德国政府与民间社会发展合作战略:中间道路的危险

Susan Engel
{"title":"德国政府与民间社会发展合作战略:中间道路的危险","authors":"Susan Engel","doi":"10.5130/CCS.V9I1.4942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been busy since the late 2000s studying the way aid donors manage their relations with development civil society organisations (CSOs). More than studying these relations, they have made some very detailed, managerialist suggestions about how CSOs should be organised and how donor governments should fund and otherwise relate to them. This came out of the debate about aid effectiveness, which was formally aimed at improving both donor and recipient processes. Donors have quietly dropped many of the aspects related to improving their own performance and yet a number have created new interventionist governance frameworks for CSOs. This is the case in Germany, which has a large, vibrant development CSO sector that has traditionally been quite autonomous, even where its received state funding thanks to Germany’s commitment to ‘subsidiarity.’ Yet Germany is otherwise a middle of the road donor and in many ways, these ‘reforms’ are moving its relations with civil society more towards a somewhat more managerialist approach, one that is in fact the norms amongst OECD donors.","PeriodicalId":43957,"journal":{"name":"Cosmopolitan Civil Societies-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"42-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5130/CCS.V9I1.4942","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Germany’s government-civil society development cooperation strategy: the dangers of the middle of the road\",\"authors\":\"Susan Engel\",\"doi\":\"10.5130/CCS.V9I1.4942\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been busy since the late 2000s studying the way aid donors manage their relations with development civil society organisations (CSOs). More than studying these relations, they have made some very detailed, managerialist suggestions about how CSOs should be organised and how donor governments should fund and otherwise relate to them. This came out of the debate about aid effectiveness, which was formally aimed at improving both donor and recipient processes. Donors have quietly dropped many of the aspects related to improving their own performance and yet a number have created new interventionist governance frameworks for CSOs. This is the case in Germany, which has a large, vibrant development CSO sector that has traditionally been quite autonomous, even where its received state funding thanks to Germany’s commitment to ‘subsidiarity.’ Yet Germany is otherwise a middle of the road donor and in many ways, these ‘reforms’ are moving its relations with civil society more towards a somewhat more managerialist approach, one that is in fact the norms amongst OECD donors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cosmopolitan Civil Societies-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"42-59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5130/CCS.V9I1.4942\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cosmopolitan Civil Societies-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5130/CCS.V9I1.4942\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cosmopolitan Civil Societies-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5130/CCS.V9I1.4942","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

自21世纪末以来,经济合作与发展组织(OECD)一直忙于研究援助捐助者管理与发展民间社会组织关系的方式。除了研究这些关系外,他们还就民间社会组织应如何组织以及捐助国政府应如何为其提供资金以及如何与之建立联系提出了一些非常详细的管理建议。这源于关于援助有效性的辩论,该辩论的正式目的是改善捐助者和受援国的程序。捐助者悄悄地放弃了与提高自身业绩有关的许多方面,但也有一些捐助者为民间社会组织建立了新的干预主义治理框架。德国就是这样,该国拥有一个庞大、充满活力的发展民间社会组织部门,该部门传统上相当自治,即使由于德国对“辅助性”的承诺,该部门也获得了国家资助然而,德国在其他方面是一个中间路线的捐助者,在许多方面,这些“改革”正在使其与民间社会的关系更加趋向于一种更具管理主义的方法,这实际上是经合组织捐助者的规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Germany’s government-civil society development cooperation strategy: the dangers of the middle of the road
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been busy since the late 2000s studying the way aid donors manage their relations with development civil society organisations (CSOs). More than studying these relations, they have made some very detailed, managerialist suggestions about how CSOs should be organised and how donor governments should fund and otherwise relate to them. This came out of the debate about aid effectiveness, which was formally aimed at improving both donor and recipient processes. Donors have quietly dropped many of the aspects related to improving their own performance and yet a number have created new interventionist governance frameworks for CSOs. This is the case in Germany, which has a large, vibrant development CSO sector that has traditionally been quite autonomous, even where its received state funding thanks to Germany’s commitment to ‘subsidiarity.’ Yet Germany is otherwise a middle of the road donor and in many ways, these ‘reforms’ are moving its relations with civil society more towards a somewhat more managerialist approach, one that is in fact the norms amongst OECD donors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal is concerned with developing a better understanding of social change and cultural cohesion in cosmopolitan societies. Its focus lies at the intersection of conflict and cohesion, and in how division can be transformed into dialogue, recognition and inclusion. The Journal takes a grounded approach to cosmopolitanism, linking it to civil society studies. It opens up debate about cosmopolitan engagement in civil societies, addressing a range of sites: social movements and collective action; migration, cultural diversity and responses to racism; the promotion of human rights and social justice; initiatives to strengthen civil societies; the impact of ‘information society’ and the context of environmental change.
期刊最新文献
Silencing the Voice: the fossil-fuelled Atlas Network’s Campaign against Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australia Fighting Corruption in Kazakhstan by Force of Criminal Law Kokoda People: Mobilization, Marginalization and Their Economic Lives in Sorong, Southwest Papua Universal Values of Pancasila in Managing the Crime of Terrorism Understanding Trust in Contemporary Australia Using Latent Class Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1