Hegemonic Relationships: Donor Countries and NGOs in Western Balkan Post-Conflict Reconstruction
In: Southeastern EuropeSearch for other papers by Nikolaos Tzifakis in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Asteris Huliaras in
Current site
Google Scholar
The impact of Non-Governmental Organizations’ reconstruction activities in Bosnia and Kosovo was largely determined by the nature and content of two dominant relationships. The first is the donor countries-International NGO (INGO) relationship. To grasp the importance of this relationship, it suffices to mention that, at the global level, donors give around five times more funds to INGOs (and more precisely to their own national NGOs) than to Local NGOs (LNGOs). The second is the International NGO-LNGO relationship. With respect to the first relationship, donor countries had a clear hegemonic position vis-à-vis INGOs. In turn, INGOs developed a hegemonic position towards LNGOs. These hegemonic relationships undermined the quality and effectiveness of aid disbursed and failed to promote the development of an open and democratic civil society. More interestingly, although most donors and INGOs got involved in the post-conflict reconstruction of both countries, very weak learning processes seem to have operated in the region. A comparative examination of the two reconstruction efforts reveals that the manifestation of many inefficiencies and failures was indeed even more acute in Kosovo than in Bosnia.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Agg C.2006. “ Winners or Losers? NGOs in the Current Aid Paradigm,” Development 49/2: 15–21.
-
Apthorpe R. 20 March 2002. “ Was international emergency relief aid in Kosovo ‘humanitarian’?,” Humanitarian Exchange (Overseas Development Institute –ODI: Humanitarian Practice Network): 21–23.
-
Bala A. 10 May 2002. “ UN: Conference Concludes NGOs Have Often Failed In Efforts To Develop Civil Society,” RFE/RL. Available at: <http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1099665.html>.
-
Belloni R.2001. “ Civil Society and Peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Journal of Peace Research 38/2: 163–180.
-
Berggren B., and Olin A.. 2004. Evaluation of Finland’s Development Cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Public Administration – SIPU: Report, 2).
-
Bojicić-Dzelilović V.2002. “ World Bank, NGOs and the Private Sector in Post-War Reconstruction,” International Peacekeeping 9/2: 81–98.
-
Carey H. F.2003. “ Conclusion: NGO Dilemmas in Peace Processes,” International Peacekeeping 10/1: 172–179.
-
Chiodi L., 2002. “ Promoting Civil Society: Local NGOs in the Balkans since the 90s,” in Bianchini S., , Schöpflin G., and Shoup P. (eds.), Post-Communist Transition as a European Problem (Ravenna: Longo Editore Ravenna): 59–78.
-
Collingwood V.2006. “ Non-governmental organisations, power and legitimacy in international society,” Review of International Studies 32/3: 439–454.
-
Cooley A., and Ron J.. 2002. “ The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action,” International Security 27/1: 5–39.
-
Coyne C. J.2006. “ Reconstructing Weak and Failed States: Foreign Intervention and the Nirvana Fallacy,” Foreign Policy Analysis 2/4: 343–360.
-
Currion P.2001. Strength in Numbers: A Review Of NGO Coordination in the Field. Case Study: Kosovo 1999-2002 (International Council of Voluntary Agencies – ICVA). Available at: <http://www.icva.ch/doc00004595.pdf>.
-
del Castillo G.2008. Rebuilding War-Torn States: The Challenge of Post-Conflict Economic Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
-
Demichelis J. June 1998. NGOs and Peacebuilding in Bosnia’s Ethnically Divided Cities (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Special Report). Available at: < June, http://www.usip.org/files/resources/SR32.pdf>.
-
Devic A.2006. “ Transnationalization of Civil Society in Kosovo: International and Local Limits of Peace and Multiculturalism,” Ethnopolitics 5/3: 257–273.
-
Drazic I. 18 June 2001. “ Non-government Sector Still Weak: International Community Takes Charge of Money and Responsibility,” AIM. Available at: <http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/200106/10629-001-trae-sar.htm>.
-
Duffield M.1997. “ NGO relief in war zones: towards an analysis of the new aid paradigm,” Third World Quarterly 18/3: 527–542.
-
Edwards M., and Hulme D.. 1996. “ Too Close for Comfort? The Impact of Official Aid on Non-governmental organizations,” World Development 24/6: 961–973.
-
Evans-Kent B., and Bleiker R.. 2010. “ NGOs and Reconstructing Civil Society in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” International Peacekeeping 10/1: 103–119.
-
Fagan A.2005. “ Civil society in Bosnia ten years after Dayton,” International Peacekeeping 12/3: 406–419.
-
——. 2010. Europe’s Balkan Dilemma. Paths to Civil Society or State-Building? (London: I. B. Tauris).
-
Fawcett J., and Tanner V.. 2000. The Political Repercussions of Emergency Programs: A Review of USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in the Former Yugoslavia (1991-1996) (Washington, DC: Checchi Consulting and Co). Available at: <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACJ890.pdf>.
-
Gagnon V. P. Jr., 2002. “ International NGOs in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Attempting to Build Civil Society,” in Mendelson S. E., and Glenn J. K. (eds.), The Power and Limits of NGOs (New York: Columbia University Press): 207–231.
