Brian
Bolzan
 IMP
Project
Prospectus

 International
Development
 20
April
2012

 NGOs:
Social
Empowerment
for
Sustainable
Development?


 
 NGOs
that
are
accountable
to
the
needs
of
the
community
they
operate


within
are
the
most
successful
at
implementing
sustainable
development.
The
most
 appropriate
measure
of
success
in
NGOs
is
sustainable
development
or
how
long‐ term
their
initiatives
are
focused.
It
is
the
most
resilient
model
when
considering
 many
of
the
complex
problems
faced
by
developing
regions.
Development
is
not
one
 size
fits
all
and,
thus,
interventions
need
to
be
community‐specific
in
order
to
 implement
solutions
that
meet
the
needs
of
both
current
and
future
generations.
 Non‐governmental
organizations
are
foremost
accountable
to
the
expectations
of
 their
donors;
this
can
sometimes
be
divergent
with
the
actual
needs
of
their
 constituency.
Frequently,
NGOs
channel
aid
resources
toward
infrastructural
 upgrades
that
efficiently
deliver
social
services
to
communities.
However,
the
 transmission
of
technical
and
organizational
skills
doesn’t
always
occur
at
the
same
 rate
as
the
transfer
of
the
technology.
This
reduces
the
autonomy
of
communities
to
 maintain
their
infrastructure
and,
counterintuitively,
can
create
dependence.
 Failure,
then,
can
be
seen
as
the
lack
of
investment
and
education
in
the
local
 capacity
to
maintain
infrastructure.
NGO’s
achieve
sustainable
development
when


they
engage
in
social
empowerment
in
addition
to
the
development
of
essential
 infrastructure.

 International
Development
assistance
and
by
extension
the
aid
system
were
 traditionally
functions
of
the
state.
The
introduction
of
neoliberal
reforms
under
the
 Washington
Consensus
in
the
global
South
rationalized
the
efficiency
of
the
free
 market
in
delivering
economic
growth.
Neoliberal
policy
prescriptions
of
the
 International
Monetary
Fund
and
World
Bank
conditioned
developing
countries
into
 making
structural
adjustments
to
trade
barriers,
privatize
services,
and
deregulate
 industry
in
order
to
secure
loans
for
infrastructural
development.
The
expectation
is
 that
by
reducing
national
fiscal
imbalances,
economies
should
become
more
market‐ oriented
and
raise
living
standards.
However,
this
model
is
not
universally
 adaptable
and
even
with
more
participatory
approaches
of
drafting
Poverty
 Reduction
Strategy
Papers
the
outcome
has
predictably
been
economic
stagnation
 (Atack
855).
Non‐governmental
organizations,
as
the
third
actor,
have
had
to
 assume
the
function
of
delivering
social
services
with
the
diminished
role
of
the
 state
in
development.
Their
relative
autonomy
and
depoliticized
organization
have
 enabled
NGOs
to
intervene
and
implement
sustainable
development
projects
in
 underdeveloped
regions
with
varying
degrees
of
success.
The
effectiveness
of
 initiatives
depends
on
how
NGOs
assess
their
targets,
how
resources
are
allocated,
 how
projects
are
managed,
and
their
long‐term
efficacy.
Projects
that
focus
on
long‐

term
impact
rather
than
short‐term
output
of
capital
are
inherently
more
grassroots
 oriented
and,
thus,
more
effective
at
implementing
dynamic
infrastructure.

