 Government and civil society organizations: Close but comfortable? Lessons from creating the Dutch “Strategic Partnerships for Lobby and Advocacy”Margit Van Wessel, Dorothea Hilhorst, Lau Schulpen and Kees Biekart Development Policy Review, 2020, vol. 38, issue 6, 728-746 Abstract: Motivation Governments commonly support the advocacy role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in development, but studies argue that close linkages between government and CSOs are problematic. The Netherlands’ Dialogue and Dissent policy programme brings together the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NMFA) and 25 (alliances of) CSOs as advocacy partners. The programme is set up from an awareness of the challenging nature of such collaboration. Purpose We contribute to understanding the ways in which issues with donor–CSO collaboration can be engaged in donor policies. This article addresses two questions: To what extent and how does this programme confront and overcome the challenges of close collaboration between government and CSOs? What practical lessons can be learned? Approach We conducted 33 (group) interviews with CSOs and policy officers involved with the Dialogue and Dissent programme, exploring their understandings, expectations and strategies as partners in the programme. We also analysed CSO programmes, policy documents and publicly available information. Findings In Dialogue and Dissent, space for dissent, flexibility and relative equality between government and CSOs positively address mutuality and institutional pressures. Challenges remain as estimated strategic significance, diverging capacities and risks to autonomy work against mutuality. Certain challenges are engaged with, but we identified no strategies countering pressures that stem from managerialism within the NMFA, external political pressures and conflicting government objectives. While the programme counters tendencies towards institutionalization of CSOs as insiders, some important challenges to public engagement identified in the literature remain insufficiently addressed. Conclusions Conditions built into policy can address challenges identified in the literature. However, challenges remain that are rooted in wider organizational and political realities. Lessons for practice are: (1) the advocacy role of CSOs can be advanced by building in certain formal conditions and advancing these informally; (2) flexibility allows for collaboration to develop as government and CSOs negotiate their roles, cognizant of pressures that get in the way; (3) challenges rooted beyond the support policy and government agency involved in the collaboration will constrict the power of policy design; (4) public engagement as a foundation for CSOs’ advocacy roles deserves much more attention. Date: 2020 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:devpol:v:38:y:2020:i:6:p:728-746 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from Access Statistics for this article Development Policy Review is currently edited by David Booth More articles in Development Policy Review from Overseas Development Institute Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.