-
Gallagher T.2005. The Balkans in the New Millennium. In the shadow of war and peace (London: Routledge).
-
Grodeland A. B.2010. “ ‘They Have Achieved a Lot Because we Have Paid Them to do a Lot:’ NGOs and the International Community in the West Balkans. Perceptions of Each Other,” Global Society 24/2: 173–201.
-
Hadzihalilovic S. 28 September 1999. “ Non-Governmental Organisations in B&H: From Declaration on Rights to the Country of the Child,” AIM. Available at: <http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/199909/90928-004-trae-sar.htm>.
-
Jarvik L.2007. “ NGOs: A ‘New Class’ in International Relations,” Orbis 51/2: 217–238.
-
Katana G. 26 September 1999. “ NGOs in Republika Srpska: Bashful Support of the Regime,” AIM. Available at: <http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/199909/90926-002-trae-sar.htm>.
-
King D.2005. “ Parallel routes to recovery: community priorities and NGO policy in the post civil war reconstruction of Sierra Leone,” International Journal of Emergency Management 2/3: 149–162.
-
Klarreich K., and Polman L.. 31 October 2012. “ The NGO Republic of Haiti,” The Nation. Available at: <http://www.thenation.com/article/170929/ngo-republic-haiti>.
-
NORAD. 2010a. Evaluation of Norwegian Development Cooperation with the Western Balkans (Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Volume I. Evaluation Report 7/2010).
-
NORAD. 2010b. Evaluation of Norwegian Development Cooperation with the Western Balkans (Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Volume II. Evaluation Report 7/2010).
-
Nunnenkamp P., and Öhler H.. 2012. “ Funding, Competition and the Efficiency of NGOs: An Empirical Analysis of Non-charitable Expenditure of US NGOs Engaged in Foreign Aid,” Kyklos 65/1: 81–110.
-
OECD. 2011. How DAC members work with civil society organizations: An overview (Paris: OECD).
-
Paris R.1997. “ Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism,” International Security 22/2: 54–89.
-
Rieff D.2000. “ Kosovo’s Humanitarian Circus,” World Policy Journal 17/3: 25–32.
-
Sampson S.2002. “ From forms to norms: global projects and local practices in the Balkan NGO scene,” Journal of Human Rights 2/3: 329–337.
-
Sandgren C.1999. Sweden’s Assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Study of Aid Management and Related Policy Issues (Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Department of Central and Eastern Europe. SIDA Evaluation 99/24).
-
Scott-Flynn N. 15 November 1999. “ Coordination in Kosovo: the challenge for the NGO sector,” RRF Newsletter (Overseas Development Institute – ODI. Relief and Rehabilitation Network): 7–9.
-
Schloms M.2003. “ Humanitarian NGOs in Peace Processes,” International Peacekeeping 10/1: 40–55.
-
Sekulic G. 16 April 2000. “ Change of Power and NGOs in B&H: (Un)Founded Optimism or Petritsch For King,” AIM. Available at: <http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/200004/00416-004-trae-sar.htm>.
-
Simmons P. J.1998. “ Learning to Live with NGOs,” Foreign Policy 112: 82–96.
-
Smillie I., and Evenson K., . 2003. “ Sustainable Civil Society or Service Delivery Agencies? The Evolution of Non-governmental Organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” in Dijkzeul D., and Beigbeder Y. (eds.), Rethinking International Organizations: Pathology & Promise (Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books): 287–306.
-
Smillie I., and Todorović G., . 2001. “ Reconstructing Bosnia, Constructing Civil Society: Disjuncture and Convergence,” in Smillie I. (ed.), Patronage or partnership: local capacity building in humanitarian crises (Bloomfield, USA: Kumarian Press, Inc.): 25–50.
-
Sterland B. 20 June 2006. Civil Society Capacity Building in Post-Conflict Societies: The Experience of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre – INTRAC. Praxis Paper 9).
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 731 | 151 | 4 |
| Full Text Views | 175 | 9 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 93 | 23 | 10 |
Hegemonic Relationships: Donor Countries and NGOs in Western Balkan Post-Conflict Reconstruction
In: Southeastern EuropeSearch for other papers by Nikolaos Tzifakis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Asteris Huliaras in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The impact of Non-Governmental Organizations’ reconstruction activities in Bosnia and Kosovo was largely determined by the nature and content of two dominant relationships. The first is the donor countries-International NGO (INGO) relationship. To grasp the importance of this relationship, it suffices to mention that, at the global level, donors give around five times more funds to INGOs (and more precisely to their own national NGOs) than to Local NGOs (LNGOs). The second is the International NGO-LNGO relationship. With respect to the first relationship, donor countries had a clear hegemonic position vis-à-vis INGOs. In turn, INGOs developed a hegemonic position towards LNGOs. These hegemonic relationships undermined the quality and effectiveness of aid disbursed and failed to promote the development of an open and democratic civil society. More interestingly, although most donors and INGOs got involved in the post-conflict reconstruction of both countries, very weak learning processes seem to have operated in the region. A comparative examination of the two reconstruction efforts reveals that the manifestation of many inefficiencies and failures was indeed even more acute in Kosovo than in Bosnia.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 731 | 151 | 4 |
| Full Text Views | 175 | 9 | 5 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 93 | 23 | 10 |
