NGOs and Advocacy

Lecture given by Duncan Green

Head of Research at Oxfam GB

Notre Dame University, September 2009

Part of a series of From Poverty to Power lectures.

From Poverty to Power:

Notre Dame lecture programme

NGOs and Advocacy

How Change Happens

Power and Politics

Poverty and Wealth

Risk and Vulnerability

The International System

The Global Economic Crisis

Climate Change

NGOs and Advocacy:

Structure of Presentation

A tour of the NGO zoo

NGOs and campaigning

Case study on Trade and the WTO

Comparison with climate change campaign

Some stuff about Oxfam

International NGO with affiliates in 13 countries,

and operations in more than 100

Total programme spend of $828m in 2007

Main spending items are long term development

and emergencies

Began as Oxford Committee for Famine Relief in

1942, trying to relieve hunger in nazi-occupied

Greece

Oxfam America based in Boston, $73m turnover in

2008, http://www.oxfamamerica.org

The fragmented NGO Universe

North v South

Development v Environment v Consumers

Secular v Church

Big v Small (General v single issue)

Service Delivery v Policy oriented

Programmes v Campaigns

Activist/Radical v Mainstream/Reformist –

movements v military discipline

Where do INGOs get their ideas from?

Keynes’ Scribblers: Ancestral memories of the NIEO, dependency theory, Gramsci, Marx etc

Academics, esp the iconoclasts (Rodrik, Sen, Chang)

Interaction with domestic concerns (eg climate change)

Case studies and history > econometrics or modelling

Governments or multilaterals (UN, World Bank)

Developing Country radicals (Vandana Shiva, Walden Bello, Martin Khor)

Programmes and partners (experience on the ground)

Each other:

– Balance varies between NGOs

The rise of lobbying and campaigning

Roots in Programmes (islands of success in a sea of

failure)

NGOs saw need to shape/check northern policies (anti-

apartheid, Central America, IFIs, debt, trade, climate

change)

And need to change ideas and beliefs to build a mass

constituency for change

Leading to the rise of public policy lobbying and global

campaigning

But bulk of staff still involved in programme and

emergencies

Campaigning

The best campaigns have:

– A villain

– A problem

– A solution

– Example: TRIPS/Access to Medicines

Villains of choice: Northern Governments, IFIs, WTO,

TNCs

But can mean an easy ride for: domestic capital, DC

governments and NGOs themselves!

How does Oxfam campaign?

An awful lot of emails, teleconferences, meetings and listserves….

Insider

– Lobbying

– Research: combined primary, secondary and ‘killer facts’, quality media

Outsider

– ‘Pop Mob’; mass media; celebrities; branding (white bands)

Alliances

– Global Campaign on Education, Make Poverty History, Jubilee 2000, Climate Action Network,

How does Oxfam design a campaign?

Specify range of possible changes you want to

investigate

Define Change Goal

Apply Power Analysis to develop an initial

influencing strategy

Power analysis: phase one

What needs to change to achieve this (what laws,

policies, practices, relationships need to change)?

What are the drivers and obstacles to change?

(e.g. attitudes and beliefs, political groups,

financial/commercial interests, lack of a feasible

practical proposal)

What are the political opportunities for change

(e.g. legislative timetables, elections, international

negotiations & summits)

Power analysis: phase two At what level are decisions made (international,

national, state, politician or official)

Who are decision-makers and institutions that

determine the change?

Among these groups and individuals, which are

– most easily influenced by Oxfam?

– the lost causes?

– the ‘shifters' - the undecided or persuadable?

Who influences the people in this last group, who are

often the principle target for our campaign?

Design your campaign and get stuck in…

Why do governments listen?

They usually don’t, but when they do, it’s because NGOs:

Agree with them

Talk their language: ‘tell a story’ – a narrative based

on limited research; (CAP)

Move the public (e.g. Church NGOs on debt)

Are skilled media operators

Sometimes spot emerging issues before civil

servants (PWYP)

Pause for typical NGO self doubt:

Have we got too good at campaigning?

Getting too close to DC governments and talking N-S rather than power

Urge to be ‘taken seriously’ means we are seduced by policy detail, but neglect vision-thing and transformatory agenda

Too much focus on northern campaigning, when the real changes often come within developing countries

Much better at opposing than proposing: what are we for, apart from process (e.g. policy space, growth model)?

Back to campaigning:

The WTO and the Doha Round

God’s gift to trade campaigners?

…or…

Integrated Pest Management for NGOs?

Multilateral Trading System:

the positives

Rules more important for weaker players

Dispute settlement

Least worst balance of power

Disciplines on powerful countries

Multilateral Trading System:

the negatives

Expense (e.g. TRIPs) in terms of $ and people

Premature opening (e.g. ag, NAMA)

Policy space: actual and chilling effect

Balance of power still skewed e.g. Agreement on

Agriculture

Where does the WTO fit?

One of many constraints, and often the weakest cf

IMF, RTAs

But permanent via lock-in

More intangible ‘chilling effect’ in some areas

Good (and bad) ideas from WTO can influence

other processes

Key decisions remain domestic

Trade, liberalisation and development

Trade can be an important part of a growth strategy (East

Asia, Chile, Botswana, Mauritius)

But is trade liberalisation an outcome of development or an

initial condition?

Theory: more efficient allocation of resources, comparative

advantage

– Source: Anything from the World Bank

History: protection in early stages necessary but not

sufficient (infant industry and ag)

– Source: Dani Rodrik, In Search of Prosperity; Ha Joon

Chang, Kicking Away the Ladder

Compare that previous slide with this

killer fact…

In 2003, the average European cow

received $2.62 per day in agricultural

support, which is more than the daily

income of half the world's people.

Which will you remember?!

“

”

Oxfam priorities on WTO

Policy Space on agriculture, industrial policy

Northern Market Access

Dumping

Northern subsidies, not just export subsidies

Bad rules, e.g. TRIPs and access to medicines

So what’s it like?

WTO ministerial 2003, Cancún:

a tough assignment…

And a poor working environment…

What happened

Developing Country alliances got stronger

Flashpoints: investment and agriculture

The summit collapsed

Doha round now in deep freeze

– Is that a bad thing? It depends

Climate Change: make or break issues

Guarantees of finance from rich countries for mitigation

and adaptation in developing countries.

2020 mitigation targets for rich (Annex I) countries.

What do we need at Copenhagen?

A SAFE and FAIR deal

SAFE:

to reduce emissions sufficiently to avoid

catastrophic climate change.

FAIR:

so that rich countries finally take responsibility for the crisis they have created, committing to:

• Cut emissions first, furthest and fastest

• Financing for mitigation and adaptation in

developing countries

Climate Change v WTO

Similarities

Role of blocs and DC

assertiveness

DCs will grow stronger

as negotiations

continue

Differentiation between

DCs a minefield

Early influence is

easier

Domestic drivers

(unlike aid, debt)

Differences

Only winning is

enough – blocking bad

things is not enough

Urgency – delays will

be costly

Further Reading from the Blog

The Global Campaign for Education,

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=615

A successful campaign on domestic violence in

Malawi, http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=313

Reforming US aid,

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=266

Changing Georgia’s social protection system,

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=157

Advocacy v service delivery in Russia,

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=63

Influencing the state in Vietnam,

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=59

Further Reading

Tools for Policy Impact, ODI,

http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Publications/Tools_P

olicy_Impact.html

Knowledge to Policy: Making the Most of

Development Research, Fred Carden, IDRC 2009

http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/417-8