Civil Society or state-building? Evaluating donor assistance in BiH and Serbia

Adam Fagan

a.fagan@qmul.ac.uk

Civil society assistance in post-socialist Eurasia: what we saw…

• New NGO networks disconnected from indigenous networks• External assistance failing to generate advocacy networks • Project management capacity rather than political capacity • Lack of accountability and legitimacy; dependency on donors• Democratic deficit: low levels of participation and citizen

engagement combined with restricted political access and expertise

• Lack of transnational linkage and “global” network formation• “Successful” NGO networks engaged in service provision

(state/market substitution) rather than state-building or post-conflict reconstruction

What we missed (and probably got wrong…)

• Too much expected of NSAs and NGO networks (seen as agents rather than conduits of change)

• Impact of donor assistance was being judged far too early

• Focus on “democracy” and “civil society” obscured “behind the scenes” governance role and impact

• Too dismissive of service provision - the basis for expertise and legitimacy

• Underestimated the extent to which NGO networks represent new

policy knowledge – “epistemic communities”

An assessment of EU capacity assistance for NGOs in Potential

Candidate Countries of the Western Balkans

EU Compliance in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia

Project focus:

• To what extent are EU compliance and “soft” conditionality triggering new modes of (environmental) governance?

• What role(s) do civil society actors, NGOs and IFIs play in environmental governance and regulation?

• Is there evidence of increased state capacity and reform?• How effective is donor capacity assistance for NGOs in strengthening

multi-level governance?

Research focus and methodology: • Environmental governance in BiH and Serbia as optic on NGO/NSA activity

• Road construction: – Serbia - “Corridor X” (800 KM);

– BiH - “Corridor Vc” (European route E73) - Mostar and Sarajevo by-passes; Banja Luka-Gradiska road; Buna-Neum road and Banja Luka-Doboj road

• Quantitative analysis of REC data on ENGOs: relationship between foreign donor revenue and action repertoires

• Qualitative interview data: ENGOs engaged in EIA public hearings, recipients of donor funding

• Attend public hearings and interviews / focus groups with all stake-holders

• What are we measuring? - conditionality and compliance; formal vs. informal change; multi-level governance; political economy and regulation

EU Compliance in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia

EU civil society assistance: what’s it all about?

• Dates back to the late 1980s - Phare funding• Framed initially in terms of supporting transition in

CEE states - democracy promotion • Based on US donor model (short term project grants)• Shift in emphasis towards accession goals (early

2000s) and “good governance” • Civil society as instrument of all assistance - EIDHR,

SAPARD• Civil society assistance = support for NGOs in

context of policy development, knowledge and implementation

Why are NGO networks so important?

• Key actors in multi-level governance - policy development and also implementation

• Represent new knowledge - new “epistemic communities”

• Requirement of EU - partnership between state and non-state actors critical component of conditionality

NGOs and new modes of governance:

• Less hierarchic, shift away from command and control decision making

• Policy knowledge, expertise and implementation

• Existing capacities of NGOs – critical (Borzel; Heritier and Lehmkuhl)

• State capacity also critical determinant

• Principal – agent / transaction cost theory (state agencies must not be threatened by NGOs, but see benefit of co-operation; NGOs must see opportunities without threat of co-option)

Transactional activism ?

“ the ties - enduring and temporary among organized non-state actors and between them and political parties, power holders and other institutions”

Petrova, T. and S. Tarrow (2007) “Transactional and participatory activism in emerging European polity: the puzzle of East-Central Europe” Comparative Political Studies, 40: 74-94.

Findings:• Neither BiH nor Serbia is “outlier” in terms of NGO activity (cf

CEE)• Donor funding provides NGOs with more revenue than reliance

on other sources (state, public)• More revenue = greater focus on policy, education and

involvement with regional and transnational networks• Widening resources gap between richest and poorest NGOs in

both locations• Low level of NGO participation in public hearings (EIA);

relatively high levels of citizen mobilization and engagement• Emergence of 2 groups of NGOs: transactional (donor funded)

orgs., and local participatory (no donor funding) orgs.• A few NGOs combine both, but hard to “progress” from one to

the other Block funding or relationship with several donors are empowering in terms of developmental advocacy

• Particular donors and type of funding: some place more emphasis on longer-term “block grants” and the building of regional and trans-national co-operation

(tentative) conclusions…

• Environment – how representative? (important aspect of conditionality, mobilization capacity, involvement of NSAs)

• Early analysis of foreign donor funding for NGOs – too critical• NGO networks emerging with transactional capacity• Some regional and trans-national co-operation is occurring• Type of donor and funding - critical• Weak state capacity in BiH allows NGOs to play greater policy role, but not

necessarily more empowered• Greater state capacity and centralised Serbian state – impact on transactional

activism of NGOs • Development agency of NGOs being built – but state-building dependent on

other variables (bureaucratic capacities; co-ordination of elites; progress of Europeanization and complexity of reforms)

Duration of project

Duration of project Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent Less than 12 months 18 26.1 26.1 12 months 36 52.2 78.3 18 months 9 13.0 91.3 24 months 5 7.2 98.6 36 months 1 1.4 100.0 Total 69 100.0

Hypothesis: “Assistance delivered as part of short-term grants”

Human Resources How many people work for the organization full-time and part- time?

percent

0 4.3 less than 5 people 40.6 between 5- 10 33.3 more than 10 11.6 more than 20 10.1

F/T employees

less than 5 people 33.3 Between 5- 10 people 47.0

P/T employees More than 10 people 19.7 Hypothesis: Ôrecipients are ÒMONGOsÓ; small and temporaryÕ

Does the project involve you working with state/government?

Frequency Percent No 11 15.9 Yes 52 75.4 Total 63 91.3 Missing 6 8.7 Total 69 100.0

Hypothesis: “assistance helps to build good governance”

Is this the first EU project grant awarded to your organisation?

Frequency Percent No 42 60.9 Yes 23 33.3 Total 65 94.2 Missing 4 5.8 Total 69 100.0

Hypothesis: “assistance benefits the same organisations in each round”

Where is your organization located?

Frequency Percent

Cumulative Percent

Sarajevo or Belgrade 32 46.4 47.1 Mostar, Tuzla or Banja Luka

19 27.5 75.0

Other 17 24.6 100.0 Total 68 98.6 Missing 1 1.4 69 100.0

Hypothesis: “narrow diffusion and dispersal of aid - urban dominance”

Does the project involve you working with other

organizations?

Frequency Percent

No 14 20.3 Yes 50 72.5 Total 64 92.8 Missing 5 7.2 69 100.0

Hypothesis: “aid helps to build NGO/CSO networks”