 The
decline
of
the
state’s
role
in
development
has
signified
a
transition
from
 top‐down
bureaucratic
growth
to
a
more
democratized
bottom‐up
approach
to
 social
improvement.
NGOs
represent
a
new
policy
consensus
of
democratization,
 stepping
in
to
meet
the
needs
of
marginal
sectors
of
society.
Ideally,
a
balanced
 partnership
between
the
state
and
NGOs
could
institute
a
means
of
holding
non‐ governmental
organizations
accountable
to
the
interests
of
society.
The
shift
toward
 the
provision
of
social
services
is
linked
to
necessity
of
the
poorest
sections
of
 populations
in
the
retreat
of
the
state.
Multi‐lateral
lending
institutions
have
come
 under
scrutiny
in
recent
years
as
aid
has
been
misused
and
the
mismanagement
of
 projects
has
led
to
a
lack
of
intervention
in
marginal
communities
(Malunga
1‐50).
 NGOs
represent
an
alternative,
as
they
have
been
more
efficient
at
creating
income‐ generating
opportunities.
A
key
to
their
relative
success
is
the
implementation
of
 beneficiary
participation
as
their
inclusive
approach
to
enabling
capacity
building
 for
commitment
to
the
maintenance
of
projects.
There
is
no
conflict
between
the
 efficiency
of
the
private
and
public
as
this
form
of
community
development
creates
 multiple
stakeholders
who
have
a
common
interest
in
improving
standards
of
living.
 Arguably
one
of
the
most
redistributive
means
of
implementing
social‐sector
 reforms
is
through
targeting
essential
infrastructure
that
can
help
to
buffer
against
 the
effects
of
structural
adjustment.
Often,
resources
are
directed
toward
urban


middle‐class
projects
and
to
the
detriment
of
rural
poor
areas.
Decentralization
of
 delivery
allows
decisions
about
resource
allocation
to
be
made
democratically,
 accountability
to
the
requirements
of
community
can
be
maintained,
and
 connections
on
the
ground
level
ensure
that
participation
can
be
incorporated.
 Efficiency
and
flexibility
can
be
achieved
as
a
consequence
of
mobilizing
 communities
around
the
transfer
of
capacity
to
preserve
infrastructure.



 Development
is
short‐lived
without
addressing
the
capacity
of
the
local
 community
to
maintain
the
projects
once
they
are
established.
Sustainable
 development
is
an
incremental
process
and
ultimately
has
to
be
considered
in
 defining
the
success
or
failure
of
development
efforts.
Not
only
does
empowerment
 follow
an
accountable
and
culturally
relevant
approach
to
developing
infrastructure,
 but
it
also
enables
local
knowledge
to
inform
development
interventions.
It
is
 advantageous
to
focus
resources
to
raising
material
living
standards
and
advancing
 organizational
skills
equally.
By
placing
an
emphasis
on
strengthening
local
 institutions
to
assume
more
management
responsibilities,
communities
will
remain
 competent
once
NGO
support
is
removed.
Social
empowerment
follows
both
a
 temporal
and
terminal
approach
by
remaining
accountable
to
the
needs
of
the
 constituency.
Civil
society
is
well
suited
to
target
marginal
populations
directly
and
 utilize
a
participatory
model
within
a
localized
context.
Whether
or
not
 empowerment
can
be
incorporated
has
to
do
with
the
relationship
of
the
NGO
to
the
 community
and
how
they
situate
their
values
(Kilby
951‐960).
Grassroots
NGOs


challenge
the
Western
paradigm
in
development
thought,
which
values
the
expert
 knowledge
and
solutions
of
specialists
as
required
input
for
success
in
the
field.
 Thus,
NGO
attempts
to
standardize
operational
procedures
on
a
large
scale,
in
order
 to
more
efficiently
deliver
social
services,
fail
to
effectively
implement
sustainable
 growth
(Edwards
461).
There
is
no
universally
applicable
model
for
community
 development,
as
it
doesn’t
occur
in
a
vacuum
and
is
dependent
on
external
 pressures.
Through
empowerment,
people
receive
the
education
and
skills
to
 address
deep‐rooted
problems
and
structural
inequalities
of
access
to
basic
needs.

 Global
Vision
International,
an
international
NGO,
operates
at
the
grassroots
 level
in
Fiji,
implementing
a
bottom‐up
approach
to
more
democratically
improve
 the
conditions
of
the
communities
it
works
within.
It’s
working
partnership
with
the
 indigenous
organization
the
Yassawa
Trust
Foundation
ensured
that
initiatives
 were
directed
toward
necessity.
These
remote
volcanic
islands
have
limited
natural
 water
catchment
and
become
subject
to
draughts
in
the
dry‐season.
The
plausible
 solution
was
to
increase
water
capacity
by
installing
rainwater‐harvesting
tanks
to
 ensure
adequate
access
to
safe
drinking
water
year
round.
Working
closely
with
the
 Yassawa
Trust
Foundation
27
villages
were
assessed
for
ongoing
water
security
 issues.
This
participatory
approach
enabled
the
upgrading
of
current
infrastructure
 and
installation
of
communal
catchment
tanks
where
it
was
agreed
they
would
be
 most
effective.
Based
off
the
Yassawa
Trust
requirement
model
of
5
liters
per
 person
per
day
during
the
dry
season
an
appraisal
of
resources
could
be
made
and


