DO-IT-YOURSELF DEVELOPMENT. In Search of an Assessment Framework for Dutch Private Development Initiatives in South Africa

Transcription

1 DO-IT-YOURSELF DEVELOPMENT In Search of an Assessment Framework for Dutch Private Development Initiatives in South Africa Master s Thesis International Development Studies Esther M. Westra Student number Supervised by J. Post University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, May 2008

2 When I come to the Netherlands, I don t know the way or how everything works either. (South African volunteer) The danger of working in any kind of aid agency is that one begins to see the world through its eyes; and, as identities gradually merge, it is increasingly difficult to look at the world afresh, or to see ourselves as others see us. (Eade 2007: 630) When you are in a hole, the top priority is to stop digging. Discard your patronizing confidence that you know how to solve other people s problems better then they do. (Easterly 2006: 368) ii

3 ABSTRACT This thesis is conducted autonomously, in agreement with NCDO (Dutch Commission for International Relations and Sustainable Development). The research focuses on do-it-yourself development projects, or so-called Private Initiatives ; development projects initiated by Dutch civilians, instead of the existing aid channels of multi-laterals, governments and NGOs. In the past years, a debate in the media and the conventional development sector originated about the raison d être, quality and effectiveness of these increasing initiatives. Academic studies on this topic are still few and this research aims at making a contribution to the emerging body of knowledge. The problem addressed in this thesis is: What is an appropriate assessment framework for PIs? Following from that two main research questions are designed: 1) What is the theoretical debate concerning the assessment of PIs? and 2) What is the opinion of (local) stakeholders concerning the assessment of PIs and how does this relate to their experience with PIs? A mix of qualitative methods was used to research four Dutch initiated Private Initiatives in South Africa (literature research, open- and semi-structured interviews, topic list, observation, focus group and expert opinion). Specific attention is given to the opinion of the local South African partner organizations and beneficiaries of the projects. Even though PIs function as creators of social basis for development cooperation in the Netherlands, according to the local stakeholders they mainly should be considered as development organizations and need to be assessed accordingly. Hence, the research findings are analyzed according to conventional development assessment criteria: accountability, durability, participation, ownership and capacity building. A focus on upward financial accountability and a central role of the Dutch initiator needs to be shifted to reciprocal accountability and a focus on the local implementing partner. This can be done through deliberate professionalization and capacity building processes. It is hoped that these research findings contribute to the understanding of Private Initiatives and the way they should be assessed and that the findings provide NCDO, other funding organizations and policy makers with useful information and recommendations. This all in favor of the target groups of Private Initiatives. iii

4 iv

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, and most importantly, thanks to the South African and Dutch respondents of the four researched projects. Thank you for hosting me and sharing your passion, time, experience and knowledge. A baie dankie to Angelique, for making me feel at home in die Kaap. Furthermore I would like to thank Johan Post for his supervision and thorough reading and commenting on the many draft versions and Jikke Bastiaanssen for giving inspiring feedback in the field (and apparently moving to the Netherlands to assist me to the finish line of graduating). Lastly, thanks to NCDO, for providing the opportunity to conduct this research. Esther Westra May 9, 2008 v

6 vi

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Acknowledgements v List of abbreviations ix List of tables, figures & boxes xi Introduction 1 Chapter Brief history of development cooperation Start of development cooperation Main shifts after the 70s A changing landscape Rise of PIs in development cooperation The emerge of PIs Typification of PIs Typology PIs in the North Typology PIs in the South Organizations that subsidize PIs Evaluation in development cooperation First and second generation evaluation concepts Second generation Accountability Durability Participation and ownership Capacity building PIs and evaluation Raison d être Assessing PIs as creators of social basis Assessing PIs as development organizations The assessment dilemma for the conventional sector NCDO Guidelines and Nieuwe Koers Application and reporting Nieuwe Koers NCDO Conclusion 23 Chapter Research Question Operationalization Conceptual scheme Methods Selection projects Reflection Research location 31 Chapter Project A: Young in Prison Background Project Characteristics Project B: Ikamva Labantu Background Project Characteristics 35 vii

8 3.3 Project C: SEED Thembalethu Background Project Characteristics Project D: Bart s African Foundation Background Project Characteristics Characterizing accountability Organizational structure Roles, responsibilities and decision making Organizational characterization Description of the accountability lines Upward accountability Downward and internal accountability The nature of the accountability structure Young in Prison Ikamva Labantu SEED Thembalethu BAF Conclusion Characteristics of PIs Accountability 48 Chapter Views on raison d être of PIs Views on accountability Indirect accountability Financial dependence Trust Monitoring and verification Professionalization Views on durability Local embeddedness Other means of income Views on participation and ownership Participation Ownership Views on capacity building Conclusion 58 Chapter Conclusions Rationale of the South to characterize PIs Rationale of the North to characterize PIs Feedback on the characterization of PIs in theory Differences between PIs and conventional development sector Assessment criteria for PIs Recommendations to NCDO Application Reporting Further Research 66 Bibliography 67 Annex I NCDO Guidelines 72 viii

