Date post: | 15-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ryan-kirkpatrick |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Rights-based Development NGO Working with and between Citizens and
Neo-patrimonial Cambodian Government
Rikio KimuraRitsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Japan([email protected])
Paper presented at Development Studies Association Annual Conference, 1 Nov. 2014, Please do not quote without author’s
permission
1
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Research Questions
3. Main Argument
4. Background of Rural Cambodia
5. Theoretical Frameworks
6. Methodology & Methods
7. Findings/Discussion
8. Summary
2
Introduction RBA—political and confrontational
process Challenging for Cambodians to claim their
rights from neo-patrimonial government A Cambodian NGO: Contextualised RBA
to fit it into the rural Cambodian context byWorking with governmentUtilising its existing community empowerment
approach
3
Research Questions
How and in what ways has the intervention of a rights-based development NGO in Cambodia influenced people’s agency in fulfilling their rights to development?;
How have political, economic, social and cultural forces influenced people’s agency in fulfilling such rights?
4
Main Argument By working with government, made full use of and
further widened the democratic spaces made available through decentralisation
Used multi-pronged and process-oriented rights-based empowerment approach
But, was uncritical of and did not conscientize people about government’s corrupt/rent-seeking practice that is hidden behind the democratic façade of decentralisation and that has caused land grabbing
However, its non-confrontational approach is the only workable option in relation to authoritarian government
5
Background of Rural Cambodia: Decentralisation Reforms Elected commune councils (CCs) as
frontline government rural machinery To increase the credibility and legitimacy of
the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP); to seek more funding from international donors
But, ended up opening up more democratic space—electoral power and rights to development (Ojendal & Sadara, 2006; 2011)
6
Background of Rural Cambodia: Land Grabbing (Economic Land Concessions) Economic land concession (ELCs):
Granting state private land to companies for agricultural/industrial developmentWorld Bank’s neoliberal policy
Rent-seeking complicity between political elite and domestic and foreign companiesDiscretional transformation of state public land
to state private land + Unsecure land tenure (based on occupancy) -> land grabbing
7
Background of Rural Cambodia: Social Land Concessions Social land concessions (SLCs):
Granting state private land to the landless poor, World Bank works with Cambodian
governmentThe NGO works on SLCs financed by the
Bank under the government’s schemeGovernment’s rhetorical use of SLCs to
divert attention from land grabbing (Neef et al., 2013)
8
Theoretical Frameworks: Critical Realist (CR) View of Agency and Structure Agents are reflexive; They draw on
structures to act; Their actions reproduce/transform structures
But, agents are constrained by causal powers of structures
9
Theoretical Frameworks: Gramscian Thought Consensual domination:
Ideological dominance of the values and norms of citizens
Passive revolution: Acceptance of certain demands of citizens to
prevent their hegemony from being challenged
War of position: Battle at the level of consciousness and
perception to overcome passive revolution
10
Methodology & Methods
CR grounded theory (Kempster & Parry, 2011; Oliver, 2012)Meaning-making (empirical data) as a point of
departure to explore causal relations
Methods: Participant observation, focus groups, individual interviews (4 month ethnographic work)
11
Findings/Discussion
12
Confidence and Capacity Building: Repeated Process of Empowerment
Community workers’ stay at villages during work days -> Increased interaction with Project Participants (PPs)
13
Confidence and Capacity Building: Service-Delivery Approach (SDA) Specifically Geared Towards Rights-based Empowerment
Speaking out: Community-based organisations (CBOs) as space to practise speaking out
PRA to concientise PPs about their rights and as the basis for rights-based claiming (e.g. Disaster map)
14
15
Confidence and Capacity Building: Efficacious Rights Awareness-Training
Helps PPs connect their realities with pertinent rightsE.g. How is climate change related to human
rights?
