|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Overview
|
|
|
|
Read This Document
|
|
|
|
Papers by Same Organization
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This paper explores how government and NGOs converge on a number of development objectives that have become social and political imperatives, divide roles along expected lines and prevailing notions of each other’s capacities, but still end up with problems in certain areas. It outlines the reasons for this, including overlapping of professional domains, issues relating to NGO capacity, the role of individuals and personalities, inadequate consultation mechanisms, the lack of inclusive networking and weak management structures. It stresses the importance of achieving reform through indirect means, through cross learning by gradual exposure to alternative models and by providing space so that the two systems can be brought together in creative competition. Donor agencies occupy an influential niche in the affairs of governments and NGOs. The final section of the paper analyses the aspects of GO–NGO collaboration that merit the attention of donor agencies and are likely to be positively influenced by a more proactive and considered donor response. Lessons learned on how to build constructive collaborative relationships between governments and NGOs:- the type and form of collaboration needs to be based on a clear understanding of project or programme objectives. Different objectives imply different roles for NGOs. Hence in projects promoting innovation and participation, NGOs need to give more parity, flexibility and space than those that want NGOs to provide a pre-determined service
- different outputs require different forms of relationships between NGOs and government. Pre-determined service delivery needs at least a dyadic relationship with enforceable instruments such as MoUs. Participation and empowerment in programmes requires space for NGOs and government to negotiate and interact and cannot be driven purely by targets - which is a characteristic of service delivery
- different forms of relationship require different organisational structures. Existing structures need to be modified if they are to administer even the simplest form of relationship, namely a dyadic one. Institutional relationships, which entail coalition, require specific support structures and processes, which autonomous structures are suitable only for the administration and management of innovation within the confines of a project's organisation and activity. Often, a project can get better results under autonomous structures, which can create a snowball effect and force government department/agencies to respond. A less disjunctive way of mainstreaming innovation would imply embedding change units within the organisation to be changed
- arguments supporting the above statements are couched in terms of increasing the inclusion of the stakeholders in the design and management of interventions. Giving appropriate voice and agency to stakeholders requires project structures and procedures which allow and enable the evolution not only of organisations, but also of the rules which govern collective behaviour
- there is little general consensus among donors on issues of community involvement, cost effectiveness, coverage, equity and replicability in the context of the interventions they support
This document is contributed by Eldis Provided by Eldis, a GDNet content partner |
Download Full Text
This URL might direct you to other sources that GDN is not responsible for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The need to see technology transfer in a holistic light |
| By Hall, A.; Clark, N.; Taylor, S. and Sulaiman , V. R., 2001 |
| Produced by: Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AgREN) |
|
| Countries: India |
| Themes: Development Finance & Aid Effectiveness, Environment and Climate Change, Information & Communications Technology (ICT), Macroeconomics and Economic Growth, Private Sector Development, Urban Development and the Global South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