necessary
materials
were
purchased
(Lund
1‐39).
The
employ
of
water
filters
and
 lockable
taps
ensured
quality
and
quantity
management
of
water
reserves.
Added
 emphasis
was
placed
on
employing
local
residents
in
the
installation
and
upkeep
of
 gutters
in
the
hope
that
this
project
would
be
self‐sustaining.
Community
forums
 and
workshops
maintained
a
direct
line
of
communication
between
the
village
and
 organization
that
enabled
a
multi‐directional
exchange
of
ideas
on
improving
 infrastructure.
The
ancillary
issue
of
deficient
access
to
rural
healthcare
prompted
 the
initiative
to
focus
its
efforts
on
installing
mesh
covers
to
prevent
debris
and
 reusable
filters
that
would
increase
water
safety.

 In
an
effort
to
improve
village
nutrition
and
to
provide
alternative
sources
of
 income
GVI
implemented
a
community
garden
program.
Diabetes
and
other
chronic
 health
problems
are
a
probable
result
of
a
large‐scale
abandonment
of
traditional
 agricultural
practices
in
favor
of
cheaper
imported
food.
By
mobilizing
marginal
 sectors
and
particularly
women’s
groups
a
supply
chain
can
be
created
through
 growing
a
few
value‐added
crops
for
sale
and
other
nutritious
ones
for
consumption
 (Lund
1‐39).
Fewer
economic
activities
are
available
for
the
female
demographic
 who
are
often
engaged
primarily
in
domestic
labor,
so
the
establishment
of
 community
gardens
was
a
welcomed
opportunity.
Increased
water
storage
capacity
 has
enabled
the
planting
of
more
water
intensive
crops
year
round
that
can
meet
 caloric
needs
and
provide
a
diversity
of
nutrients
to
villagers.
With
the
high
price
of
 fuel
factoring
into
every
imported
item
in
this
remote
chain
of
islands,
money
saved


can
be
spent
on
other
necessities.
The
protection
of
the
commons
is
important
to
 island
communities,
which
have
a
vested
interest
in
living
within
their
ecological
 capacity.
Introduction
of
conservation
principles
including
drip
irrigation
and
 composting
animal
manure
works
to
close
a
metabolic
loop
in
producing
for
local
 consumption.
Skill
transfer
and
garden
training
was
stressed
in
establishing
a
viable
 sharecropping
operation
based
on
cooperative
achievement.
Both
the
rainwater
 harvesting
systems
and
community
agriculture
were
culturally
derived
 developments
that
carried
net‐benefits
socially.
Not
only
does
focusing
 infrastructure
on
community
requirement
enable
the
transfer
of
valuable
 technologies,
but
also
it
immeasurably
increases
the
faculty
of
villages
to
retain
a
 comfortable
quality
of
life.

 With
low
administrative
costs
most
of
the
funding
these
projects
receive
was
 allocated
directly
to
upgrades
as
well
as
training
and
empowering
local
citizens
in
 the
management/upkeep
of
these
tanks.
Organizationally
this
approach
was
 accessible
to
the
public
in
that
it
didn’t
rely
heavily
on
specialized
skills
and
gave
the
 villages
the
assistance
they
needed
to
improve
their
condition.
The
practice
of
 drafting
water
management
plans
and
assigning
responsibility
signifies
long‐term
 planning.
Rather
than
being
indicator‐driven,
these
projects
were
directed
toward
 the
provision
of
technical
assistance
and
skill
transfer
to
employ
long‐term
solutions
 (Lund
1‐39).
Failures
of
previous
efforts
to
target
development
objectives
were
 informed
by
discussions
at
community
forums,
which
recognized
that
tanks
were