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BAF CEO GNP HIV/AIDS IMF IOB KPA MDG MFO NCDO NEPAD NGO NL NPO OECD/DAC PI PRSP SA SAP SEED UN UNDP WB WG YiP Bart s African Foundation Chief Executive Officer Gross National Product Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome International Monetary Fund Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en Beleidsevaluatie Kleinschalige Plaatselijke Activiteiten Millennium Development Goal Medefinancieringsorganisatie Nederlandse Commissie voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling en Internationale Samenwerking New Partners for Africa s Development Non-Governmental Organization Netherlands Non-Profit Organization Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/ Development Assistance Committee. Private Initiative Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper South Africa Structural Adjustment Program Self-supporting Earnings Empowerment Development United Nations United Nations Development Program World Bank Wilde Ganzen Young in Prison ix

10 x

11 LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES & BOXES Tables Table 1.1 Reconceptualization of the development agenda 5 Table 1.2 Typification of Private Initiatives 8 Table 1.3 PI Activities 9 Table 1.4 Shift in development cooperation goals 12 Table 2.1 Operationalization sub question 1 and 2 27 Table 2.2 Introduction projects 29 Table 3.1 Roles and responsibilities Project A 42 Table 3.2 Roles and responsibilities Project B 42 Table 3.3 Roles and responsibilities Project C 43 Table 3.4 Roles and responsibilities Project D 43 Table 3.5 Characterization organizations 43 Table 5.1 Categorization Development PIs 63 Figures Figure 2.1 Conceptual scheme 26 Figure 2.2 Map of South Africa 31 Figure 3.1 Map SEED and Seyyadina Foundation 40 Figure 3.2 Map YiP SA and YiP NL 40 Figure 3.3 Map Bart s African Foundation 41 Figure 3.4 Map Ikamva Labantu and COR Foundation 41 Boxes Box 3.1 Legend organizational maps 39 Box 4.1 Quotes 50 Box 4.2 Quotes 51 Box 4.3 Quotes 52 Box 4.4 Quotes 52 Box 4.5 Quotes 53 Box 4.6 Quotes 54 Box 4.7 Quotes 54 Box 4.8 Quotes 56 Box 4.9 Quotes 57 Box 4.10 Quotes 59 xi

12 xii

13 INTRODUCTION I Background In a Dutch television show called Aanpakken & Wegwezen, translated freely as Take on & clear off, enthusiastic Dutch civilians abandon hearth and home and give it all to aid impoverished people in far away countries. This is only one of the many examples that show that doing development has gained wide acceptance nowadays. If you have not been to a third world country to volunteer in an Indian orphanage yourself or donated clothes, school books and pencils to ship to an African country, there is a big chance there is a handful of people around you who undertook a similar adventure. Or they might even run larger projects involving for example micro credits or skills transfer. However, the quality and effectiveness of these contagious projects called Private Initiatives have become subject to criticism. For the broadcasters of the above mentioned program it might be good for the ratings that these acts of heroism are not always without shortcomings. But on a more analytic level the question needs to be asked: to what quality criteria do these small scale civilian initiatives have to be measured? Are PIs indeed about do-it-yourself development or just about doing good? Should the do-gooders do better? It is to these questions this thesis aims at finding an answer. II Object of study More specifically, the focus of this study is on four projects in South Africa that are subsidized by NCDO. NCDO is one of the organizations in the Netherlands that channel government money to Private Initiators. In the KPA Program Dutch civilians can apply for subsidy for their own development project. The organization is interested in how their assessment framework can be tailored to PIs and to what extent criteria have to be conform to conventional development cooperation criteria. This research gives a voice to the local stakeholders of projects in South Africa, and intends to look at the projects through their eyes. III Objectives This research aspires to make an addition to the current debate about the effectiveness of Private Initiatives and to the commencing academic body of knowledge on these projects. Furthermore the research makes recommendations to NCDO. Its relevance lies in the fact that it is conducted on the ground, in South Africa. This is important because NCDO does not have direct contact with the Southern partners of the Dutch initiators. This study seeks to define what do-it-yourself development is about, and who are the subject and object to the projects: the Dutch actors of the South African partner organization and beneficiaries? IV Problem formulation In consultation with NCDO the following problem formulation was stated: What is an appropriate assessment framework for PIs? Following from that two main research questions are designed: 1. What is the theoretical debate concerning the assessment of PIs? 2. What is the opinion of (local) stakeholders concerning the assessment of PIs and how does this relate to their experience with PIs? V Structure of thesis The answer to the first question is addressed in the theoretical framework of this research, Chapter 1. The second question is central to the fieldwork and is operationalized in Chapter 2 and answered in Chapter 3 Introduction of the four cases and 4 Local stakeholders do the talking. Finally, Chapter 5 presents the Conclusions and Recommendations. 1

