Foreigners Delivering Political
Services:
Analyzing Internationally-based Actors at the State-Society Interface
Douglas A Chalmers
Columbia University
Prepared for delivery at the 1994 Annual Meeting
of the American Political Science Association
The New York Hilton
September 1-4, 1994
Copyright by the American Political Science Association
Internationally-based organizations are helping to shape the relation of state and society in less developed countries. Foreign official and private organizations are involved in implementing policies, winning support for policies, mobilizing groups, and stimulating the demands of grassroots organizations and other citizens' groups. Some foreign groups, such as the 'political foundations'[1] have explicit political goals. Many others are 'non-political', acting to promote social and economic development, but their actions often have political implications.
How can we think about those implications? How can we describe their role? What does it mean for the political process in such countries that in their midst there are important actors who have alien ideas, and/or who can count on significant support from beyond its borders?
My objective here is to suggest a few propositions about their likely roles and significance in order to orient future analysis.[2] Analyzing foreigners as part of a nation's politics is unusual enough so that discussion of the approach is necessary.[3]
I will make the following points about the analysis of the internationally-based organization sector's impact at the state-society interface:
Much of the sector made up of internationally-based organization is an on-going part of the domestic political system , not just a temporary or external participant.
Being foreign is important for politics either because the goals and style of the organization differ from domestic actors, or because of their ability to give elements of civil society independent resources in dealing with the state.
An important part of the international sector provides what I will call 'political services', which involve relatively long term commitment, but with a limited political scope.
Although funding is important, a central, and perhaps increasing share of these services concern the 'idea-processing structure' of domestic politics.
The first task is to specify a bit more the object of study,
i.e., the political consequences of participation by internationally-based
organizations at the interface of state and society.
First, the emphasis is on involvement by foreign groups, not the influence of international 'conditions' in general. I am concerned with situations in which internationally-based organizations are actually physically present within the borders of a country, and how they fit in. Further, although individual organizations will be cited for examples, it is important to focus on the entire sector of internationally-based organizations in order to get at the impact on politics beyond the micro-level.[4]
The groups that make up what I am calling the 'internationally-based organizations sector' (abbreviated to the 'international sector') involve a variety of types of organizations all of which participate in ways that affect the state-society interface. These include internationally-based private voluntary organizations, such as Catholic Relief Services, Oxfam, or Amnesty. Also included are international organizations such as a the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, UNICEF, or UNHCR. International financial institutions such as the World Bank and the regional development banks are significant parts of the sector. And, finally, foreign governments and their quasi-independent agencies, which, just from the USA, would include AID, the Inter-American Foundation and the divisions of the National Endowment for Democracy.
The mix of internationally-based actors varies considerably over time. Each historical era in each region seemed to have a dominant, or at least much discussed, set of them. In colonial eras, the dominant foreigners are obviously the colonial authorities. In Latin America during the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, it was US and European business groups and occasional interventions by US military authorities. In the same region in the 1930s through the Cold War era, the most sensational foreign organizations were very political, either the political organizers sponsored from the emerging Socialist Bloc, or the official and unofficial, overt and covert agents from the US. Beginning in the 1960s, a growing representation of developmentally oriented groups. Although many factors in particular new technologies have shaped a new pattern, and the new-ness makes it tempting to think that internationalization is growing, the phenomenon of foreign involvements is very old.
Collectively, the term 'donors' is probably the most commonly used term to describe all of these, but it doesn't fit some, and has too much of the notion of 'gift' and can be misleading for analyzing political relationships. Giving money is not always the main activity of internationally-based organizations. A university might engage in a student and faculty exchange with a research institution in a less developed country, or technical assistance may be provided by a group, or links may be established to coordinate lobbying on environmental issues before both international and national decision makers. 'Donors' sounds too much like the charitable past of some, just as the term 'missionary', which might characterize some of these groups very well, would link too much into the religious history of many.
I am only speaking here of nonprofit organizations. Business and other for-profit organizations are also important for political (as well as economic) consequences[5], of course, but the range of non-profits, which include both public and private agencies, is large also, and is the focus here.
The emphasis is political. The things to be explained ultimately, the 'dependent variables', are the qualities of the polity; what makes it just, under what conditions is it stable, and what makes it effective as an executor of public programs. It is necessary to emphasize this because much of the most serious work on international linkages concerns socio-economic consequences. The literature on political economy, for example, is chiefly concerned with international impacts on economic policy or performance. The policy and analytic literature on international development is concerned with increasing local productivity and well being or alleviating poverty.[6]
To associate non-profit, internationally-based organizations with a political role may seem disturbing. Because of the strong norm, often supported by law, that foreigners should not involve themselves in politics, conceptualizing the international 'donor' sector as part of the political system is mildly shocking, unless one is doing so to mount an attack on 'intervention' - which I am not. In speaking about this topic with colleagues, particularly in Latin America, I find the conversation often switches suddenly to the legal proscription on intervention, as if talking about it violated some sort of norm. But even if one takes the norm seriously, since foreigners are constantly 'intervening', and we are just beginning to develop norms which will make possible effective judgment of those acts, it is important not to adopt a position which allows only simple -- and ineffective -- condemnation.[7]
In part this is a verbal problem. When international actors talk about staying out of politics, they usually mean that they are not partisan to any contending domestic faction within the country.[8] Even more narrowly, during the cold war era being 'political' meant taking sides in that conflict. Later, in the struggle against military dictatorships, being 'political' tended to mean supporting them or being part of the opposition.[9] But this type of politics is not my main concern. Rather the question is whether the international sector shapes the nature of politics by its actions. The most non-political (in the sense of being partisan) mobilization of grassroots peasants communities, may be highly political (in the sense of shaping by democratizing the political system). It is the latter sense that I am concerned with. I am less concerned with intentions and political alignment than with consequences.