brought
in,
but
soon
fell
into
disrepair.
Recognizing
failure
was
only
possible
with
a
 holistic
assessment
of
the
shortcomings
of
previous
attempts
to
resolve
structural
 problems.
Social
empowerment
was
the
main
difference
between
the
government’s
 unsuccessful
attempt
to
install
rainwater
collection
systems
and
GVI’s
approach
that
 mobilized
civil
society
to
implement
geographically
specific
solutions.
The
usage
of
 inexpensive
components
that
were
reusable
and
directing
the
community
in
 maintenance
of
these
systems
prioritized
longevity
as
the
goal.
Participatory
 development
was
realized
in
these
initiatives
by
accounting
for
the
expressed
needs
 of
the
population
as
the
objective
of
the
project.
The
efficient
management
of
 natural
resources
also
created
backward
linkages,
in
providing
water
security
to
 these
villages
resources
could
be
refocused
on
economic
development.
By
creating
 multiple
stakeholders
in
resource
conservation
the
goal
of
sustainable
community
 development
was
accomplished
both
equitably
and
effectively.

 
 Useful
comparisons
can
be
drawn
from
the
involvement
of
NGOs
in
post‐

apartheid
South
Africa
attempting
to
implement
rural
development
schemes.
With
a
 shrinking
national
budget
and
debt
burdens
many
development
gains
in
South
 Africa
have
been
lost,
pushing
more
people
into
abject
poverty.
The
result
has
been
 an
increased
role
of
civil
society
in
mobilizing
scarce
resources
to
generate
 development
from
below.
Support
and
capital
investment
from
global
civil
society
is
 necessary
at
first
to
create
economic
opportunities.
Differential
and
competitively
 advantaged
practices
stand
the
best
chance
of
being
successful
in
the
market.


Infrastructural
upgrades
are
key
to
increasing
efficiencies
of
scale
and
making
 production
profitable.
Initiatives
in
former
African
racial
reserves
(supposed
 Homelands)
utilized
the
capacity
of
business
cooperatives
to
enhance
output.
The
 employ
of
a
more
pro‐active
approach
focused
on
giving
the
individual
external
 support
and
using
the
market
to
alleviate
poverty
(Nel
3‐30).
Assertions
of
NGOs
 help
communities
to
move
beyond
subsistence
strategies
and
to
mobilize
local
 knowledge/structures
to
promote
income‐generating
activities.
South
African
 remains
a
highly
unequal
society
with
its
post‐apartheid
legacy.
The
Reconstruction
 and
Development
Programs
have
served
to
extend
utilities
into
many
communities
 with
the
enduring
inequality
of
access.
This
extends
to
a
deficiency
of
market
access
 for
value‐added
agricultural
products
of
rural
black
communities
that
can’t
compete
 with
agribusiness
in
an
open
market.
Scaling‐up
production
can
be
achieved
 through
the
banding
of
farmers
into
an
agricultural
cooperative
to
gain
purchasing
 power
for
inputs
and
technologies.
NGOs
hoped
to
utilize
communal
planning
to
 upgrade
infrastructure
and
increase
market
access
for
agricultural
commodities.

 The
indigenous
NGO
Hertzog
Agricultural
Co‐operative
promoted
 endogenous
development
to
empower
peasant
farmers.
By
procuring
lending
from
 commercial
banks,
the
organization
was
able
to
purchase
land.
An
inherited
 irrigation
system
already
in
place
on
the
land
was
upgraded
to
fit
the
needs
of
a
 community
operation.
Agricultural
development
was
pursued
as
an
operation
that
 could
create
economic
opportunities.
Household
food
security
was
met
by
this


influx
of
locally
supported
production,
but
securing
markets
was
difficult
with
the
 limited
output
of
this
project.
Additionally,
without
the
infrastructure
to
deliver
 output
to
supply
chains
means
this
cooperative
had
to
sell
most
of
it’s
harvest
 locally
for
less
profit.
External
support
that
has
financed
the
purchase
of
diesel
 pumps
enhanced
productivity,
but
there
was
no
transfer
of
technical
knowledge
on
 upkeep
of
these
systems.
Planning
for
planting
schedules
and
crop
rotations
to
 intensify
yields
was
extremely
top‐down
with
little
accumulation
of
expertise
at
the
 farmer
level
(Nel
3‐30).
The
inability
to
secure
market
access
was
due
to
a
 fundamental
disinvestment
in
the
capacity
of
individual
growers
to
diversify
output
 and
overinvestment
in
the
infrastructure
to
increase
efficiencies
of
scale.
Though
 there
was
grassroots
involvement
there
was
an
overwhelming
dependence
on
 external
capital
that
created
expectations
for
technology
upgrades
to
result
in
 growth.
If
the
direction
of
investment
were
truly
participatory
more
resources
 would
have
been
put
into
purchasing
a
vehicle
to
bring
produce
to
larger
markets.
A
 competitive
disadvantage
of
quality
and
capacity
compared
to
agribusiness
 rendered
the
agricultural
cooperative
incapable
in
providing
sustainable
 development.
Government
policy
to
promote
market
access
for
these
communities
 would
also
be
beneficial.