14 2

15 CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter portrays the (theoretical) framework of the research. It provides an answer to the research question for the theory: what is the theoretical debate concerning the assessment of PIs? Three sub questions are designed to discuss the theoretical debate: 1. What is the role of PIs as new actors in conventional development cooperation? ; 2. What are the main conventional assessment and quality criteria in development cooperation? and 3. What is the debate about the assessment of PIs? The answer to these questions is formulated by making use of literature study and analysis of media reporting. Additionally interviews for background information have been conducted with NCDO, Wilde Ganzen and front office employees. Sub question one is answered in section 1.1 and 1.2. Section 1.1 introduces different trends in the history of development cooperation worldwide and specifically in the Netherlands. Section 1.2 describes how and why PIs in development cooperation emerged in the Netherlands. This section further elaborates on the different characteristics of PIs and on how PIs in the Netherlands are subsidized and relate to the development sector. Sub question two is answered in section 1.3, which describes the significance of evaluation in development cooperation and distinguishes between a first and second generation of development and evaluation concepts and evaluation according to narrow and broad development goals. The fourth sub question is answered in section 1.4, in which evaluation with respect to Private Initiatives is discussed. This section contains a discussion on PI effectiveness and assessment, current demands on PIs and specifically the guidelines of the subsidizing organization NCDO. Finally, in section 1.5 a conclusion is drawn and the theoretical concepts that will be used in the research are presented Brief history of development cooperation Start of development cooperation Development cooperation emerged after World War II with the introduction of the Marshall Plan, which was an effort to facilitate Western Europe s recovery, establish democratic states based on market economy and counter the Soviet communist threat. So the start of development cooperation has to be understood in the context of the Cold War. The success of the Marshall Plan led to the conclusion that this concept could also be applied to other parts of the world, mainly to protect them from any communist tendencies, but also to reduce poverty. For the first time in 1949, the Netherlands set aside money to aid developing countries, while the country was still receiving Marshall Aid itself. After World War II, the relationship between givers and receivers of aid was essentially paternalistic, even neo-colonial (Thomas 2000a). One part of the world was perceived to be developed, the other underdeveloped. One part of the world had solutions to underdevelopment, the other lacked them. Knowledge, technology, and resources simply had to be transferred from the developed world (North) to jumpstart development in the developing world (South). This way of thinking, called the modernization paradigm (Huntington 2007: 56-58), relates the routinely common references in social sciences to the global South, the Third World and even the periphery 1. In the rather linear way of the former modernization system, development was considered to be a matter of inputs. Poor countries were encouraged to undergo economical transformations as part of their development, creating industrialization and intentional industrial policy (Table 1.1). So, 1 However, there are many arguments against such forms of categorization because political, cultural and economic circumstances and patterns of poverty and wealth are significantly different between countries within a group and there is even much variety within countries (McFarlane 2006: 1413). The North and South terminology in this thesis is used under that reservation. 3