There are, of course, many cases in which the fact that the actors are legally foreign makes almost no difference in their actions, nor in the consequences of the action. There are many expatriate organizations and individuals who become thoroughly assimilated into the host system. But for many others, their 'international-ness' is a significant factor.
In trying to spell out just what this 'international-ness' amounts to, it becomes apparent that there are at least two different meanings involved. On the one hand, the significant quality may in the way that they are consistently different in goals, organizational styles or other features, than exists among the domestic actors. On the other hand, another kind of effect comes from the fact that their presence opens a channel to other countries, societies, organizations.
Some organizations are important because they are different, even though the flows they establish from abroad are minimal. For example, an organization of working class migrants, or many religious missions are not likely to be important politically because of a flow of resources from abroad, but their distinctive qualities compared to local people may be very important. Or, to take the opposite case, some organizations have assimilated well in terms of styles and goals (or the local organizations have succeeded in emulating them), but they have a different impact because they have an open line not controlled by the government. For example, a large multinational corporation operating in So Paulo or Mexico City, may not differ much from national corporations in terms of their goals and organization, but their 'foreignness' may be very important for their role in policy discussions, because of their ability to mobilize financial and technical resources abroad (and to maintain a more credible exit option). Of course, many internationally-based organizations have both characteristics, for example an organization promoting rural cooperatives of a kind not known in the region, and which keeps open a line of funding and technical advice from abroad which is only loosely monitored by the local government.
The two bases lead to different kinds of analysis. If the importance of the foreign base of some groups is that they are alien, then they bring a different style, a different culture, different goals. When those goals are promoted within the political system it produces change or conflict (and probably both). The dynamic of involvement is distinctive. The organization may have a missionary or proselytizing stance. This is true of religious groups, the classic political 'internationals' spawned by the European experience, the US mission to bring their version of free-markets and democracy, and the post-World War II carriers of 'modernization'. The general type of political dynamic turns around the possibilities of nationalist or sub-cultural rejection, assimilation by one side to the other, or a syncretic or multi-culturalist solution. (Modernizers, for example, experienced much acceptance, but have also been pushed to some form of syncretism as they adapted modern technologies to local conditions.)
On the other hand, the presence of internationally-based actors with strong, permanent connections abroad, sets up a distinctive, internationalized dynamic in the polity. If they have become institutionalized, their connections mean that the political system has built into it a sensitivity to international forces from within, through these organizations, and not just because the national leadership has to deal with other states and the international system. They may establish an alternate source of power for local elites, separate from that provided by the government (or which they can use to bargain about the degree of their dependency) which takes the place of, or supplements the traditional sources of independence, which lay in such things as the ability to shield local power sources (clientelism), or other forms of a strong civil society.
The most obvious example of this kind of political effect lies in the human rights organizations, which build in the power to limit the actions of the state in part through maintaining international links which allow exposure and loss of bargaining positions on the part of the government. In some very few cases, the human rights organizations might be bringing 'new ideas' to the countries where they are active, but their ability to draw on local support as well as foreign suggests that these ideas are present in the local culture. The important political effect comes from the international sources of influence.
I want to focus attention on the way in which the international sector acts at the interface of state and society.[10] They are often involved in other aspects of politics, of course, as when the World Bank advises/pressures government decision makers, or when political foundations train parliamentarians. But the state-society interface is an interesting focal point because there have been many changes here, and future directions are difficult to perceive.
Democratization, the economic restructuring of the state and the collapse of the old left are characteristic of many less-developed countries. All of these historic processes have impacts on state-society relations, on who is represented, the conditions of access for demands, the organization of links between the people and the authorities. Corporatist institutions, especially those with tight links to official parties or prominent leaders, appear to have been significantly weakened. Political party systems have undergone obvious changes, such as the weakening or transformation of the old communist parties and those who identified with the socialist bloc. There is talk of a 'revival' (or construction) of a 'civil society'. In any case, a wide variety of non-governmental organizations and associations have emerged in many countries.[11] Beyond the formal requirements, democracy will depend on the way in which the old links are reformed, or the way institutions are built to link the new wave of associations with the state. The effectiveness of government will also depend on the structures at the state-society interface.
The state-society interface is, of course, a set of two-way structures and processes. From the standpoint of the society (the 'people') interests are shaped and organizations are created, and formal or informal institutions are established through which these organizations and movements gain access to and make more or less effective demands in the political process. From the standpoint of the state, there are processes through which policies are implemented, and through which incentives or discipline generate support and fiscal and other resources for the government. These four kinds of processes, two 'up' and two 'down', may be summarized as group formation, representation, policy implementation and support generating. Any one of these can become an arena where organizations and movements interact, and where contestation, and/or institution building may result.
In this array of processes, there are many politically relevant organizations. "Non-governmental organizations" is a term which is increasingly applied to many of these at the state-society interface, and I will use it to talk about the interlocutors of the internationally-based organizations. They are, by many accounts, the growth area on the state-society boundary.[12]
I am using the term 'NGO' in its conventional, and unfortunately not very precise usage. Just who are the referents of this term is not settled. The name 'non-governmental organization' is one of those phrases which brings confusion because the words used have a meaning which is a bit different than what almost everyone wants to indicate by it. The literal meaning of the term is clearly too broad.[13] Most authors who use the term, including me, want to exclude business organizations, and 'non-profit' is often appended, and usually implied. But 'NGO' may also be too specific. There is considerable discussion as to whether the tendencies of NGOs to secure state funding doesn't make them something other than 'non-governmental'. The term 'NGO' seems to have achieved a certain dominance, at least in less developed countries, probably because the novelty in many is precisely that associations have been created which do not depend on, nor evidently seek to be incorporated into, the government. So I will use it to designate that wide range of groups which are not oriented mainly towards profit, and which maintain some autonomy from the government.
When organizations like Save the Children, or USAID , or the German political foundations become involved with group formation, or generating government support, or any other process at the state-society interface, there a different political paths they can take. The ideal types are at the extremes of two variables: the length of time they are involved, and the scope of their political involvement as a 'full-scale' political actor, that is, the degree to which they approach the commitment of a political party or an administrative agency, the two archtypical political organizations.
