Helen Yanacopulos

Networks as transnational agents of development

The term network has become a hallmark of the development industry. In principle networks have the potential to provide a more flexible and non‐hierarchical means of exchange and interaction that is also more innovative, responsive and dynamic, while overcoming spatial separation and providing scale economies. Although the label ‘networks’ currently pervades discourses about the relationships between organisations in development, there has been surprisingly little research or theorisation of such networks. This article is a critical evaluation of the claims of developmental networks from a theoretical perspective. While networks are regarded as a counter‐hegemonic force, we argue that networks are not static entities but must be seen as an ongoing and emergent process. Moreover, theory overlooks power relationships within networks and is unable to conceptualise the relationship between power and values. These observations open up a research agenda that the authors are exploring empirically in forthcoming publications.

The Janus Faces of a Middle Power: South Africa's Emergence in International Development

South Africas rising international presence is undeniable. The country has recently joined the BRICS club of powerful emerging countries, is in the G20, is a member of IBSA (the India–Brazil–South Africa Dialogue Forum) and has aspirations to become a permanent member of a potentially reformed UN Security Council. Furthermore, South Africa has set up a new international development agency, a key marker of a middle power. And yet South Africa is not a typical middle power, given that half of its citizens live below the poverty line. Through various methods such as print and online media content analysis and interviews with policy-makers, journalists, civil society and international donors between 2009 and 2011, this paper examines the two different and divergent faces of South African politics – one focused on the domestic development state and the other focused on its international middle power aspirations.

Governing and democratising technology for development: bridging theory and practice

This paper examines the challenges of new converging technologies to governance, pointing out the difficulties politics and public policy face in keeping pace with the rapid progress of such technologies and balancing benefits, risks and uncertainties. The driving question behind this paper is what can theory and practice learn from each other in governing technology for development? The relationships among technology, development and governance are explored, leading the way for further papers in this special issue to question how governance is occurring in practice, what forms of decision-making are taking place, and how the politics of development are being played out through technology. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Knowing but not knowing: conflict, development and denial

Drawing on case study material from Uganda and Nepal, this paper highlights the tension between what is ‘known’ and what is ‘done’ by practitioners working in the arena of conflict and development. It explores the forms of knowledge given conceptual and practical influence and the development interventions that are consequently sanctioned or sidelined. Examining Stanley Cohens work on atrocities and suffering, the paper considers the explanatory potential of the concepts of denial and acknowledgement in the context of conflict and development. It argues that this approach opens conceptual and practical space in which to address the interplay between personal experiences of conflict contexts and institutional barriers to communication and changed practice.

Introduction to special issue on governing technology for development

This special issue interrogates the relationship between politics, development and technology. The aim is to think creatively about the ways in which technologies can enhance the well-being of the poorest and most marginalised in empowering ways by using a governance lens. Frequently, governance debates remain abstract and need empirical grounding; at the same time, empirical studies are often lacking in theoretical grounding and analysis. The papers in this special issue have attempted to bridge theory and practice in governing technology for development. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are a broad category of organizations that are neither for profit nor part of a government. Health NGOs exist because there are needs that are not being met by government or international agencies. Health needs are being defined and redefined from global health to primary health care to the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals. Health NGOs are working on the ground, providing services, raising awareness around health, advocating for changes in policy, and working with other health actors in different forms of partnerships to address important health issues that cannot be addressed by one group of actors alone.

Cosmopolitan Spaces of INGOs

What values are INGOs enacting when they engage with and communicate about development? The different forms of INGO public engagement, ranging from fundraising and marketing, through to advocacy, development education and volunteering, not only rely on different organisational dynamics, but also are predicated on different aims and, I would argue, on different values. The aim of this chapter is to provide a conceptual framework to better understand the norms and values of development INGOs that lead to the ways they engage with their publics.

The Current State of INGOs

Suffering, disease, and famines: these are the stories of humanitarian appeals and one of the primary means by which many people contribute to international development. When the urge to help is ignited, people tend to turn to international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) to make their donations, such as Oxfam, Save the Children, Action Aid, CARE or faith-based organisations such as CAFOD, World Vision or Christian Aid, to name but a few. Such organisations are international ‘charities’ that work in international development and humanitarian relief in most continents where there is extreme poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia and Latin America. While the term non-governmental organisation (NGO) describes a vast range of different types of organisations working on issues of development and humanitarian relief, human rights or the environment, and can refer to a ‘one man in an office’ operation, or to an internationally based organisation such as Oxfam, the focus here is specifically on INGOs working in the field of international development and humanitarian assistance.1

INGO Organisation and Strategy

In the previous chapters, we have seen how INGOs engage with their publics and how the cosmopolitan values they are based on lead to an ambivalence in how they work to become agents of change. An ambivalent cosmopolitanism stems from both the ways that publics view INGOs — that is to say the ways that the relationships between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ have been constructed (partial responsibility for which belongs to INGOs) — and, as I will argue in this chapter, how INGOs are organised. Thus, to some degree, how INGOs comprehend change and change potential, together with how they are internally structured and develop their business models, affect not only the ways that they engage with publics, but also the work that they are capable of carrying out to affect long-term structural change.

Political Spaces of INGOs

In many ways, using a spatial approach to examine INGOs seems obvious. Spatiality has always been a fundamental element of international politics, from the conceptualisation of the multilateral and international system through to geopolitics and transnational networks. Yet until recently, the idea of ‘political space’ itself has been under-researched. But why is the examination of political space important to practitioners and to academics who study civil society organisations such as INGOs? I would suggest it is primarily because, as Foucault argues, power and space are integrally connected. Foucault brings to light the continuously moving terrain where power struggles occur, outlining how ‘power permeates and courses through spaces, sparking a multiplicity of points of resistance as well as producing and embedding particular institutional forms, patterns and practices’ (quoted in Cornwall, 2002: 8). Through the study of political space, we are able to see who initiates, who participates and how others are allowed to take part in both everyday and formal political processes.