16 early development aid was aimed at offering technical solutions to social problems, without altering basic social structures (known as technical and material assistance). The prevailing development paradigm increasingly met with criticism and rejection, as the developing countries gained greater political independence. After decades, transfers of millions of dollars had had no appreciable effect on poverty or underdevelopment. With time, development practitioners and academics agreed: poverty in the developing world was less a cause, and more an effect, of overarching structural problems. It was these structures, then, that had to be transformed or eliminated in order for poverty to be reduced. The attention shifted from poverty to the root causes of underdevelopment. In Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, wars of national liberation, though often unsuccessful in overthrowing political and economic elites, nonetheless were important in instilling at the grassroots a sense of nationalism and self-determination (Pickard 2007: 577). This critical movement against (neo) colonial relationships is called the dependency theory (Hite & Roberts 2005: 9) Main shifts after the 70s Development cooperation can be broadly defined as an effort to assist nation states, and their citizens and institutions to develop and thereby grow out of poverty (Thomas 2000b). It can consist of a transfer of money and/or knowledge from developed to developing countries to support development efforts in a wide range of areas, such as infrastructure, governance, market reform, poverty reduction, education, health care, etc. Development cooperation is done through three channels: bilateral, multilateral and non-governmental. Aid provided through the multilateral channel consists of contributions from multilateral organizations such as the European Union, United Nations and international financial institutions (International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), regional development banks) to activities in developing countries they have selected themselves. Bilateral aid is from government to government and NGOs fulfill the nongovernmental role 2. International development has been characterized by different paradigms and thematic shifts. These changing focuses on different ideas give meaning and direction to the types of outcomes that donor agencies wish to support (Abrahamsen 2000). To achieve their various goals, donor countries employed different forms of intervention and repeatedly changed them to respond to the non-efficiency of their aid (Escobar 1995) (see table 1.1). The nature of development aid has changed throughout the decennia towards cooperation between giver and receiver and ownership of the receiver (in particular under Minister Pronk in the 80s and 90s). Development strategies changed through the years from simply supplying developing countries with what they were missing (in the 50s through 70s) with the expectation that the benefits would trickle down to the poor, to Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) demanding strict economical and fiscal policies since the early eighties 3. SAPs generally implement free market programs and policy. SAPs reflect the neo liberalistic idea that seeks to transfer control of the economy from the public to private sector. The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neo-liberalism is often taken to the Washington Consensus (1989), a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the IMF and WB). Countries had to take financial-economic action like the liberalization of trade and privatization. The so-called Post-Washington Consensus demanded more attention for the quality of institution and good governance in the international context. While the Washington consensus made economic growth the main goal of development, the new consensus moved away from the neoliberal, market-friendly approach and placed democratic development and a poverty reduction approach at the heart of the agenda. Poverty reduction rejects the notion of omniscience of the 2 The term non-governmental organization came into popular use with the establishment of the United Nations Organization in 1945 with provisions in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter for a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member states, Source: charter/ chapt10.htm, Accessed Structural adjustment is a term used to describe the policy changes implemented by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in developing countries. These policy changes are conditions for getting new loans from the IMF or World Bank, or for obtaining lower interest rates on existing loans. 4

17 donor, but consists instead of the capabilities of developing countries by giving direct budget support for social welfare programs to accompany macroeconomic stability leading to an increase in economic growth. To increase the borrowing country s involvement, developing countries were encouraged to draw up Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). On the basis of PRSPs, developing countries would be long-term supported by the Netherlands and other donors to develop and implement their own policy on for example the sector of education or health. In the Netherlands the uncoordinated support on project level to a large amount of countries has been replaced by a focus on support at program level to a smaller amount of countries (Vermaas 2005). In 1999 the Netherlands switched to this so called sectoral approach and with that good governance became not only a goal of development but a condition for developing countries in order to receive aid 4,5. Eventually this sectoral support could in an ideal case lead to general budget support, in which ownership of the receiving country increases (Vermaas 2006). Table 1.1 Reconceptualization of the development agenda 6 Decades Major objective Main instruments Dominant discipline Fifties Reconstruction Technical assistance Engineering Sixties Growth Projects Finance Seventies Basic Needs Sector Investment Planning Eighties Adjustments Adjustment loans Macro-economics Nineties Policy Reform and Country Assistance Integrators Institutional Strategy Development Current Poverty Reduction PRSPs Multi-disciplinary A changing landscape The limited success of the SAPs, neo-liberalism, privatization, together with civil society organizations voicing their need in the 80s and 90s resulted in two important developments. Firstly, attention shifted from the single focus on the role of the state and emphasized the active and pluriform role of nongovernmental organizations, civil society and the business community. A new landscape of aid organizations in the North was shaped by foundations, private voluntary organizations, corporations, universities, religious groups, and others (Adelman 2003). Privatized aid became an important channel of aid next to governmental and non-governmental aid. Secondly, civil society gained importance as a countervailing power to the state (Allen and Thomas 2000). Confidence in the providence of the state decreased and civilians increasingly demanded the state to be accountable. An accountability culture evolved, and as far as the state was not reduced, the state had to be accountable to the public for its actions. For international development cooperation this meant an strategic shift for governments towards showing results of their development activities, in 2002 the UNDP emphasized a culture of performance with a focus on monitoring and evaluation (UNDP 2002: i). Furthermore, international donors faced the weakness of the state as a new challenge and extended their conditions to the social-political domain. Good governance and the decentralization of decision-making powers downward to local institutions improved accountability and voice in local government, and potentially among the grassroots (World Bank 1992, Doornbos 2003). Simultaneously, development cooperation was generalized through the sectoral approach and budget support, and lost its tangibility and visibility for the Dutch citizens. The effect was that it became more complex for the government to be accountable for its policy and actions and the government had to think of a new way of creating social support for its development policy. The 4 Sectorale benadering of sectorale steun, Source: Accessed However, with the new policy of Minister Koenders, the good governance criterion was dispensed, to be able to give more aid to fragile states (Blokland 2007). 6 Adapted version of Picciotto (2002: 4). 5