Uses dialogical processes
16
Decentralisation: Working with Government Reinforces interactions between local
government and citizensCapacity and accountability building of
government○ Encourages CCs to be attend village-level
meetings○ RBA Training
17
Decentralisation: Working with Government, Cont’d
Gradual realisation of rights in according with the gradual evolution of local governance capacities
Interview, Senior Staff of the NGO“We see SDA as an entry point for rights-based empowerment…When we have found budget or resource to construct schools, we engage with the government and inform them about that, but we also bind them in the agreement in which they need to provide teachers and teaching materials to run the school “
18
Decentralisation: the NGO Uncritcal of Neo-patrimonialism Limited amount of Commune Sangkat Fund
(CSF) due to less committed stance of government to decentralisation
Neo-patrimonialism/rent-seeking pervades every level of government bureaucracy -> financial crisis -> inadequate amount of CSF
Parallel ‘party financing’ by CPP for local investment projects to win votes If no rent-seeking for ‘party financing,’ more CSF
Decentralisation and ‘party financing’:Government’s attempt to bring about consensual
domination through passive revolution19
Land Grabbing: Capacity Building and Widening Democratic Space
Equipping the PPs:to use land rights efficaciouslyto submit petitions to local governmentto form groups and alliancesto organise demonstrationsto network with human rights NGOs and media.
Opening up of democratic spaces by the NGO’s strategy to work with government
20
Land Grabbing: The NGO’s Complicity with Neo-patrimonialism
Informal revenue from ELCs to partly finance the ‘party financing’ (Un & So, 2011)the heart of neo-patrimonialism
The NGO’s depoliticised stance (e.g. working w/ government) & lack of reflexivity
The NGO’s involvement in SLCs rather than problematising government’s rhetorical use of it to divert attention from ELCsto use SLCs as a passive revolution for the
consensual domination of citizens The NGO and the World Bank resulted in being
complicit with neo-patrimonialism21
Pragmatic View
Working with government is the only optionRisk of being expelled/suspendedGovernment’s attempts to tighten a NGO
law Gradual shifts on structures Empirical evidence to indicate how such
an approach is the only workable option (E.g. Plipat, 2005: Tagoe, 2005; Macpherson, 2009)
22
Summary By working with government, further widened
the democratic spaces made available through decentralisation
Used multi-pronged/process-oriented rights-based empowerment approach
But, was uncritical of and did not conscientize people about government’s neo-patrimonial practice that is hidden behind the democratic façade of the decentralisation and that has caused land grabbing
However, its non-confrontational approach is the only workable option in relation to Cambodia’s authoritarian government
23
Kempster, S. & Parry, K. W. (2011), Grounded Theory and Leadership Research: A Critical Realist Perspective, The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1, pp. 106-120.
Macpherson, I. (2009), The Rights-based Approach to Adult Education: Implications for NGO-Government Partnerships in Southern Tanzania, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39, 2, pp. 263-279.
Neef, A., Touch, S. & Chiengthong, J. (2013), The Politics and Ethics of Land Concessions in Rural Cambodia, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, pp. 1-19.
Öjendal, J. & Sedara, K. (2006), Korob, Kaud, Klach: In Search of Agency in Rural Cambodia, Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, 37, 3, pp. 507-526.
Öjendal, J. & Sedara, K. (2011), Real Democratisation in Cambodia? An Empirical Review of the Potential of a Decentralisation Reform, Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy Working Paper No. 9, http://www.globalstudies.gu.se/digitalAssets/1341/1341375_icld_wp9_printerfriendly.pdf Accessed 12 February 2013.
Oliver, C. (2012), Critical Realist Grounded Theory: A New Approach for Social Work Research, British Journal of Social Work, 42, 2, pp. 371-387.
Plipat, S. (2005), Developmentising Human Rights: How Development NGOs Interpret and Implement a Human Rights-based Approach to Development Policy, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
Tagoe, M. (2008), Challenging the Orthodoxy of Literacy: Realities of Moving from Personal to Community Empowerment through 'Reflect' in Ghana, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27, 6, pp. 707-728.
Un, K. & So, S. (2011), Land Rights in Cambodia: How Neopatrimonial Politics Restricts Land Policy Reform, Pacific Affairs, 84, 2, pp. 289-308.
24
References