Internationally-based organizations can be emergency organizations, arriving in moments of crisis in which there has been a breakdown of institutions linking state and society. It might be the result of a natural disaster, the collapse of the state or (as with cross-border refugees) the sudden emergence of a mass of people without a state. The goal of the organization may be to relieve suffering, but, at least temporarily, they become part of the political system. They are set up as an emergency organization to keep order and/or administer aid. And by design or default, they also become the spokespersons for the people, however temporarily. This relief effort, which is often not considered political at all, involves a short term commitment which, for that time, is a full-scale link between a segment of society and the state.
Such short term involvement can have long term consequences. International relief organizations following the earthquake in Nicaragua in 1972, became 'whistle blowers' on the self-serving practices of the Somozas, and as such became a significant element in the decline of the Somoza power. Oxfam's relief operation for the Biafrans during the Nigerian civil war led to becoming a part of the conflict.[14]
A second form of involvement, which is the ideal of international administrators, involves becoming a catalyst. The goal is that over a short period, the organization makes an effort involving them as little as possible, perhaps focused on such things as a demonstration or a small amount of 'seed-money'. If the situation is ripe, the effort will multiply and produce permanent institutions or organization. As a maximum payoff-to-input ratio, it is a highly desirable role for funders.
Discussion of the catalyst role is often in terms of developmental goals. Asking about political consequences, it is perhaps harder to see it in operation. One example might be the political organization of Cubans following the consolidation of their revolution in the 1960s. A limited amount of organizational stimulus often had a striking effects of creating guerrilla focos all over Latin America.
A third type of involvement on the interface is an operational one, which involves a relatively large-scale involvement, carried on for a significant amount of time. The international actor becomes, in effect, a semi-permanent political institution at the state-society interface. UN peace-keeping efforts in places like Palestine, and now probably in El Salvador, are of this kind. Those Communist parties which became essentially part of the international communist organizations also played a rather complete political role in many countries, or at least aspired to.
The final style of involvement is the one which I think deserves a good deal more attention, and seems to fit many of the internationally-based organizations we are discussing. That is the role of political service provider, which involves a long term, but smaller-scale involvement. The implication of a service role is certain subordination to, or at least partnership with the complex of other organizations and institutions in the system. The goals of the organization become more focused on delivering the service, and the health of the larger system, and less devoted to the specific political objectives of the groups who are using the service. At the extreme, one could imagine a commitment only to professional standards, as in the ideal case of doctors.
The emergency and relief models are the best fit to the way most internationally-based organizations present themselves, but do not fit the behavior or many who are much more permanent than either implies. Their rhetoric suggests they are engaged in a kind of crisis intervention, not permanent role playing, going in to solve a problem and then coming out again. But many of the major internationally-based organizations we have been talking about have been in operation in the less-developed countries for half a century, and are at least as permanent a part of those systems as many local parties, interest groups or government agencies.
By the late 1980s, many international official and voluntary organizations, even those traditionally concerned with relief or development programs, were self-consciously turning from specific projects to building institutions.[15] There was a shift in rhetoric, at least, from relief and projects to capacity building. This was, of course, a question about what the donor organizations were trying to bring about among the NGOs and other organizations, and not what they intended to try to achieve for themselves. And one could interpret these new goals as a longer project, but still temporary. Presumably once the capacity was built, the organizations could leave. But the goals were now becoming so extended in time, and the notion of building capacity so open-ended, that the notion of the 'end of the job' seems unrealistic.
It is true that some organizations have shrunk or ceased operations. The US government aid effort, for example, is less active than it once was. Foreigners are expelled from this or that country. The Third International has fallen apart. But there is no credible sign that I am aware of that the ensemble of groups, the sector in general, shows signs of diminishing in most countries. If anything, it seems to be growing.
Two aspects seem to account for the gulf between the rhetoric of the short term, and the reality of semi-permanence. First, as mentioned before, international norms are generally against the idea of permanent roles for foreigners. Second, the discourse of many organizations is in terms of projects. Projects are concrete tasks, with time limits, and that is the way they are budgeted and defended. Discussion of general roles and making resources available for a variety of purposes on a semi-permanent basis, is against the norm, and tends to be relegated to the boilerplate in proposals and annual reports.
The last two types of role, operational and service, are, on the other hand, marked by a long term commitment and some kind of permanent institutionalization, and seem stronger candidates for describing the bulk of the international sector. Strong versions of the operational role are probably exceptional. Becoming what might be called a full-spectrum political institution, formulating its own interests, making demands, and mediating the impacts of government policies on their members or constituency is not frequent, although with a number of 'quasi-states', and what appears to be chronic state breakdown in some countries, operational international organizations will probably always be in some demand.[16] On the whole, though, international aid agencies, the philanthropic foundations, the politically oriented organizations like the Ebert Foundation or the National Endowment for Democracy, are clearly playing a more limited, yet long-running role.
The role as a service provider seems a much more likely candidate as describing a widely adopted form of commitment. Service agencies do have many projects, but their role in the system is not defined by any single project, which may be short term, but by the long-term commitment to being available. Service providers have the capacity to undertake a series of similar, but varying projects. They are constantly seeking to identify a need for their services and, if they are any good, become a focal point for local organizations and begin to generate a demand for the service they provide.
The international sector is generally auxiliary to other organizations when it comes to explanations of events or system characteristics, which also suggests that they play a secondary role, which would also fit the political service idea. Internationally-based organizations are a pervasive presence in less-developed countries, yet it is rare that serious explanations of political events identify them as determinant factors. Except for cases of military intervention or colonial occupation, the action of foreigners is rarely if ever decisive. Certainly any one international organization does not do more than make a 'contribution' to transitions, or maintaining stability, or altering policy directions. But even if we focus on the entire sector, the ensemble of international organizations, rather than on just one organization, the answer does not change substantially.[17] Internationally-based organizations are not like political parties in a liberal-democratic system. Their interactions do not shape the politics of the country. The outcomes of party competition can have a decisive impact on the political process.