18 focus on the Millennium Development Goals is currently used for this purpose and emphasized the importance of achieving and accounting of visible results in poverty reduction 7. The next section addresses the privatization and extension of the development landscape into more detail Rise of PIs in development cooperation This second section of the theoretic framework addresses the rise of Private Initiatives (PIs) in development cooperation in the Netherlands (1.2.1). A characterization of PIs is made (1.2.2) and it is explained how and by what development organizations PIs are subsidized (1.2.3) The emerge of PIs In the previous section is shown that three channels of development aid can be distinguished, which take on different tasks (bi- and multilateral and non-governmental). However, development cooperation is not limited to (international) governments or NGOs but is also picked up by private citizens. These initiatives are addressed in by academics and the media in different ways. Often, they are somewhat ironically portrayed as do-gooders or do-it-self aid activists (Schulpen 2007:2). The term that is used in this research is Private Initiatives, which is reserved for citizens who, often but not necessarily organized in (small) groups, are truly active in striving for a better world (Schulpen 2007: 8). Develtere and Stessens (2006a) however explicitly note that these initiatives to not strive to change the world, but that their work is focused on a smaller scale: to improve the lives of people. For now the definitions of PIs is: citizens who, (organized in (small) groups), are active in striving for a better world and/or improving lives of people in developing countries. Later on, in section 1.4, is further elaborated on the implications of these two views on PIs. Beerends and Broere point out that Dutch individuals have started development projects and organizations for longer, but these initiatives increased strongly since the nineties (2004: 175). Several reasons for this recent expansion of development cooperation activities are mentioned by researchers. The growth of do-it-yourself development is rooted in: (1) an increase in wealth and social changes in Dutch society and strong individualization; (2) a decrease of trust in the government and (3) a need to show results and give development a face, and; (4) globalization and communication possibilities (Context Research 2005 and Develtere and Stessens 2006: 12). So a first and important reason is the different changes in Dutch society: and increase of wellbeing and the disappearance of the traditional zuilen in society 8. People individualized and prefer to do things themselves, including supporting and running development projects (Beerends and Broere 2004: 176). Secondly, the rise of PIs in the nineties relates to neo-liberal thinking, which caused a decrease in trust in the government. PIs are the visible form of privatization and structural changes in the public opinion about (the effectiveness of) international cooperation and the role of the conventional development structures and the government (Schulpen 2007: 4, Brok and Bouzoubaa 2005). Forty years ago the Dutch development worker was someone who did hands on, practical projects. The voluntary work then professionalized and became the task of the government and NGOs and became more focused on giving budget support and changing processes in development countries instead of giving aid and doing technical projects. That caused development to somewhat lose its human face, it became abstract and harder to make visible to the common Dutchman (Luyten 2006). If one doesn t know the inside of the development sector, it is difficult to imagine what it entails. Private Initiatives, on the other hand, shake up the thinking patterns of the conventional 7 The eight MDGs were developed out of the eight chapters of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000 on the Millennium Summit by 189 United Nations member states in an agreement to try to achieve the goals by the year The goals include amongst the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger the topics of primary education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health, HIV/AIDS and other diseases, environmental sustainability and partnership for development, Source: Accessed Pillars ; socio-political-religious groups in the Netherlands. 6

