Mitlin, Diana. ‘Civil Society and Urban Poverty – Examining Complexity’, in Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 13, No. 2, October 2001, pp. 151-173.
Summary:
Mitlin talks about how development literature considers the work of grassroots organisations and NGOs and argues that their contribution does not necessarily have positive impacts on the community. The complexity of circumstances, agendas and organisational structures can have negative impacts on development work. Mitlin questions their motivations and reasons for involvement in development projects. The complexity of external funding of programmes can make the implementation of practical action difficult and may even not materialise.
Mitlin identifies the various types of grassroots organisations and conveys the complexity of the relations between the various actors involved in development projects; State/Governments, NGOs, Grassroots organisations and residents’ associations to name but a few.
Notes taken from text:
“Low-income communities are subject to division due to unequal access to power, prestige, income and capital” (p151).
“In particular, NGOs were seen as being more participatory, people-led and responsive to local needs than more formal official development assistance agencies” (p152).
In the 1980s and 1990s “the ideology was that the private sector should take over state functions wherever possible, moving from a state allocation system to one based on markets” (ibid).
“..social capital is most commonly used in the sense defined by Putman (1993), that is “…the features of social organization that…improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions such as trust, norms and networks” (page 167)” (ibid).
Colonisation is not only an issue in developing countries: “…the colonization processes that have taken place in the south of Italy are an alternative explanation for the low development indicators in that part of the country, rather than low levels of social capital per se” (p152).
There are “over 30 associations in one large low-income settlement Klong Toey, (including a number of party political associations)…” (p153).
Associations can include savings groups, trading groups, informal or illegal trades and created according to ethnic groups and communities.
“Among the more common factors instigating and then supporting grassroots organizations are kinship, ethnicity, trade union involvement, city-based federations, NGOs, religious organizations, political parties and the privates sector” (p154).
Kinship: they arise and become active when and according to needs
Ethnic, tribal and village groups: are concerned with “welfare issues, deaths, marriages and religious ceremonies and holidays” (ibid)
Trade unions: people with similar experience and expertise; influences the type of organisation within communities
Federations: help and support capacity building of grassroots groups i.e. NSDF
Non-government organisations: deal with specific issues and agendas, some assist with the formation of new organisations others support those existing
Religious organisations: they can organise platforms for poor communities to voice their concerns
Government agencies: can help formalise policies and law enforcement of legal issues related to land and assist in the funding and resources in development projects
Commercial developers: can help with funding, mentoring, facilitation and pass on wealth of knowledge base on their experience and expertise
The question lies in what do these organisations do? Who is involved? What is their long-term viability? Will it be reliant on an individual or state all the time? i.e. self-help activities, registering transfer of land, formation of tenants associations, etc.
The impacts of grassroots organisations is not always positive, there are also negative connotations. What are their hidden agendas? How does these influence power relations? The struggle for class status is always apparent in the social hierarchy and may affect low levels of participation amongst poor households.
Lack of voice from those directly affected by situations and need the most help may be caused by corruption and manipulation. Help is directed towards those who support particular ideologies or leadership which leads to social exclusion.
Women tend to be mobilisers, hence indicating women’s empowerments and rights to participate: “One consequence of women’s greater public involvement has been that women have gained new skills and expertise, becoming “…more aggressive about intervening in the spheres of public representation” (page 700” (p157).
The agendas, motives and internal structures of grassroots organisations affect the efficiency and capacity to respond to the needs of communities effectively, if at all. This also includes the relations between the state and grassroots organisations.
Who NGOs work with:
- Previous established grassroots organisations
- Existing organisations
- Establish new organisations
- Individuals in the community
- Directly with local residents
- Community members designated by the state
Why are the NGOs there? What is their purpose/objective? Is it a ‘tick-box’ strategy?
There are concerns as to the motivation of organisational activity:
- Their strategy is more prescriptive than developed through community involvement and listening to their needs
- Their lack of understanding to political environments and power structures which will be apparent in the effectiveness of representation and advocacy of the community’s position. For example by not acknowledging or considering the existing knowledge and skills-base within the community. This is equivalent to a tabla rasa approach to development. The past cannot be removed to create the future, it has to be based on what has happened before, learning from the past.
- Not utilising the existing skills and knowledge within the community. Grassroots organisations need to work together to combat state policies in favour of the community. If they do not, then what makes them different from politicians? They should enhance community capacities and capabilities.
Relations between NGOs and grassroots organisations and NGOs and urban poor: “…NGOs, despite their weaknesses, are in fact slightly better at service delivery and at reaching the poorest than federations of grassroots organizations. At the same time, some NGOs have sought to develop structures and ways of working to better support grassroots organizations…[although they]urgently need to address their relationships with the urban poor” (p160).
There tend to be mutual beneficiaries, political gains and vote trading for the provision of services.
There is a certain level of dependency on the state due to the lack of belief of achieving outcomes/benefits/changes that need to be made – all ‘talk but no action’.
Alternative strategies to help the urban poor:
- Low-income renters’’ access to land
- Self-help initiatives
- Municipal support for policy changes by the state
- Active participation by the poor
- Lobbying for services and infrastructure improvements
The government deliberately sabotages process by weakening the autonomy of movements. The political connotations are still present; convey the negative aspects of government involvement.
“Participatory budgeting seeks to change traditional relationships between the state and the citizen through devolving decision-making over local infrastructure improvements to the people themselves” (p162-3).
“Movements such as Shack/Slum Dwellers International have sought to strengthen grassroots organizations, enabling them to become both more independent of external support and, at the same time, more proactive in proposing alternative models of urban development” (p163). The focus of such organisations is to include assets such as financial capital, social organisation, and knowledge.
NGOs lobby the state through grassroots and communities directly.
Relations between state and community: “The interaction between community organizations and the state may be better understood as being the means for the distribution of scarce state resources between, on the one hand, a state that is unable to provide comprehensive infrastructure and services and, on the other, urban citizens who seek neighbourhood improvements” (ibid).
No difference between grassroots organisations and politicians in such cases: “What emerges from this analysis is that the problems of leadership and participation within grassroots organizations cannot be separated from the broader context of state officials’ and politicians’ relations of patronage with community leaders” (p164).
In effect it could all be a consequence of globalisation – the dependency of the state of workers living conditions with the state’s reliance on the world’s corporate capital (ibid).
Actors:
Grassroots organisations, NGOs, State, UCDO, Civil society, Residents, Politicians, Government officials
Tags: Civil-society, Empowerment, Exclusion, Globalisation, Grassroots Organisations, land issues, NGOs, Participation, Power Relations, Social Capital, Urban Poor
BU3 Field Trip Reading Analyses 