But 'auxiliary' should not be understood as the equivalent of weak and marginal. The actions of the World Bank, or human rights organizations, or USAID, or any others of these organizations may not determine the main elements of the outcome, but they supplement, or contribute, or shade the outcome. All of the international NGOs in the environmental field could not dictate policy, although they may change its timing, and modify important provisions. Sometimes the contributions are very important. For example, one can make the case that the international human rights organization played a key role at the moment of the breakup of a number of authoritarian regimes by their mobilization of world public opinion which stimulated actions by other government who brought pressure on military governments.[18]
Now this marginality might be explained simply by saying that they are interest groups like other interest groups, only relatively weak. It is probably useful in some situations to think of these organizations as having an 'interest', competing for a piece of the pie. They obviously have the inevitable 'bureaucratic' interest in their own survival and welfare. But the image may be misleading.[19] NGOs , and internationally-based organizations in particular, are only partially understood as having an interest. They are rather acting in concert with others in the system. They do come with preconceptions, their own agenda, and many try to impose their own ideas and ideologies. But their relation to other organizations is neither rivalry nor alliance, as a model of bargaining among interests would imply. I argue that this relationship is much more like a client-service provider relationship.
Assessing the political impact of the international sector involves two sorts of analysis. First, to specify whether a particular set of internationally-based actors was influential at some particular juncture, one must identify their distinctive resources, the manner in which others are dependent on them, and whether the specialized conditions which can make those small resources important in fact occurred.
On the other hand, and more subtly, the way in which certain services are performed may begin to shape certain characteristics of the political system because of the impact they have other structures. For example, it is apparent that the nature of political competition is being shaped in all countries because of the professionalization of elections. However those effects are understood, it is clear that they are not the result of the political goals of the service providers. They are the result of the professionalization of image management, is made possible by the availability of polls, television and other ways cutting out the traditional party and campaign organization. This sort of effect is a general one, and not limited, obviously, to the actions of internationally-based actors, but in the less-developed countries, it may well be the latter which bring about these changes.[20]
The services performed by these organizations are clearly going to vary enormously according to the groups involved; consider the contrasts among USAID, Amnesty International, the Papal nuncio, the CIA. And the consequences will change according to the conditions; consider the differences between Mexico's 'top-down' transition, India's complex democracy, or Angola's shattered state. Generalizing across countries and regions about the specific services performed and their significance, will have limited utility for those looking at particular countries. But we can make the notion of a political service sector at the state-society interface a bit more concrete, and perhaps offer some tentative hypotheses about where the internationally-based organizations may most likely find their niche.
First, a few words about specialization and political services. A variety of tasks performed in a political system can be subject to specialization, such as organizing, mediation, shaping and communicating public information, handling money for political purposes, conducting policy research, and assessing elite or public opinion. Contemporary systems have a more or less complex set of organizations which provide these political services. If a political system is small, local, or poor there is probably neither the need nor the resources to have specialized services. In richer and more complex countries, we find a world of image advisors, organizational consultants, specialized policy 'think tanks', pollsters, mediators and the like. Specialization has become quite extensive.
Identifying specialized service providers is not always easy, particularly in the political field. Organizations may become specialized in one or another political service without adopting it as a manifest purpose of the organization. There is no difficulty in accepting the idea that polling organizations, politically oriented public relations firms, policy institutes and legislative reference bureaus are political service organizations. They proclaim it in their self-designation.[21] But others are less obvious. The political service is sometimes a by-product of other, not so explicitly political activities. To cite a much discussed example, the electronic media entertains and informs, but in the process, it becomes highly specialized at shaping images of persons and issues, which play a central function in political debate and action. It takes standing back a bit to see what its role is in politics and the consequences of the way it plays it. For internationally-based organizations there is the additional problem that publicly identifying a political role may be taken as a violation of international law, or may open the group to a hostile political reaction. Research in this field is a challenge, and depends on a pretty clear theoretical notion of what one should be looking for.
The notion of performing a specialized service sharply raises the question of partiality. The concept of service may seem to imply professional neutrality, offering the service all comers. It certainly implies multiple clienteles. Political services, however, often have a partisan flavor. Parties, for example, may have their 'own' pollsters, electoral advisors, or policy shops.
In the international sector, partisan relationships are often found, and may have been the norm earlier. In the Cold War era, partisanship, whether it was connected to parties or to governments and oppositions was also common. Out of the era of internationally promoted development, a different emphasis came about, not so much a neutrality, but a turning away from the established party or government-opposition allegiances, but to a connection with either particular clientele, or, for categories like the business community, the poor, or exporting farmers. For many internationally-based actors it would appear that the mandate to be 'non-political' in the sense of non-partisan probably encourages more political identifications of this kind.
The concept of the political service sector does capture the changeability of the connections of clients and providers, and a bit of the distance which these latter links imply. The notion of professional neutrality is probably too strong for the sorts of ties we are looking at, but it does not seem to be essential to the concept, anyway.
The range of possible services is, of course, very wide. An inventory of political services which had become specialized in any country would be very useful. Each country, and perhaps each separate policy arena, will have a different pattern of specializations. In the absence of such descriptions, a simple framework based on a conventional view of politics at the state-society interface can serve to help us deduce what possible services might exist. That, in turn, might allow us to suggest what needs might be met by the international sector.
Services look different, depending on whether one looks 'down' from the state, or 'up' from society. Using a simple model of politics at the interface, one may look for institutions through which,
from the top down,
policy is implemented and
support generated for state/government authorities, and,
from the bottom up, through which
group interests are shaped and
demands made on the state.