19 development sector. The visibility and enthusiasm can not be created by professionals and scientists who speak a difficult language and cannot build the bridge between the poor world far away and the Dutch proverbial kitchen table, which is a third cause (Luyten 2006, Samson 2006). According to Develtere and Stessens the incomprehensible jargon like ownership, participatory mechanisms, gender sensitivity and efficient planning is being replaced with a concrete story of cooperation and tangible results (2006a: 36). Dutch politicians welcome Private Initiatives as important actors to establish the necessary democratic support to spend the public money, whereas distrust in the development mafia is alarming (Samson 2006). The more development cooperation of the government drifted off concrete goals, the stronger became the call for measurable and visible results. Minister Van Ardenne made a spearhead of measuring and quantification and published the first Results in Development Report (2004) in which the Ministries results were published. At the same time measuring it is more complicated then ever, because of the fast that development cooperation has become less and less tangible. So-called practical idealists fill the gap that originated between the need to measure results, and the difficulty to do so. That is the fourth cause. Dutch civilians prefer to involve themselves again in visible projects, like the construction of drinking-water facilities and orphanages. One would think that nowadays the image of the early development worker is outmoded, but Private Initiators are practical and concrete (Luyten 2006; Vossen 2007a). Fourthly, it can be said that people are increasingly confronted with the need in other parts of the world. This need touches them personally and pushes them to come into concrete action. People do not only want to donate money but they want to become involved personally (Schulpen 2007a: 123, Beerends and Broere 2005: 175). Brok and Bouzoubaa (2005) conclude that many of their respondents have established relationships with a developing country and its inhabitants due to work, studies or traveling. This bond forms the core of their motivation to be active. People start PIs because they experience a moral case for aid and because of some sense of responsibility or duty to help people suffering and in need (Easterly 2007: 119). Develtere and Stessens argue that these initiatives can be found in many countries and are a sign of development becoming a day-to-day business (2006: 2). Development becomes something one does as a citizen of the world Typification of PIs The Belgian researchers Develtere & Stessens (2006: 4) and the Dutch researcher Schulpen agree that there is a great diversity of PI groupings and organizations. It is difficult to create division lines and place PIs in clear groups. Throughout his research, Schulpen (2007) characterizes the PIs in different ways, namely according to: the way they are organized in the Netherlands, the (sector of) activities in the developing country, specific objective or target group. Furthermore the authors characterizes based on where the PIs mainly get their funding from. Part of the Initiatives in the Netherlands apply for funding with a MFO or other subsidizing organizations, but many others run their activities on merely private funds. The next two sections give typologies for the organization in the North and in the South Typology PIs in the North The broad group of initiatives of active citizens in the Netherlands can according to Schulpen be divided into six categories (2007: 9) (see Table 1.2): 1. political lobby groups; 2. fundraising activities; 3. philanthropists/charitable foundations; 4. volunteers; 5. individual sponsoring and 6. development organizations. Schulpen notes that a few clarifying remarks need to be made with this classification. Type 2 (fundraising activities) is not involved in the actual implementation of development interventions and normally also has no direct contacts with organizations or people in developing countries. Schulpen furthermore explains that PI-type 6 (development organizations) is formed by those citizens who are involved in concrete development interventions which exceed supporting one individual or a family. Type 6 PIs covers a very broad range of (groups of) individuals. This type is 7

20 the focus of Schulpen s study. There are three issues that should be stressed in this classification, according to Schulpen. First, development organizations often entail collective action with Type 4 and 5 being the obvious examples. Certainly not in all cases development organizations are officially registered organizations in the Netherlands, although many of them are (mostly as foundation/stichting). Second, the PI-types distinguished here are not necessarily mutually excluding. Practically all Type 6 PIs are, for instance, involved in fundraising (principally for their own organization) and might use any number of volunteers. Following this, and third, people and organizations may change from one type to another over time. The clearest switch is towards type 6. This can be for example citizens starting out as type 4 volunteers working in a specific country and ending up with starting their own development organizations or citizens starting as type 5 and gradually moving into development interventions covering a broader target group (Schulpen 2007: 8-10). Table 1.2 Typification of Private Initiatives (Schulpen 2007: 9) 1. Political lobby groups Private citizens who (in the Netherlands or abroad) try to influence international policy with regard to developing countries and international cooperation 2. Fundraising activities Private citizens who set up fundraising activities for development (in cash and/or materials) interventions supported and/or implemented by others (e.g., traditional NGOs or PIs of type 6). 3. Philanthropists / Wealthy citizens active in the charity sector often with their own Charitable foundations organization and programme(s). 4. Volunteers Private citizens who work as temporary development workers in a developing country (or with a development organization) 5. Individual sponsoring Private citizens who (financially) support a specific individual (or family) in a developing country. 6. Development organizations Private citizens who are directly linked (for funding, expertise and/or implementation) to concrete development interventions in developing countries which cover more than one individual or family Typology PIs in the South Schulpen argues that the most clear dividing line for the activities of PIs in the South is between PIs active in what he calls brick-and-mortar activities and between more complex interventions. The first type of activity concerns the construction of for example schools and the supply of goods, which are often temporary assistance and tangible projects. According to Schulpen the problem with these interventions is that no changes take place in the structure that is responsible for these services and materials not being available (Schulpen 2007: iii). These projects mostly have relatively small budgets and are short and temporary. Their goals are adapted to their size and time span. Mostly these PIs are run by volunteers and react to acute needs and they don t want to change things on macro level but on the micro level. Schulpen s divide is similar to that of the Blaauwberg Report, who breaks down PIs in on the one hand small, usually temporarily organizations with projects or actions without the tendency to professionalize, and on the other hand organizations with a more semi-permanent structure (not exclusively attached to a single project). Blaauwberg argues most PIs are active in the first field and several of the PIs over the years move into more complex interventions (Blaauwberg 2006: 48). Many PIs active in the first category work in the area of health and education. Organizations that move into more complex interventions deal with for example micro credit or group formation of farmers (Schulpen 2007: iii). Complex interventions deal with more structural change and are of longer duration (see Table 1.3). 8

