IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v105y2018icp248-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new model of development coalition building: USAID achieving legitimate access and dominant information in Bangladesh’s forest policy

Author

Listed:
  • Rahman, Md Saifur
  • Miah, Sohag
  • Giessen, Lukas

Abstract

The influence of non-domestic actors and institutions on domestic policymaking process has been a constant research topic for a long time in the field of development studies. During recent years, however, the coalition strategy of foreign donors seems to have changed in favor of non-governmental allies in development cooperation, instead of state bureaucracies of the target countries. As a key foreign donor, for instance, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has introduced the forest co-management development concept, altering important policy and institutional settings in Bangladesh. The changes resulted from a combination of development inputs and politics, including funding, technical assistance and coalition with multiple, mostly non-state stakeholders. In this article, we use the concepts of development policy change, the global governance theorem of direct access to domestic policymaking process, and bureaucratic politics theory from development policy analysis for analyzing this new coalition strategy. A mixed qualitative-quantitative methods approach and the case of the USAID-induced forest co-management development model were employed to analyze the new coalition strategy based on the main interests of the donor. The results indicate that in the development process, USAID formed coalitions with non-state actors at all levels, thus circumventing national bureaucracies. The donor substantially involved non-state actors to (1) overcome the dominant information of state bureaucracies by eliciting data in the donors’ informal interests, (2) gain control over the implementation process at multiple levels, and (3) enhance pressure on all levels of government for substantive policy changes. In contrast, the initial and very marginal coalitions with state agencies imply an initial cost for legitimately accessing a country’s governance system. Furthermore, such detouring of state agencies poses the questions of operational authority and, concurrently, of ownership to sustain the changed practices. A broader implication based on the study findings is to especially consider the sovereignty issue in a development context in a recipient country.

Suggested Citation

  • Rahman, Md Saifur & Miah, Sohag & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "A new model of development coalition building: USAID achieving legitimate access and dominant information in Bangladesh’s forest policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 248-261.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:105:y:2018:i:c:p:248-261
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X17304229
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.029?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Krott, Max, 2012. "Identifying policy change — Analytical program analysis: An example of two decades of forest policy in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 93-99.
    2. Younas, Javed, 2008. "Motivation for bilateral aid allocation: Altruism or trade benefits," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 661-674, September.
    3. Scheba, Andreas & Mustalahti, Irmeli, 2015. "Rethinking ‘expert’ knowledge in community forest management in Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 7-18.
    4. Tammy L. Lewis, 2003. "Environmental Aid: Driven by Recipient Need or Donor Interests?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(1), pages 144-161, March.
    5. Giessen, Lukas & Krott, Max & Möllmann, Torsten, 2014. "Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 97-104.
    6. J. Svensson, 1999. "Aid, Growth and Democracy," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 275-297, November.
    7. Jean‐Claude Berthélemy, 2006. "Bilateral Donors’ Interest vs. Recipients’ Development Motives in Aid Allocation: Do All Donors Behave the Same?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 179-194, May.
    8. Shackleton, Charlie M. & Pandey, Ashok K., 2014. "Positioning non-timber forest products on the development agenda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-7.
    9. Maizels, Alfred & Nissanke, Machiko K., 1984. "Motivations for aid to developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 12(9), pages 879-900, September.
    10. Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Formal and Informal Interests of Donors to Allocate Aid: Spending Patterns of USAID, GIZ, and EU Forest Development Policy in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 250-267.
    11. Lindstad, Berit H. & Solberg, Birger, 2010. "Challenges in determining national effects of international policy processes: Forest protection in Norway as a case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 489-496, September.
    12. Anke Hoeffler & Verity Outram, 2011. "Need, Merit, or Self‐Interest—What Determines the Allocation of Aid?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 237-250, May.
    13. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Foreign donors driving policy change in recipient countries: Three decades of development aid towards community-based forest policy in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 39-53.
    14. Dowling, J. M. & Hiemenz, Ulrich, 1985. "Biases in the allocation of foreign aid: Some new evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 535-541, April.
    15. Lukas Giessen & Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman, 2016. "International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, April.
    16. Burns, Sarah L. & Krott, Max & Sayadyan, Hovik & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "The World Bank Improving Environmental and Natural Resource Policies: Power, Deregulation, and Privatization in (Post-Soviet) Armenia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 215-224.
    17. Schusser, Carsten & Krott, Max & Yufanyi Movuh, Mbolo C. & Logmani, Jacqueline & Devkota, Rosan R. & Maryudi, Ahamad & Salla, Manjola & Bach, Ngo Duy, 2015. "Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry — Results of an international study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 92-101.
    18. Gulrajani, Nilima, 2017. "Bilateral Donors and the Age of the National Interest: What Prospects for Challenge by Development Agencies?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 375-389.
    19. Gellert, Paul K., 2005. "The Shifting Natures of "Development": Growth, Crisis, and Recovery in Indonesia's Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1345-1364, August.
    20. Md Saifur Rahman & Lukas Giessen, 2017. "The power of public bureaucracies: forest-related climate change policies in Bangladesh (1992–2014)," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 915-935, October.
    21. Sue Unsworth, 2009. "What's politics got to do with it?: Why donors find it so hard to come to terms with politics, and why this matters," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 883-894.
    22. Smith, Joyotee & Colan, Violeta & Sabogal, Cesar & Snook, Laura, 2006. "Why policy reforms fail to improve logging practices: The role of governance and norms in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 458-469, June.
    23. Jan P. Pronk, 2001. "Aid as a Catalyst," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 32(4), pages 611-629, September.
    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. Fatem, Sepus M. & Awang, San A. & Pudyatmoko, Satyawan & Sahide, Muhammad A.K. & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "Camouflaging economic development agendas with forest conservation narratives: A strategy of lower governments for gaining authority in the re-centralising Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 699-710.
    2. Tapan Kumar Nath & Mohammed Jashimuddin & Makoto Inoue, 2020. "Achieving sustainable development goals through participatory forest management: Examples from South‐Eastern Bangladesh," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(4), pages 353-368, November.
    3. Fischer, Richard & Lippe, Melvin & Dolom, Priscilla & Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Tamayo, Fabian & Torres, Bolier, 2023. "Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Islam, Kazi Nazrul & Rahman, Mohammad Mahfuzur & Jashimuddin, Mohammed & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Islam, Kamrul & Faroque, Mohiuddin Al, 2019. "Analyzing multi-temporal satellite imagery and stakeholders' perceptions to have an insight into how forest co-management is changing the protected area landscapes in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 70-80.
    5. Begum, Flora & de Bruyn, Lisa Lobry & Kristiansen, Paul & Islam, Mohammad Amirul, 2023. "Development pathways for co-management in the Sundarban mangrove forest: A multiple stakeholder perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. Khan, Md Faisal Abedin & Uddin, Md Sazib & Giessen, Lukas, 2021. "Microcredit expansion and informal donor interests: Experiences from local NGOs in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest, Bangladesh," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    7. Subhan Mollick, Abdus & Khalilur Rahman, Md. & Nabiul Islam Khan, Md. & Nazmus Sadath, Md., 2018. "Evaluation of good governance in a participatory forestry program: A case study in Madhupur Sal forests of Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 123-137.