Political services which are candidates for specialization, and which might be provided by internationally-based organizations, may thus be categorized into help on the one hand for policy implementation and support generation, and, on the other, for interest formation and demand making. Some remarks about each follows.
Assistance for policy implementation is probably the best known of the sorts of services internationally-based organizations perform. Technical assistance about the policy and its likely impacts is offered by UN agencies, foreign governments and, probably particularly in the sensitive social policy field, by non-governmental entities, including universities. There can also be channels for recruiting people to carry out the policy, or for training existing officials.
Support generation requires 'local' knowledge to allow for adaptation of policy, and to avoid negative political reactions. Representatives of international organizations operating at the grassroots level may be in a position to provide such information. At a more general level, research and polling organizations may be able to provide intelligence on the state of public opinion, of potential opposition figures, and of the groups and alliances around relevant interests.[22] The need to generate political support may create a demand, also, for public relations-type of services, as well.
Information needs becomes more complex, and therefore the demand for more sophisticated services increases, when policies involve not a single large project, but a project which needs to be implemented in a different way in many different situations, or where public response is articulate, informed and organized. There are many who see such conditions as becoming more frequent (and more desirable) in many countries. There are a number of different ways of describing the forms of governance that results, and many names for it, including 'reinvented government', "interactive social-political governance" and "the 'polycentric' structure of political institutions".[23] Internationally-based organizations are obviously not the only agencies which can provide these services, but they may be in a good position to respond because of their familiarity with these patterns at home.
Turning to society's point of view, a variety of services may become involved when groups are in the process of forming and defining their interests, and when they are making demands on the state. Here is where the emphasis on grassroots development by private voluntary organizations, the World Bank and official government aid agencies becomes relevant. Generally to build grassroots participation sets a goal of creating new groups which provide self help. But it is quickly recognized that these grassroots groups have the potential of serving as a base political group. The motivation of the international sector groups may well be only that of facilitating policy implementation, and not political demand making directed at the central government. The argument is that local programs will be better if the people are involved in them. But many went on to argue that they would be successful only if they could make demands on, and sometimes protect themselves from the state. This might require building local groups into local 'intermediary' NGOs, and even policy networks of NGOs.[24] Provision of organizational models and skills, techniques and machinery for running meetings, maintaining memberships, and many other organizational needs, are all the sorts of things that the international sector can and does provide.
As the group moves into the political arena, it adapts to, or tries to alter the existing political process. This requires knowledge of the legal, political and institutional nature of the system. It also requires a process whereby it can make alliances with other groups, or define terms of conflict and competition. It needs to develop the capacity to enter into debate over policy and strategy. A variety of services, from the means of communication to making contacts in the policy and bureaucratic circles in the national capital may provide a point of departure for an international NGO, or the representatives of financial institutions such as the World Bank, or a visiting foreign academic to provide some assistance. Obviously, at some level, knowledge of the political landscape is much better had from local people, but the internationalization of the policy world makes the international contribution important as well.
When we are talking about the provision of services to a variety of potential and actual politically-relevant organizations, it is necessary, to explore not only the kinds of individual services that are provided, but to consider the way in which the ensemble of organizations create a kind of market. In this case, the services needed for starting up and improving political organizations becomes something of a bank for organizational resources.
Like a bank, these service organizations extend professional advice and credits for the founding or expansion of organizations, in this case, not for business, but political enterprises. The significance of such 'political banks' for the operation of the larger system, as with normal ones, lies not only in the actual investments, grants and 'loans' that they make, but also the impact that the availability of such start-up and operating help has on the behavior of the (political) entrepreneurs. The alternatives (to forming a political group) of enduring a difficult situation or seeking the protection of a powerful patron may not seem so necessary, not because these people have been sought out, but because the knowledge of the availability of help becomes diffused throughout society.
The conditions under which this promotes a pluralist democracy, and those under which it does lead to the organization of under-represented groups, but under the control of political entrepreneurs in the negative sense, is an empirical question. The 'market' in 'credits' to build organizations will no doubt produce distortions (from whatever ideal standard) as well as opening up possibilities. And, of course, just as banks often dominate their creditors, the international sector organizations may dominate the groups that have been formed.
The political banking sector, that is, the ensemble of organizations, both public and private, international and national, are in some sense competing to sponsor organizations. The nature of this competition among internationally-based and national organizations varies from country to country, and from time to time, and needs to be explored. The form of the competition will influence whether groups tend to be tied to a political faction, are linked to the state or opposition, or, whether the resources will help groups remain autonomous. The international sector, in so far as it establishes a channel for resources from abroad, is in a position to structure this 'market' so that it favors groups not tied to the government.[25] Whether it does so or not is an empirical question.
Again, internationally-based organizations will obviously only be one set of those offering these sorts of services for organizing politically relevant groups. But this is an area where, it the less-developed world, international actors have wanted to make an impact, and although the 'share of the market' they command is no doubt highly variable, and their permanence hardly assured, it is an area which should command significant investigation.
Another notable aspect of the international sector's political services is the extent to which ideas, analysis, and information are involved in the things they provide. Given the definition of many of the internationally-based actors as 'donors', the tendency has been to focus on the provision of money, personnel and equipment, particularly for developmental purposes. But many of the functions they perform have to do with introducing ideas, making analyses, and stimulating discussions on issues ranging from policy to constitutional or social change. For political action, money and material are obviously also important, but so are ideas, and internationally-based organizations often seem to be at the center of the institutions handling them.
Any political system can be analyzed in terms of how political ideas are generated, how (or whether) they are tested against facts, how and where they are subjected to debate, how differences of opinion or perspective are resolved, and how they are interpreted and implemented as policy. It is more usual to think of politics as a clash of interests, which are resolved by bargaining (if not coercion) which decides who get what, when and how. The conceptualizing of politics as a kind of debate, however, has an equally ancient pedigree. I am not here raising the question of whether ideas determine action. Ideas and interests seem (to me) to be two sides of a coin. But it is, I think, a mistake not to analyze the institutions and structures of politics without explicitly thinking about the institutions which make up what I will call the 'idea-processing structure'.
