International NGOs and the Aid Industry: constraints on international solidarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 A comprehensive presentation can be found in I Smillie, The Alms Bazaar: Altruism under Fire, Non-profit Organisations and International Development, Ottawa: idrc, 1995. 2 F Manji, 'The depoliticisation of poverty', in Manji , Development and Rights, Oxford: Oxfam GB, 1998, p 13. 3 Ibid, p 17. 4 Ibid, p 28. 5 Ibid, p 25. 6 From personal conversations, meetings and conferences 1995–2005. 7 See A Bebbington, S Hickey & D Mitlin, Reclaiming Development? NGO s and the Challenge of Alternatives, idpm, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, May 2005. 'Notwithstanding the efforts of many to use poverty as a means of discussing politics, the tendency is still towards a narrow definition and reducing income poverty still remains the central goal—reflected in its position as the first mdg…While it is hard to contest the worthiness of such goals, this emphasis has the potential not only to rein in but also depoliticise the range of strategies open to ngos in promoting development. There is at least some evidence that the demands for poverty reduction are affecting: the types of social organisations that ngos work with (with shifts to production and credit groups and away from representative social movements); the types of intervention such ngos engage in and support, with a tendency to seek poverty reduction impacts rather than redistributing effects; the regions of the world for which ngos can mobilise funding; and the languages and discourse within which development debates can be couched' (p 13). 8 See, for example, T Wallace, 'ngo dilemmas: Trojan Horses for global neoliberalism?', in L Panitch & C Leys (eds), The New Imperial Challenge: Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, 2004, pp 202–219; J Howell & J Pearce, Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration, London: Lynne Rienner, 2002; P Bond, 'Global governance campaigning and mdgs: from top-down to bottom-up anti-poverty work', Third World Quarterly, 27(2), 2006, pp 339–354; A Van Rooy, Civil Society and the Aid Industry, London: Earthscan, 1998; B Murphy, 'International ngos and the challenge of modernity', Development in Practice, 10(3–4), 2000; Smillie, The Alms Bazaar; Manji, 'The depoliticisation of poverty'; Bebbington et al, Reclaiming Development?; and BH Smith, 'Nonprofit organisations in international development: agents of empowerment or preservers of stability?', in WW Powell & ES Clemons (eds), Private Action and the Public Good, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988. 9 Bebbington et al, Reclaiming Development?, p 3. 10 See D Sogge, Give and Take: What's Wrong with Foreign Aid?, London: Zed Books, 2002. 11 M Atwood, The Blind Assassin, Toronto: M&S, 2000, p 12. 12 A Escobar, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995, p 52. 13 Ibid, p 39. 14 See J Pender, 'From "structural adjustment" to "comprehensive development framework": conditionality transformed?', Third World Quarterly, 22(3), 2001, pp 397–411. 15 For full text and background on the Paris Declaration, see http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,2340,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html, accessed 15 January 2013. 16 Structural Adjustment: The sapri Report—Policy Roots of Economic Crisis, Poverty and Inequality by the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network ( saprin ), London: Zed, 2004. 17 Ibid, p 222. 18 L Attarah, 'Playing chicken: Ghana vs the imf', Corpwatch, 2005, at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12394, accessed 14 January 2013. 19 R Abrahamsen, 'African Studies and the post-colonial challenge', African Affairs, 102, 2003, p 203. See also R Abrahamsen, Disciplining Democracy: Development Discourse and Good Governance in Africa, London: Zed Books, 2000. Emphasis in the original. 20 D Tsikata, 'Social scientists and Africa's future: towards alternative agendas, new alliances and a passion for democracy, economic justice and social development', codesria Bulletin, 3–4, 2005, p 56.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".