21 In sum, type 6 development organizations vary in size and professional approach and involvement in implementation of the project in the South. Besides the differences in activities and size of the organizations and projects in the South, it also is important to distinguish in how far the organization and/or projects is institutionalized and embedded in the development sector. This depends on factors as local registration with the government and cooperation with existing local NGOs. Table 1.3 PI Activities Brick-and-mortar intervention Onetime or temporarily, short assistance Small budget Goods supply, construction One project Complex intervention Semi-permanent, permanent Larger budget Training, or e.g. micro credit Diverse projects Organizations that subsidize PIs Former Minister Pronk of Development Cooperation decided in 1991 to set up the program Kleinschalige Plaatselijke Activiteiten 9 (KPA). Through this program the government was able to answer the requests of civilians for financial support to be able to do development themselves. KPA was and still is a subsidy channel for Private Initiatives. For Minister Pronk, this program explicitly was not only about small-scale development, but the KPA also had to be an instrument to create more social support for development cooperation, because small scale projects would show results quickly. Applicants for subsidy had to both create publicity and raise funds and for their activities, and the amount of money would be doubled by the KPA-fund (Beerends and Broere 2004: 176). In 1994 the KPA program was handed over to the Nationaal Committee voor Internationale Samenwerking en Duurzame Ontwikkeling (National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development, NCDO). NCDO is not a MFO but its core goal is to strengthen and highlight public support for international cooperation and sustainable development and achievement of the Millennium Goals 10. The Dutch government considers it important that all parts of Dutch society get involved with international cooperation. The NCDO has as its task to stimulate that involvement, make results visible and be a bridge between government and civilians. NCDO encourages private development initiatives of Dutch civilians and wants to help improve their quality. This is amongst others done through the KPA program which has as its main goal the strengthening of involvement of the Dutch public with international cooperation. The program provides a financial contribution to projects in development countries, initiated by local or regional groups in the Netherlands. An applicant needs to raise publicity and information activities combined with fundraising amongst the Dutch public (2007c: 3). The budget of the program increased in ten years from 1,2 million Euro (2,5 million Guilders) in 1994 to 6,75 million Euro in 2004 (Brok & Bouzoubaa 2005: 5). In 2006 NCDO funded 498 projects of the 518 project applications within the KPA Program (2007: 8). Recently Minister Koenders decided that he wants to stop the subsidizing activities of NCDO that are aimed at creating social basis (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2008). It is however yet unclear when this will happen and what this will mean for the programs of NCDO. NCDO partners with Wilde Ganzen in a subsidizing program and they organize a yearly conference where PIs can meet and learn from each other. Wilde Ganzen was established in 1957 and distinguishes itself from the MFOs and NCDO because the organization supports PIs with private funds, instead of government funds. And unlike the MFOs but like NCDO, Wilde Ganzen does not run development projects themselves but only supports private projects 11. What furthermore distinguishes Wilde Ganzen is that not the Dutch initiator is the contract partner, but the local organization in the South. Wilde Ganzen places the initiative, design, implementation and reporting of the project with the Southern partner. Wilde Ganzen recently founded partners in Brazil, 9 Translation: Program for Small-scale Local Activities. 10 Source: Accessed 8 August Source: Accessed