Certain of the institutions of this structure are obvious. In democratic polities, parliaments are presumably places where people talk and debate (as well as trade and bargain). Election campaigns are arenas where, at least formally, issues are presented and defended. Cabinets are supposed to be places where government policies and strategies are worked out in discussion.[26] But out there on the state-society frontier, there are also idea-processing structures and institutions which shape the handling of ideas.[27] And it is here that the international sector is usually heavily engaged. One way in which they do this is to become, simply, providers of information. The most obviously related service is what is called 'technical assistance'. At the level discussed above, of providing services for the formation of demand-making groups, the international sector brings ideas to the local process through formal or informal education and training, policy proposals, political strategy suggestions, and so on.[28]
However, the role internationally-based organizations play in establishing the location, character and process of debate may be more important than the specific information presented. There are many services involved in establishing arenas of discussion, arranging for its facilities, defining its participants, socializing them into their role, and setting its rules. To some extent the recent emphasis on 'governance' has involved a direct effort to build such arenas, in particular with the programs for orienting newly elected parliamentarians in new democracies, but it takes place in many less central ways, as well. Organized discussion is important for politics include not only in the obvious arenas of policy debate, but also, for example, for collective reflection on the identity of the group making the demands.[29] A recent emphasis of the groups involved in supporting NGOs in less-developed countries has been the formation of networks, which are justified in part as a way of creating alliances and maximizing their impact on policy, but also as an arena in which goals, strategies and world views are debated among the participants.
Another way in which the internationally-based actors shape idea-processing, is through the policy studies, conferences, books and journals which are provided, which creates spaces for political and policy discussion which is sometimes an important antidote to official controls. A striking example which had a central importance at one point in time, was the support by Ford and other Foundations for research centers in the southern cone of Latin America during the period of military rule. Although it is difficult to pinpoint the consequences (as it is with all cases of the influence of 'ideas'), the role of the centers appear to be important, if only because the number of post-military political figures who had somehow come from or through those research centers.
The impact of internationally-based organizations may also be to shape discussion in another way. Bringing in 'experts', which appears to be a well established mode of operations for internationally-based organizations, can be thought of simply as an effort to supply instrumental, technical knowledge which local decision makers can follow, and it may often be that. But the steady stream of such experts can also be seen as another way of structuring political discussion. It may be the intention, and the result, to bring about a pattern of discussion which is more factually grounded, more scientific and more practical than what would probable ensue without their presence. Another sort of consequence would be to create a new set of local leaders, who are able to deal with these international experts, either because of their own training or their new cosmopolitan skills. The dialogue may have an impact on shaping the groups that participate in it. One of the functions which US and European research Universities have performed for the less-developed countries has been to a) provide experts to shape their political discussion, and b) train the elites of those countries so that they deal with them.
It seems likely that one could also tell many stories about the way in which these services to groups in the institutions which manage research and debate led to division, inappropriate policies or disastrous political strategies.[30] The examples are many, and it is impossible to try and categorize them here. The point is that among the important political services which internationally-based organizations provide, those which are involved in shaping the idea-processing structure can be very significant.
The political role of foreigners, of internationally-based actors, obviously takes a wide variety of forms, and takes place in many situations. One cannot make general conclusions about the overall impact of 'foreigners in the system'. Nor does 'limiting' ourselves to their impacts at the state-society interface help. It is not possible to say that they always play the same role, and even less possible to say that their presence always has the same consequences. There is no single theory internationalized politics. About all that may be possible, therefore (as with so many studies in political science) is not causal hypotheses of a general kind, but rather historically specific, 'diagnostic' propositions about trends and their possible consequences.
In the case of these thoughts aimed at orientation, I will conclude with some possibilities of this kind of historical statement, offered as a starting point.
1. As the NGO sector becomes more diversified, and as states become more sophisticated in managing the interface, the roles of internationally-based organizations will become more diversified. The international actors operating with NGOs, at the state-society interface, appear to have been searching for, and settling into some specialized political services (as opposed to becoming 'political' in a broad sense, or 'staying out of politics').
2. The influence of the international sector in the less developed countries in the post-war period came from the special quality of the resources they brought and their own unusual (for the host country) form of organization. This source of influence has probably faded in many places as civil society organizations have grown and societies have become more complex and 'modern'. On the other hand, the influence of the international groups continues to be strong based on their ability to link with the external world, separate from (although not always hostile to) the government.
3. The growing sensitivity of the state-society interface, with diversified and relatively autonomous organizations of all kinds, probably provides international organizations with more opportunities to become involved in a serious, on-going way, as is obviously the case in economic production. The interface, as a result, is more fluid and market-like than ever, which suggests pluralism in demand making and a 'reinvented government' in policy making and application. This could heighten the need for specialized services to manage, or even keep track of the patterns that emerge, and make room for the variety of small scale efforts that internationally-based organizations are likely to provide.
4. Specializing in the cognitive side of the idea-processing institutions is likely to become more and more dominant as a part of the repertoire of service of internationally-based organizations. This is because the advantages of international connections are going to be more enduring, and the need for independent (from the state) information will continue to be great. (Note: the computer revolution shows the demand for information.)
