Does Foreign Aid Make a Difference? A Critique from a Civil Society Organisation in Lesotho
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesotho is a country plagued by underdevelopment and poverty. This paper is a case study of an indigenous community organisation in the northern district of Botha-Bothe in Lesotho. Boseele is a rural development organisation which attracted international donor investment in the aftermath of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. The study aims at investigating the impact of capacity development processes. In this paper it is understood and interpreted to refer to multi-level analysis of contributing complexities affecting non-formal community education. Education is a contributing factor in community development. Alan Rogers’ developmental basic model to change interrogates the realities of empowerment theory against power dynamics and complexities, including foreign aid interventions in non-formal community education. A case study approach was used within a qualitative research design. Data were collected through individual and group interviews, observations, story-telling and transect walks. The results were analysed through thematic, chronological, narrative and document analysis. The study identified capacity-building landmarks over a period of ten years. Boseele’s successes with Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) funding reflect positive foreign aid contributions towards the work of civil society organisations in Lesotho, and the impact of community education and its multiplier effects. However, setbacks and lack of continuity by a nursery project funded by MS-Lesotho shows that the empowerment process is compromised where social and economic problems of individual members of civil society organisations and communities are not fully addressed. The funding intervention by the European Union posed challenges faced by short-term funding models for community education, its continuity and sustainability in particular and community development in general. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1168
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".