22 India and South Africa, which will eventually become independent local fundraisers (Aangeenbrug 2008). There are five Medefinancieringsorganisaties (MFOs or co-financing organizations) part of the nongovernmental aid channel in the Netherlands 12. The MFOs receive money from the development budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and are active in the developing countries the Dutch government partners with 13 (with other income they are often active in more countries). Other organizations can also apply for the co-financing program of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, conditions are: a broad program with partners in multiple countries and have an approach which does not overlap with the existing MFOs. The co-financing budget is approximately 11 to 14% of the total budget for development cooperation 14. Minister Herfkens initiated a cooperative subsidy office of the co-financing organizations. With Minister van Ardenne, this was implemented. Four MFOs founded in succession of the KPA program the so-called front offices in 2001, and started to process subsidy applications from private initiatives. In January 2003 the cooperative platform Linkis was founded (Brok & Bouzoubaa 2005: 44). Linkis means: low threshold initiatives and knowledge centre for international cooperation 15. The Linkis platform functions as a digital portal which forwards applicants to the individual MFOs. Despite the Linkis portal and the partnership between NCDO and Wilde Ganzen, all the organizations involved have their own structure and criteria for the financing of PIs. Further there is a difference between the different types of programmes and projects that are subsidized by the organizations, and also the criteria to assess the applying PIs. The front-offices do have in common that they ask the Dutch PI to work together with a local partner. NCDO s motive to fund PIs is primarily focused on the creation of social basis. According to the director of NCDO that motive differs from that of MFOs, whose front offices are fuelled by the fact that the Initiatives can be included with the 25 percent norm of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that requires the MFOs to raise 25 % of their budget (Roozeboom 2007). However, NCDO is an organization which primarily focuses on the creation of social basis and the MFOs are poverty reduction organizations. Lastly, a difference with NCDO is that the MFOs and Wilde Ganzen pay working visits to (part of) their projects and NCDO does not. The effect of PIs applying for subsidy with one of these organizations is that they position themselves within the framework of these organizations. The subsidizers are a back donor which needs to be accounted to, so the PIs concerned need to comply with the subsidizers guidelines (concerning development cooperation and poverty reduction). But it is also through the perspective of the government and subsidizing organizations that Private Initiatives obtain the role of creators of public support for development cooperation. So on the one hand there is a trend of cooptation and identification of PIs with the conventional sector, and on the other hand the existence and work of PIs is justified by their purpose of creating public support. In section 1.4 the discussion about how PIs can be assessed will be clarified. But will be explored how effectiveness and evaluation is perceived in conventional development cooperation. 12 Cordaid, Hivos, ICCO, Oxfam Novib, PLAN Nederland. 13 Source: Accessed The ultimate size of this form of aid depends on the quality of the projects and programmes. Until recently (2005) the co-financing organizations could count on a set percentage of the budget. A new, more flexible approach aims at increasing the transparency and quality of the program. 15 Source: Accessed Translation: Laagdrempelige Initiatieven en Kenniscentrum voor Internationale Samenwerking. Linkis consists out of: Cordaid, Hivos, Oxfam/Novib and Impulsis (ICCO and Kerkinactie). 10

23 1.3 Evaluation in development cooperation Development organizations are under increasing pressure to more extensively account for the effectiveness of their actions and how they spent their recourses. The fact that accountability of NGOs acquired interest since the nineties is connected to their changing role and position. Since the fall of the Berlin wall NGOs have grown in size and means, partly due to privatization processes in the North, as we have seen in section 1.1. The pressure for international NGOs to account is imposed by actors that are under accounting pressure themselves, like: governments and international organizations like the UN and the World Bank (Fox & Brown 1998, Jordan & van Tuijl 2006). Evaluation, assessment and reporting are tools to measure the quality and effectiveness of development interventions. This research is not an evaluation in itself but does deal with evaluation and quality criteria. In this section is explained how evaluation is defined in conventional development cooperation. First, the significance of evaluation is explained and distinction between a first and a second generation of evaluation criteria is made. Second, evaluation concepts for development aid are discussed by making use of definitions of (multilateral) development organizations added by a short discussion of the concepts which shows that their interpretation varies and is contested First and second generation evaluation concepts Evaluation in international development organizations is understood as follows. The Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en Beleidsevaluatie (IOB, Inspection Development Cooperation and Policy Evaluation) is the independent evaluation service of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs 16. The IOB (2003) uses the definition of the OECD/DAC 17 for evaluation: An evaluation is an assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an ongoing or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. An evaluation should provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision making process of both recipients and donors. It is important to make a distinction between evaluation in the narrow sense and evaluation in the broad sense. The former meaning evaluation on project level (the goals of the project) and the latter meaning the contribution of a project to broader development goals. Furthermore, a first and a second generation of evaluation criteria can be distinguished throughout the past decennia (Table 1.4). In Chapter 1 has been discovered that before the eighties the broad goals of development aid concerned mainly technical and material goals of economic growth and creation of employment. Development assistance was conceived as a transfer of financial resources and technical skills from rich countries to poor countries, and projects were convenient vehicles for such transactions. As long as physical investment was perceived as the primary engine of development, the project approach to performance measurement, monitoring, and management remained dominant. Standard disbursement, and auditing controls help to ensure that the resources allocated to finance project inputs are used for the purposes for which they are intended, while cost-benefit analysis verifies that projects add value to the economy of the recipient country. This is translated in narrow project goals of efficiency, effectiveness and relevance. Relevance is the extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries requirements (OECD/DAC 2002: 32). Efficiency is a measure of how economically resources (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results (OECD/DAC 2002: 21 and IOB 2003). Effectiveness measures the extent to which the development intervention s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance (OECD/DAC 2002: 20). However, section 1.1 describes that development thinking and its main goals have shifted throughout the years from economic growth to poverty alleviation. The focus on finance and capital 16 Source: Accessed Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Development Assistance Committee 11