5. Accountability is perhaps the most important normative issues in assessing the impact of the international sector. Hirschman writes that international support "...has permitted the grassroots movement in Latin America to proceed with a minimum of paternalism, perhaps because of the distance between the donors and the ultimate beneficiaries, and with much inventiveness, no doubt because of its decentralized and pluralist nature."[31] Many others worry about the danger of support by foreigners is that it will no longer represent the untrammeled desire of the people.[32]
Accountability might be taken as a theme for assessing the impact of the international sector. The logic of building grassroots organizations, which has been a thrust of many internationally-based organizations presumably promotes accountability to the extent that it develops the capacity of local groups to observe and make demands. But on the other hand, the actions of the internationally-based organizations themselves are in a strange situation with respect to accountability, what Berg calls a 'parallel duplicity' in which money is raised for relief, and spent on development, while the local groups take money for development and spend it on local empowerment. [33] Alan Fowler suggests that, "Donor agencies often impose onerous reporting burdens on NGOs in order to satisfy obligations to their own tax-payers. The organizational imperative to raise and sustain incomes quickly creates a situation where fulfilling donor demands dictates NGO orientations. This shifts the direction of NGO accountability towards the funder instated of to the constituency who are the NGOs raison d'tre...one of the most detrimental effects of aid, official or otherwise."[34]
6. The era of the international sector saving the less developed countries (development, democracy) is weakening, and an era of their institutionalization and incorporation is at hand. The remaining element of the modernizing drive will be creating a kind of uniformity of law and practice, which they will promote. The main issue is the basis for the universalization, i.e., whether it will be based on uniformity, or some sort of harmonized diversity. The most optimistic conclusion is that the uniformity implicit in the modernization drive is being replaced with a kind of 'multi-' which will, however, undermine nationalist hostilities, as well, and that, the presence of internationally-based organizations in all countries (including, of course, the developed ones) will assure a certain pluralism and absence of rigid control. (But this is probably much too optimistic.)
[1] Such as the German Adenauer Foundation, or the US National Endowment for Democracy. See Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael, Foreign Political Aid: the German political foundations and their US counterparts, International Affairs, 67/1 (1991) 23-63
[2] This essay forms part of a long-term concern with the political roles of foreigners and foreign institutions in many phases of politics. For a more general statement, see, Chalmers, Douglas A., "Internationalized Domestic Politics in Latin America: The Institutional Role of Internationally Based Actors" paper presented at conference on 'Remapping Latin American Studies' Princeton University , April, 1993*
[3] There is an stream in the field of international relations on the international causes of political phenomena, which has chiefly been with those aspects of domestic politics which affect foreign policy. An older, yet still interesting review of this literature, and the stimulus for a good deal more, was Gourevitch, Peter, "The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics" International Organization, 32/4 (Autumn, 1978) pp. 881-911. Most is concerned with the impact of international conditions, however, rather than with internationally-based organizations that become involved inside domestic politics. The literature on transnationalism has mostly been concerned with explaining international phenomena, not domestic politics.
[4] Policy oriented literature is often focused on one group, since its sponsors are often particular organizations, such as the Inter-American Fund or The World Bank. A good theory of the impact of the internationally-based sector, however, should, however, be an essential part of any good policy analysis.
[5] Given the importance of political economy, there is less work on the way in which, say multi-national corporations shape politics than one might expect. For example, an obvious place to look for the political consequences of such corporations is the dependency literature, but the political consequences (e.g., fragmented or authoritarian states) were often less important in the analysis than the economic ones (e.g., distorted or frustrated growth). This is even true of Peter Evans' fine Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State and Local Capital in Brazil, Princeton (Princeton, 1979) which analyzes the formation of the 'triple alliance' of the state, foreign capital and local capital. The dependent variable is overwhelmingly the performance and shape of the economy.
[6] Economic performance and poverty obviously have important effects on the effectiveness or stability of the system, so they may figure in secondarily, but the main concern here is on the characteristics of the polity as a whole.
[7] See Damrosch, Lori Fisler, Politics Across Borders: Nonintervention and Nonforcible Influence over Domestic Affairs American Journal of International Law, 83/1 (Jan. 89)for a theory about how the law is changing.
[8] See for example the responses to Brian Smith's question in the early 1980s by Canadian and US PVO leaders in Smith, Brian H. "U.S. and Canadian PVOs as Transnational Development Institutions" in Gorman, Robert F. (ed.) Private Voluntary Organizations as Agents of Development, Westview (Boulder, 1984) p 115
[9] See, for example, Smith, Brian More Than Altruism, Princeton (Princeton, 1990) for a superb analysis of international non-governmental organizations which is very much concerned with their political role, but defines it almost exclusively in terms of being on one side or another of the factions aligned around cold war and authoritarian issues. Also see Thompson, Andrs, "Democracy and Development: The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay", in McCarthy, Kathleen, Virginia A Hodgkinson, Russy D. Sumariwalla, et al The Nonprofit Sector in the Global Community: Voices From Many Nations, Jossey-Bass, (San Francisco, 1992) 389-405
[10] The use of the term 'interface' is used here by analogy with it use in the computer world, where it means not just a boundary between two things, but a set of 'programs', procedures, rules and other elements which makes possible, but also strongly conditions the movements of things across that border. The interface is thus a structure.
[11] For example see Salamon, Lester M., "The Global Associational Revolution: The Rise of the Third Sector on the World Scene", Institute for Policy Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Occasional Paper No. 15, April 1993
[12] See, for example, (among many others) Theunis, Sjef (ed.) Non-governmental development organizations of developing countries .. and the South smiles, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1992)
[13] Note the inclusion of terrorist groups as NGOs in Taylor, Philip Nonstate actors in International Politics: From Transregional to Substate Organizations, Boulder, (Westview, 1984). This is plausible given the name, but not what people seem to have in mind.
[14] Black, Maggie, A Cause for Our Times: Oxfam, the First Fifty Years, Oxfam and Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1992)
[15] See particularly, Korten, David C., "Third Generation NGO Strategies: A Key to People-Centered Development", World Development, 15 (suppl)1987 145-160. The institution-building (or sustainable development) phase is the third for development organizations, after one devoted to relief and another to local, self reliant development. Note that 'sustainable development seems to have two meanings, First, development is sustainable when it is institutionalized and has on-going political support, (the meaning intended here) and second, development is sustainable when it is consonant with preserving the environment.
