South, (International) Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) working on development-related issues have specific understandings of and discourses on global issues that inform their advocacy and lobbying activities at multiple decision-making levels. Such discourses, which are rooted in specific development theories, may ultimately come to inform policies. This motivates a critical analysis of the discourses used and the theories they’re based on.

As part of my ongoing PhD research, I am analysing CONCORD’s overall development narrative in a bid to understand which theory or theories of development it uses. CONCORD is the European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development representing some 2,600 NGOs at the EU level. I compare its narrative with those of pan-African organisations active in Europe. This comparison can be useful in revealing commonalities and differences related to how issues are problematised (ex: Are global inequalities an accident of fate? Are they historical?), what solutions are proposed (ex: more growth, more international trade, resource redistribution), or how the role of different actors is perceived (ex: the EU, NGOs themselves) particularly with regards to ‘development’ in Africa.

My overall aim is to understand what theories of development inform discussions at EU level among civil society organisations such as those I studied, so as to see how critical the messages reaching the EU through these organisations are. To do this, I’ve interviewed staff of some member NGOs, observed internal meetings, and analysed a set of official documents that display the organisations’ positions.

At EU level, it has been argued that NGOs have to be ‘critical, but not too critical’[i] if they want to maintain their relations with EU institutions making policies or providing them with funding. To understand how European development NGOs manage to navigate the state-civil society relationship, I distinguished development theories as either conventional (maintaining the neoliberal status quo), reformist (proposing changes to some elements of the economic, political and social system), or radical (criticising the whole system and tentatively proposing a paradigm change). If Smismans’ statement held true for the development sector as well, then European development NGOs would rather align their narrative to the second category. The case of CONCORD advocacy towards EU institutions seems to confirm this general assumption.

My research describes changes in the dominant development narrative over time, especially the one used by CONCORD in the last decade. What I witnessed is how a clump of rather reformist theories and approaches are applied, as well as concepts and frameworks relating to these (e.g. a human development, human rights or sustainable development frameworks). But several frameworks can be applied at the same time to inform narratives, which is what’s happening within CONCORD. The sporadic presence of very conventional references (such as those referring to pro-poor growth around 2010)[ii] and quite radical ones (those mentioning post-growth since 2019)[iii] add relevant nuances to this overall picture.

So why is there a move toward reformist approaches and theories? This move, which is first of all theoretical, also serves a strategic purpose: it consists of positioning the confederation within international developmental governance, accepting its overall grammar (donor countries, institutions and agencies, implementing actors, recipient countries and communities, assessment practices and language), while operating to give that grammar more social and environmental-friendly meanings, thus keeping the focus on the ultimate targets of development (local populations and their needs). This implies advocacy strategies and solution proposals bridging local populations’ needs (as perceived by the confederation) with institutions’ policies and attitudes (as assessed by the confederation). It also implies constantly striking a balance between what is considered necessary and what is considered attainable (i.e. acceptable by donors and targeted policy-makers).

The search for internal consensus, coupled with the imperative of representativeness of such a vast group of NGOs, also contributes to its overall reformist positioning. Representativeness is a fundamental credibility asset vis-à-vis political institutions, but it can have the trade-off of leading to a consensus a minima, mainly based on those issues that the sector historically deems fundamental. Lobbying for an increase in EU and members states’ Official Development Assistance (ODA) is a case in point: development aid[iv] is considered a key priority by a majority of members; the work on ‘financing and funding for development’ is, consequently, a longstanding pillar of the confederation.

But it’s becoming clear that internal discussions within the confederation are changing in light of the evolving external environment and new challenges. This is visible, for instance, in a recent focus on an economy beyond growth[v], but also in more internal discussions about colonialism[vi], neo-colonialism and EU-Africa relations[vii]. Although these do not signal a definite shift in how development is understood and practiced, they show that a move toward a more radical development narrative strongly focused on redressing past injustices may be looming

References

[i] S. Smismans, “European civil society and citizenship: Complementary or exclusionary concepts?”, Policy and Society, vol. and So  vol. and Soci

[ii] CONCORD, “EU responsibilities for a just and sustainable world CONCORD Narrative on Development” (https://concordeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CONCORD-Narrative-on-Development.pdf)

[iii] Cox, T. “Economic growth will not cure inequalities”, 25 June 2019, (https://concordeurope.org/2019/06/25/directors-blog-economic-growth-will-not-cure-inequalities/)

[iv] CONCORD, “EU ODA up, but far from levels promised and needed amid international crises – CONCORD press release: OECD DAC 2020 preliminary statistics”, 13 April 2021 (https://concordeurope.org/2021/04/13/eu-oda-up-but-far-from-levels-promised-and-needed-amid-international-crises/)

[v] CONCORD, Talking Development Ep. 1 “Beyond Growth: An Economic Model that works for Everyone”, 09 May 2019 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmHHEfx4G6k&t=8s)

[vi] Poissonnier, L. tweet on CONCORD General Assembly 2020, 17 November 2020 (https://twitter.com/Lonne_CONCORD/status/1328711315016339459)

[vii] CONCORD, Talking Development Ep. 8 “How civil society can keep up with the speed of change”, January 2021, mins 7:00 to 12:30, accessed 10 January 2021 (https://soundcloud.com/concord-europe-ngo/how-civil-society-can-keep-up-with-the-speed-of-change)

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the author:

Valentina Brogna is a PhD researcher at the Research Centre in Political Science (CReSPo), Université Saint-Louis – Bruxelles (Belgium), funded through a FRESH Grant (F.R.S. – FNRS). Her research compares development narratives by International Development NGOs and Pan-African Diaspora Organisations in Europe, mostly advocating at EU level. Such narratives refer to different development theories, in a spectrum from Sustainable Development to African Renaissance. Prior to her PhD, she gained professional experience in feminist and development civil society organisations at EU and Italian level.

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.