 The
NGO
provided
technical
assistance
and
knowledge
on
crop
rotations,
 record
keeping,
and
loan
repayment
schedules
this
further
worked
to
entrench
the
 community’s
dependence.
Community‐driven
economic
development
cannot
be


focused
only
on
creating
income‐generating
opportunities;
it
also
needs
to
 transform
underlying
social
conditions
to
have
a
long‐term
impact.
Communities
 need
to
incorporate
social
capital
into
a
competitive
market
to
sustainably
improve
 their
welfare.
When
local
knowledge
is
lacking
it
is
imperative
that
external
 organizations
provide
training
in
technical
and
organization
skills
to
reduce
 dependency.
The
construction
of
irrigation
canals
was
participatory,
but
their
scale
 made
this
project
economically
unfeasible
for
this
low‐income
community.
The
 Hertzog
Agricultural
Cooperative
intervened
in
the
poorest
sectors
of
society,
but
 failed
due
to
the
withdrawal
of
key
management
personnel
leaving
a
shortage
of
 mechanical
expertise
to
upkeep
irrigation
technologies
(Nel
3‐30).
NGO
support
for
 this
project
was
largely
financial
and
market
access
was
dealt
with
by
bringing
in
an
 outside
consultant,
which
helped
in
marketing
the
fresh
produce.
Export
agriculture
 is
a
particularly
difficult
engine
of
development
as
inputs
are
often
a
bottleneck
to
 output.
This
approach
to
development
was
reductionist
in
that
attempted
to
target
 many
complex
factors
solely
along
economic
lines.
It
failed
not
only
because
it
 wasn’t
viable
in
the
long‐term
without
external
support,
but
also
in
that
there
was
 no
basis
to
support
development
beyond
food
production.
Non‐governmental
 organizations
are
only
as
effective
as
their
teleological
objectives,
even
with
the
best
 of
intentions
sustainable
development
is
not
always
realized.

 
 A
third
case
which
is
useful
to
understanding
the
intersection
of
social


empowerment
and
sustainable
development
for
project
success
is
the
NGO
the


Rodale
Institute
in
Senegal.
Under
pressure
from
structural
adjustment
in
Senegal
 there
was
a
necessity
for
the
Regenerative
Agricultural
Resource
Center
to
improve
 farming
practices.
Through
education
and
collaborative
applied
research,
steps
 were
taken
to
promote
community
development.
Regenerative
agriculture
returns
 nutrients
to
degraded
soil
as
a
consequence
of
production.
Senegal’s
conventional
 agriculture
was
unaffordable
without
government
subsidies
and
operated
with
a
 metabolic
loss
of
energy.
The
sovereign
debt
crisis
forced
the
reduction
of
rural
 procurement
of
inputs
and
purchasing
of
surplus.
With
the
disappearance
of
 subsidies
and
the
increase
of
quotas
Senegalese
agriculture
was
forced
to
change
 overnight.
The
Rodale
Institute
applied
a
farmer
first
approach
that
utilizes
local
 knowledge
to
expand
sustainable
natural
resource
management.
Training
in
 composting
through
integrated
livestock
and
crop
production
was
provided
to
 community
groups.
Capacity
for
expanded
cultivation
was
built
by
the
successful
 construction
of
rock
contours
to
improve
soil
conservation.
Rodale
Institute
as
an
 intermediary
NGO
was
accountable
to
both
the
stipulations
of
the
U.S.
Agency
for
 International
Development
and
civil
society
of
the
Thies
region
Centralized
 leadership
was
valuable
to
applied
research
programs
that
were
adapted
to
 different
agricultural
conditions.
Monthly
meetings
were
held
to
collaborate
and
 determine
the
most
effective
means
of
implementing
soil
fertility
enhancement
and
 integrative
pest
management
programs
(Robertson
143‐160).
The
operations
of


Rodale
International
differed
from
the
other
cases
in
that
they
focused
on
social
 empowerment
and
technical
assistance
rather
than
infrastructural
development.