[16] On quasi-states, see Jackson, Robert H. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1990)
[17] Note the skepticism of Sheldon Annis, in "Can Small-Scale Development be Large Scale Policy?" in Annis, Sheldon and Peter Hakim, (eds.) Direct to the Poor: Grassroots Development in Latin America, Lynne Reinner (Boulder, 1988) even as applied to the formation of grassroots organizations. "Although foreign private voluntary organizations can serve as catalysts, they seldom provide a larger framework that sustains grassroots growth over the long run. The more important incentives that foster grassroots growth comes from the state, even thought grassroots organizations and the state ma be in an adversarial relationship."
[18] See Lisa L. Martin and Kathryn Sikkink, for example, " U.S. Policy and Human Rights in Argentina and Guatemala, 1973-1980" in Evans, Peter D., Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert d. Putnam, eds. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, University of California (Berkeley, 1993). In this case, the conditions for successful influence (in Argentina and not Guatemala) include the willingness of the US government to act, the particular bargaining position of the local government, and the presence of what Sikkink elsewhere calls a 'policy network' for human rights which extended into the countries in question.
[19] The most plausible identification of these groups with an interest is with their home government. Brian Smith, in More Than Altruism, op cit., explores this thoroughly, and generally concludes that seeing these international actors as agents of their home government is, at best, an imperfect description.
[20] This is a good case of an effect of internationally-based actors stemming from the fact that they are different, rather than because they build in a channel to the outside world. with regard to election services, it does not take long before local actors imitate, and perhaps surpass the foreigners.
[21] As in all functional analysis, relating activities to system characteristics, there is always the possibility, and even the likelihood, that 'latent functions' will be different, and perhaps more important than the manifest ones, to use the classic language of Robert Merton.
[22] Foreign scholarly researchers are, of course, often in a position to provide this information, and are certainly specialized in generating the information. Sometimes, particularly in complex political situations, delivery of that information may set up moral dilemmas.
[23] "Reinvented government" is from Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted, Reinventing Government, Plume (Penguin) (NY, 1993), "interactive social-political governance" is from Kooiman, Jan., in Kooiman, (ed.), Modern Governance : New Government-Society Interactions, Sage (London; Newbury Park, Calif.) , 1993, p. 21, and 'polycentric' is from Ostrom, Elinor, Larry Schroeder and Susan Wynne, Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective, Westview(Boulder, CO , 1993), chapter 5.
[24] See for example, the broad discussion of various types of links that are seen to be necessary in making effective popular representation, in Carroll, Thomas F., Intermediary NGOs: The Supporting Link in Grassroots Development, Kumarian Press, (West Hartford, CT, 1992)
[25] One policy paper advocates a substantial role for internationally-based organizations in structuring the polity in this area. "There are few natural incentives for governments to encourage VOs, even though they can play an important role in the long term development process. Donors had to assume a lead role in gaining recognition for the importance of the market, and they may have to provide similar leadership in promoting policy and operating space for VOs. There are three areas to which particular attention should be directed. Guarantees of Freedom of Association,...Policies Encouraging Private Philanthropy,...VO Participation in Policy Processes." Brown, David L. and David C Korten, Understanding Voluntary Organizations: Guidelines for Donors, Public Sector Management and Private Sectors Development Working Paper, Country Economic Development Department, World Bank (Wash DC, 1989)p 27
[26] In this cynical and anti-political age, people, including scholars, do homage to these cognitive functions of these institutions by complaining that the quality of the debate is not what it should be, which is probably true, although determining what 'it should be' is complicated. Sometimes, unfortunately, observers conclude that no debate at all goes on in these sites. which is generally wrong.
[27] See Wuthnow, Robert, (ed.) Between States and Markets: The Voluntary Sector in Comparative Perspective, Princeton, (1991), who makes the argument that private voluntary organization in general have a key role to play in what he calls 'public discourse."
[28] Among many others, Esman and Uphoff give considerable significance to role of foreigners in conveying ideas. "Donors are also urged to help build a body of operational doctrine and practice, including: monitoring projects, comparative research, support for institutions that build knowledge, specialized training, and making expert consultants available." And, "They (the donors) can help with the formulation of projects that incorporate local organization and ensure that the designs of specific LOs are consistent with successful experience." Esman, Milton J., and Normal Uphoff, Local Organizations: Intermediaries in Rural Development, Cornell (Ithaca, 1984) The role of international donors in helping local organizations to think through their problems, and bring light from outside, but also fashions and fads, is also discussed by a group of Latin American NGO representatives in Arbab, Farzam Non-Governmental Organizations: Report of a Learning Project, Centro Latinoamericano de Educacin y Technologia rural (CELATER)(Cali, 1988)
[29] In a history of the Inter American Foundation, Breslin, Patrick, Development and Dignity: Grassroots Development and the Inter-American Foundation, IAF (Rosslyn, 1987), the author discusses the way the foundation helped in 'finding' identities - through, in this case, funding projects which allowed groups to explore their own history.
[30] Fowler, for example, has many criticisms of the way in which internationally-based organizations affect the debate, and makes recommendations to donors to correct it. Fowler, Alan, "The Role of NGOs in Changing State-Society Relations: Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa", Development Policy Review, SAGE, Vol. 9 (1991) 53-84
[31] Hirschman, Albert O Getting Ahead Collectively: Grassroots Development in Latin America, Pergamon (NY, 84), p 94
[32] For example, see Schmale, Matthias, The Role of Local Organizations in Third World Development: Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia, Avebury, (Aldershot, 1993), or Fowler, Alan, "The Role of NGOs in Changing State-Society Relations: Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa", Development Policy Review, SAGE, Vol. 9 (1991) 53-84
[33] Berg, Robert J., Non Governmental Organizations: New Force in Third World Development and Politics CASID (East Lansing, MI, 1987)
[34] Fowler, Alan, "The Role of NGOs in Changing State-Society Relations: Perspectives from Eastern and Southern Africa", Development Policy Review, SAGE, Vol. 9 (1991) 53-84