Change and the State:
an INGO perspective
Duncan Green
Oxfam
July 2012
What's needed:
Active
Citizens
What's needed:
Effective
States
INGO role depends on kind of state

Stable
–
–
–
–
–

Middle Income v Low Income
Democratic institutions
Autocratic but Effective (eg rule of law)
Autocratic and nasty
Centralized v Decentralized
Unstable (FRACAS)
–
–
–
–
Unable but willing
Vampire
Absent
Aid dependent v non aid-dependent
Working in Stable States






Supporting civil society strengthening
(Tanzania)
Often engage at local/decentralized
level
Convening and Brokering (Tajikistan)
Growth of advocacy work
Use international networks to exert
leverage (Cambodia)
Even in stable states, conflict often part
of change
Lessons from Success: Gaventa and
McGee (2010)







Windows of opportunity open and close
Competition for political power essential
counterparts to Civ Soc activism
External pressure double-edged sword
Deep social roots and time required
(forget twitter)
State insiders need civ soc outsiders
and vice versa (and often same people)
Cycles of nasty and nice (see Fox)
How you win matters for long term
The conflict-cooperation cycle (Fox)
Social
Conflict
Events and
Moments
Reforms run out
of steam or new
problems arise
Reforms and
Cooperation
What if States are hostile to Active
Citizens?
A more recent example…….

“If you get
permission, you
go and march. If
you don’t – you
have no right to.
Go without
permission, and
you will be hit on
the head with
batons. That’s all
there is to it.”
How do Autocratic States interact
with citizens?



Nation builders are often undemocratic, but
autocrats often fail and societies may be
becoming less tolerant of ‘benevolent dictators’
Are ‘democratic developmental states’ feasible in
early stages of development (‘inclusive
embeddedness’ Edigheji)
Or is it only in later stages – Brazil? South Korea?
Botswana?
My (tentative and uncomfortable)
conclusion


There are probably trade-offs in early stage
development between achieving the kind of
developmental state best suited to achieving fast
economic take-off and the ‘democratic developmental
state’ that can achieve wider development – freedoms
‘to do and to be’
But those trade-offs are likely to change over time,
hopefully in a positive direction – growth and freedom
will become more aligned
Working in FRACAS:
Fragile and Conflict Affected States


The ultimate tough nut to crack hardest place to work, and the hardest
place to recruit
Increasing focus for aid over next 20
years
– ODI Horizon 2025 paper reckons
460m/560m by 2025
– Others say more like 50%
Key Features of FRACAS




More power in hands of multiple nonstate actors (FBOs, private sector, trad
authorities, Diasporas)
Parallel systems v long term state
building
Pockets of functionality (education in
DRC)
Complex, emergent change constantly
messes with your planning
Two examples of FRACAS programmes

Territorial rights in Colombia
– Indigenous and Afro-Colombians under
threat from ‘armed actors’ and
companies
– Cautious trust-building via customary
authorities began with trad programmes

Safe age of marriage in Yemen
– Shift away from gender rights discourse
to health perspective
– Respect institutions and language
– Engage with mosques and imam training
Future Directions





Focus on building legitimacy/trust/social
contract between citizens and state
(accountability comes later)
Convening local to national
conversations possible niche for Oxfam
Riding complexity and political economy
analysis in a ‘coalition of the
unexpected’
Promote ‘community conversations’
Work with non state actors
The power and change cycle
Power
Analysis
Change
Hypothesis
Implement and
Evaluate
Select Change
Strategies
Thanks and please come and argue on
the blog........