 
 Successes
of
Rodale’s
applied
research
secured
more
funding
for
them,


enabling
the
expansion
and
diversification
of
institutional
practices.
Low
 administrative
costs
on
the
ground
also
enabled
them
to
dedicate
more
resources
to
 build
networks
of
farmers
and
offer
a
wider
range
of
regenerative
agricultural
 education.
Consequently
this
prevented
the
growth
of
a
massive
administrative
 bureaucracy,
which
renders
any
organizational
potential
ineffective.
Information
 exchange
enabled
the
establishment
of
indigenous
private‐public
partnerships,
 which
could
train
and
disseminate
principles
at
the
village
level.
Environmental
 soundness
eventually
became
economically
valuable
with
the
establishment
of
 village
vegetable
gardens
and
livestock
husbandry
projects.
Technical
assistance
 was
specifically
directed
toward
women’s
groups
for
help
with
securing
loans
to
 buy
mechanical
grain
mills.
Rather
than
channeling
resources
to
rural
beneficiaries
 like
most
aid
organizations,
Rodale
was
able
to
mobilize
funds
to
social
 empowerment
and
document
the
impacts
of
their
work.
Rodale’s
dependence
on
 development
grants
prevented
it
from
expanding
into
the
provision
of
 infrastructural
upgrades
(Robertson
140‐160).
The
result
of
this
investment
in
the
 transfer
of
technical
skills
was
capacity
building
and
increased
subsistence,
but
with
 little
influence
over
economic
growth
in
the
region.
Knowledge
construction
needs
 to
be
matched
with
capital
investment
in
critical
infrastructure
that
permits
the


application
of
technical
expertise.
Without
infrastructural
improvement,
 impoverished
communities
remain
at
subsistence
levels
and
sustainable
 development
is
unrealized.

 
 With
the
Global
Vision
International
Fiji
case
the
presence
of
social


empowerment
around
the
installation
of
infrastructure
enabled
sustainable
 development.
Not
only
did
the
integration
of
local
labor
and
volunteers
generate
 efficiencies
of
scale,
which
translated
into
more
material
upgrades,
but
also
 accelerated
the
dissemination
of
technical
expertise
essential
to
the
maintenance
of
 infrastructure.
Equally
as
invaluable
to
the
success
of
this
project
was
the
 incorporation
of
community
requirements
into
the
procurement
of
technology
 transfers.
In
development
work,
the
tendency
is
for
expert
knowledge
to
supersede
 local
knowledge;
this
often
leads
to
the
implementation
of
the
wrong
solutions.
The
 Hertzog
Agricultural
Cooperative
in
South
Africa
attempted
to
reclaim
abandoned
 agricultural
land
and
return
it
to
production.
Heavy
investment
in
irrigation
 infrastructure
and
farming
inputs
produced
yields
in
the
short‐term,
but
the
failure
 to
recognize
structural
social
issues
such
as
a
deficiency
of
technical
skills
and
a
lack
 of
market
access
prevented
this
project
from
enjoying
long‐term
fruition.
Though
 subsistence
food
security
was
met
by
this
initiative
the
failure
of
the
export‐ agriculture
scheme
and
the
failure
to
create
other
economic
opportunities
 ultimately
translated
into
impracticality.
With
the
Rodale
Institute
in
Senegal
there
 was
social
capacity
building
in
the
implementation
of
applied
research,
but
a


fundamental
lack
of
investment
in
infrastructure.
This
is
a
development
obstacle
as
 Senegalese
agriculture
is
value‐added,
but
not
an
income.
Sustainable
development
 defined,
as
the
ability
of
current
generation
to
satisfy
their
needs
without
 compromising
those
of
future
generations
is
best
achieved
through
the
integration
 of
social
empowerment
and
adaptation
of
environmentally
congenial
infrastructure.