    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. Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Formal and Informal Interests of Donors to Allocate Aid: Spending Patterns of USAID, GIZ, and EU Forest Development Policy in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 250-267.
    2. Fatem, Sepus M. & Awang, San A. & Pudyatmoko, Satyawan & Sahide, Muhammad A.K. & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "Camouflaging economic development agendas with forest conservation narratives: A strategy of lower governments for gaining authority in the re-centralising Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 699-710.
    3. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Policy changes resulting in power changes? Quantitative evidence from 25 years of forest policy development in Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 419-431.
    4. Peterson, Lauri & Skovgaard, Jakob, 2019. "Bureaucratic politics and the allocation of climate finance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 72-97.
    5. Singer, Benjamin & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 69-79.
    6. Arts, Bas & Brockhaus, Maria & Giessen, Lukas & McDermott, Constance L., 2024. "The performance of global forest governance: Three contrasting perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    7. Khan, Md Faisal Abedin & Uddin, Md Sazib & Giessen, Lukas, 2021. "Microcredit expansion and informal donor interests: Experiences from local NGOs in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest, Bangladesh," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    8. Jing Shao & Maojun Wang, 2020. "Analyzing the spatial allocation of Japan’s aid to China: A perspective from the relations between aid allocation stakeholders," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 1277-1303, September.
    9. Baydag, Rena Melis & Klingebiel, Stephan & Marschall, Paul, 2018. "Shaping the patterns of aid allocation: a comparative analysis of seven bilateral donors and the European Union," IDOS Discussion Papers 22/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    10. Samuel Brazys & Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati & Tianyang Song, 2019. "Which Wheel Gets the Grease? Constituent Agency and Sub-national World Bank Aid Allocation," Working Papers 201907, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    11. Jung, Yunji & Kim, Juno & Kim, Kyunghun, 2024. "Whom is economic aid meant for? The push vs. pull determinant factors of official development assistance," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 173-195.
    12. Sèna Kimm Gnangnon, 2016. "Market Access of OECD Donor Countries and Their Supply of Aid for Trade," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 1-38, February.
    13. Balázs Szent-Iványi, 2015. "Are Democratising Countries Rewarded with Higher Levels of Foreign Aid?," Acta Oeconomica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 65(4), pages 593-615, December.
    14. Breßlein, Martin & Schmaljohann, Maya, 2013. "Surrender your market! Do the G5 countries use World Bank Trade Conditionality to promote Trade?," Working Papers 0550, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    15. Lukas Giessen & Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman, 2016. "International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, April.
    16. Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Kotilainen, Juha, 2020. "Power relations in community resilience and politics of shifting cultivation in Laos," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Foreign donors driving policy change in recipient countries: Three decades of development aid towards community-based forest policy in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 39-53.
    18. Hasnaoui, Ameni & Krott, Max, 2019. "Forest governance and the Arab spring: A case study of state forests in Tunisia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 99-111.
    19. Donaubauer, Julian & Meyer, Birgit & Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2016. "Aid, Infrastructure, and FDI: Assessing the Transmission Channel with a New Index of Infrastructure," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 230-245.
    20. Mark McGillivray, 2003. "Efficacité de l'aide et sélectivité : vers un concept élargi," Revue d’économie du développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 11(4), pages 43-62.

    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:eee:wdevel:v:105:y:2018:i:c:p:248-261. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    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.