IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v38y2020i6p728-746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Government and civil society organizations: Close but comfortable? Lessons from creating the Dutch “Strategic Partnerships for Lobby and Advocacy”

Author

Listed:
  • Margit Van Wessel
  • Dorothea Hilhorst
  • Lau Schulpen
  • Kees Biekart

Abstract

Motivation Governments commonly support the advocacy role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in development, but studies argue that close linkages between government and CSOs are problematic. The Netherlands’ Dialogue and Dissent policy programme brings together the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NMFA) and 25 (alliances of) CSOs as advocacy partners. The programme is set up from an awareness of the challenging nature of such collaboration. Purpose We contribute to understanding the ways in which issues with donor–CSO collaboration can be engaged in donor policies. This article addresses two questions: To what extent and how does this programme confront and overcome the challenges of close collaboration between government and CSOs? What practical lessons can be learned? Approach We conducted 33 (group) interviews with CSOs and policy officers involved with the Dialogue and Dissent programme, exploring their understandings, expectations and strategies as partners in the programme. We also analysed CSO programmes, policy documents and publicly available information. Findings In Dialogue and Dissent, space for dissent, flexibility and relative equality between government and CSOs positively address mutuality and institutional pressures. Challenges remain as estimated strategic significance, diverging capacities and risks to autonomy work against mutuality. Certain challenges are engaged with, but we identified no strategies countering pressures that stem from managerialism within the NMFA, external political pressures and conflicting government objectives. While the programme counters tendencies towards institutionalization of CSOs as insiders, some important challenges to public engagement identified in the literature remain insufficiently addressed. Conclusions Conditions built into policy can address challenges identified in the literature. However, challenges remain that are rooted in wider organizational and political realities. Lessons for practice are: (1) the advocacy role of CSOs can be advanced by building in certain formal conditions and advancing these informally; (2) flexibility allows for collaboration to develop as government and CSOs negotiate their roles, cognizant of pressures that get in the way; (3) challenges rooted beyond the support policy and government agency involved in the collaboration will constrict the power of policy design; (4) public engagement as a foundation for CSOs’ advocacy roles deserves much more attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Margit Van Wessel & Dorothea Hilhorst & Lau Schulpen & Kees Biekart, 2020. "Government and civil society organizations: Close but comfortable? Lessons from creating the Dutch “Strategic Partnerships for Lobby and Advocacy”," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 38(6), pages 728-746, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:38:y:2020:i:6:p:728-746
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12453
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12453?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Duncan, 2016. "How Change Happens," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198785392.
    2. Willem Elbers & Luuk Knippenberg & Lau Schulpen, 2014. "Trust Or Control? Private Development Cooperation At The Crossroads," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34(1), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Edwards, Michael & Hulme, David, 1996. "Too close for comfort? the impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 961-973, June.
    4. Brinkerhoff, Jennifer M., 2002. "Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: a proposed framework," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 215-231, August.
    5. Banks, Nicola & Hulme, David & Edwards, Michael, 2015. "NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for Comfort?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 707-718.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lena Gutheil & Dirk‐Jan Koch, 2023. "Civil society organizations and managerialism: On the depoliticization of the adaptive management agenda," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(1), January.
    2. Echica van Kelle & Sarah I. Spronk & Denis Kibira & Carolien J. Aantjes, 2023. "Rethinking the donor's role in strengthening health systems through sexual and reproductive health and rights partnerships: A qualitative analysis of Ugandan case studies," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(7), pages 1711-1730, October.
    3. Emmanuel Kumi & Tara Saharan, 2022. "Hybridisation of institutional logics and civil society organisations' advocacy in Kenya," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(4), pages 245-255, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alisa Moldavanova & Tamaki Onishi & Stefan Toepler, 2023. "Civil society and democratization: The role of service‐providing organizations amid closing civic spaces," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(1), pages 3-13, February.
    2. Boomsma, Roel & O'Dwyer, Brendan, 2019. "Constituting the governable NGO: The correlation between conduct and counter-conduct in the evolution of funder-NGO accountability relations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-20.
    3. Dewi, Miranti Kartika & Manochin, Melina & Belal, Ataur, 2021. "Towards a conceptual framework of beneficiary accountability by NGOs: An Indonesian case study," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. Susan Appe & Nadia Rubaii & Kerry Whigham, 2023. "Civil society organizations and the prevention of mass atrocities: Perspectives from south Sudan," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(1), pages 14-25, February.
    5. Alin Kadfak & Miriam Wilhelm & Patrik Oskarsson, 2023. "Thai Labour NGOs during the ‘Modern Slavery’ Reforms: NGO Transitions in a Post‐aid World," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 54(3), pages 570-600, May.
    6. Lena Gutheil & Dirk‐Jan Koch, 2023. "Civil society organizations and managerialism: On the depoliticization of the adaptive management agenda," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(1), January.
    7. Girei, Emanuela, 2023. "Managerialisation, accountability and everyday resistance in the NGO sector: Whose interests matter?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Emmanuel Kumi, 2022. "Domestic resource mobilisation strategies of national non‐governmental organisations in Ghana," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(2), pages 109-127, May.
    9. Dipendra, K.C., 2020. "Which aid targets poor at the sub-national level?," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    10. Aeshna Badruzzaman, 2023. "Repositioning urban bias: Non‐state providers' use of spatialised networks in Bangladesh," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, February.
    11. Brass, Jennifer N. & Longhofer, Wesley & Robinson, Rachel S. & Schnable, Allison, 2018. "NGOs and international development: A review of thirty-five years of scholarship," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 136-149.
    12. Jackie Shaw & Mary Wickenden & Stephen Thompson & Philip Mader, 2022. "Achieving disability inclusive employment – Are the current approaches deep enough?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(5), pages 942-963, July.
    13. Cem Iskender Aydin & Begum Ozkaynak & Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos & Taylan Yenilmez, 2017. "Network effects in environmental justice struggles: An investigation of conflicts between mining companies and civil society organizations from a network perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Kopel, Michael & Marini, Marco A., 2022. "Mandatory disclosure of managerial contracts in NGOs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 65-85.
    15. Yasmin, Sofia & Ghafran, Chaudhry, 2019. "The problematics of accountability: Internal responses to external pressures in exposed organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Peter Nunnenkamp & Hannes Öhler, 2012. "Funding, Competition and the Efficiency of NGOs : An Empirical Analysis of Non‐charitable Expenditure of US NGOs Engaged in Foreign Aid," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 81-110, February.
    17. Leonard, David K. & Bloom, Gerald & Hanson, Kara & O’Farrell, Juan & Spicer, Neil, 2013. "Institutional Solutions to the Asymmetric Information Problem in Health and Development Services for the Poor," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 71-87.
    18. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Dreher, Axel & Nunnenkamp, Peter & Thiel, Susann & Thiele, Rainer, 2010. "Aid allocation by German NGOs: Does the degree of public refinancing matter?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 92, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    20. Yasmin, Sofia & Ghafran, Chaudhry & Haniffa, Roszaini, 2018. "Exploring de-facto accountability regimes in Muslim NGOs," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 235-247.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:38:y:2020:i:6:p:728-746. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.