 
 NGO’s
achieve
sustainable
development
when
they
engage
in
social


empowerment
in
addition
to
the
development
of
essential
infrastructure.
Initiatives
 that
transfer
both
technical
skills
and
infrastructure
efficiently
are
successful
at
 facilitating
long‐term
community
development.
Development
is
not
one
size
fits
all
 and,
thus,
interventions
need
to
be
community‐specific
in
order
to
implement
 solutions
that
meet
the
needs
of
both
current
and
future
generations.
The
decline
of
 the
state’s
role
in
development
has
signified
a
transition
from
top‐down
 bureaucratic
growth
to
a
more
democratized
bottom‐up
approach
to
social
 improvement.
Market
reforms
have
a
tendency
to
intensify
rather
reduce
social
 inequalities,
economic
growth
cannot
be
prioritized
over
alleviating
the
effects
of
 poverty.
NGOs
that
incorporate
the
participatory
needs
of
the
communities
they
 operate
within
are
the
most
successful
at
implementing
sustainable
change.
By
 placing
an
emphasis
on
strengthening
capacity
local
institutions
to
assume
 management
responsibilities,
communities
will
not
be
dependent
once
external
 support
is
removed.
The
effectiveness
of
initiatives
depends
on
how
NGOs
assess
 their
targets,
how
resources
are
allocated,
how
projects
are
managed,
and
their


long‐term
efficacy.
Projects
that
focus
on
long‐term
impact
rather
than
short‐term
 output
of
capital
are
inherently
more
grassroots
oriented
and,
thus,
more
effective
 at
implementing
dynamic
infrastructure.
Non‐governmental
organizations
are
 foremost
accountable
to
the
expectations
of
their
donors;
through
efficiency
and
 organizational
competence
they
can
be
accountable
to
their
constituencies
as
well.

 Not
only
does
focusing
infrastructure
on
community
requirement
enable
the
 transfer
of
valuable
technologies,
but
also
it
immeasurably
increases
the
faculty
of
 villages
to
seek
a
better
quality
of
life.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 Bibliography
 Atack,
Iain.
"Four
Criteria
of
Development
NGO
Legitimacy."
World
Development.
 27.5
(1999):
855‐864.
Print.
 
 Edwards,
Michael.
"NGO
Performance‐
What
Breeds
Success?
New
Evidence
from
 South
Asia."
World
Development.
27.2
(1999):
461‐473.
Web.
9
Apr.
2012.
 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X98001259>.
 
 Fowler,
Alan.
Striking
a
Balance:
A
Guide
to
Enhancing
the
Effectiveness
of
NGOs
in
 International
Development.
1.
London,
United
Kingdom:
Earthscan,
1997.
1‐150.
 Print.
 
 Kilby,
Patrick.
"Accountability
for
Empowerment:
Dilemmas
Facing
NGOs."
World
 Development.
34.6
(2006):
951‐963.
Print
 
 Lund,
Daniel.
"GVI
Fiji:
Yassawa
Islands
Quarterly
Report
113."
GVI‐
Fiji
Yassawa.
 (2001):
1‐39.
Web.
3
Feb.
2012.
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/74472868/GVI‐ Fiji‐Quarterly‐Report‐June‐Oct‐2011>.
 
 Malunga,
Chiku.
NGO
Management.
1.
London,
United
Kingdom:
Earthscan,
2010.
1‐ 200.
Print.
 
 Mohan,
Giles.
"Participatory
Development
and
Empowerment:
The
Dangers
of
 Localism."
Third
World
Quarterly.
21.2
(2000):
247‐268.
Web.
9
Apr.
2012.
 <http://def.acfid.asn.au/resources/development‐approaches/participatory‐ empowerment/Accountability‐World
Development
Final.pdf>.
 
 Nel,
Etienne.
"Community‐Based
Development,
Non‐Governmental
Organizations
 and
Social
Capital
in
Post‐Apartheid
South
Africa."
Human
Geography.
83.1
 (2001):
3‐30.
Print.
 
 Robertson,
Bill.
"NGO
Leadership,
Success,
and
Growth
in
Senegal:
Lessons
from
the
 Ground
Level."
Urban
Anthropology
and
Studies
of
Cultural
Systems.
29.2
 (2000):
143‐180.
Web.
9
Apr.
2012.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/40553380>.
 


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful