A Social Exchange Perspective on International Volunteering for Development

• In Event: Strategic Interactions by International Volunteer Cooperation Organizations in the Global Development Ecosystem

Abstract

Having emerged with an ecosystem of international development, international volunteer cooperation organizations (IVCOs) have focused their efforts on measuring and evaluating ‘downstream’ contributions (e.g. development outcomes for host communities) and, through this, toward UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, research conducted with IVCOs in 2011 saw decreases in government funding stemming from government re-evaluations of the objectives of their foreign aid and international cooperation strategies (Lough & Allum, 2011). These changes included lower political interest in overseas development assistance in favor of domestic priorities, as well as shifting demands from donors to demonstrate progress towards a broader suite of outcomes (Baillie Smith & Laurie, 2011; Georgeou & Engel, 2011).

Despite this shift, IVCO administrators remain reluctant to measure ‘upstream’ outcomes in the form of donor-country benefits such as public diplomacy, enhanced international relations, and the skills-development of volunteers (including citizenship, intercultural competencies, and preparation for future development work). One prominent concern is that development objectives are being diluted and adulterated by the ostensible ‘neoliberal’ agendas and a ‘new managerialist’ approach of funding agencies that increasingly prioritize sending-country benefits that allegedly threaten the humanitarian value-base of the sector (Georgeou, 2012; Lough & Allum, 2013). Recognizing these tensions, a key question driving this paper is: why do IVCOs continue to under-emphasize reciprocal benefits of national interest while over-emphasizing volunteers’ contributions to the SDGs?

In this paper, we explore the changing context of IDV and consider why it presents a challenge for modern IVCOs. We embed our analysis of these dynamics in two underpinning theoretical perspectives. First, we draw on institutional legitimacy theory to help explain why development outcomes continue to drive IVCOs’ logic models and measurement priorities. Second, we draw on social exchange theory to explain why the IDV model is most effective when both sides contribute positive initiating actions and positive reciprocating responses.

This paper argues that the new funding landscape is not a zero-sum game and may, in fact, create new opportunities for IVCOs to reassert their distinctive value in comparison with other organizations operating within the international development ecosystem. It questions the assumption that IVCOs’ value propositions and logical models should primarily focus on a development agenda and asserts that achieving excellence in capacity development necessitates an open acknowledgement of mutual benefit; that a narrow emphasis on downstream impacts (and SDGs) can distort IVCOs’ full value proposition.

By demonstrating two-way benefits at individual, organizational and national levels, this paper concludes that IVCOs can enhance conditions whereby genuine mutuality can occur – thereby optimizing their potential impact. In short, we argue that excellence in development partnerships requires reciprocal and mutual benefit, and that IDV is particularly well-suited to achieve these aims. In contrast, failure to acknowledge the complete ‘return on investment’ the IDV model ultimately undermines its distinctive and complementary value-added and relegates its position to ‘just another development program’. The paper concludes with suggestions for individual IVCOs, hosting organizations, researchers, and the sector to better articulate and showcase IVCOs full value proposition.

Authors

• Benjamin J. Lough, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

• Anthony Fee, University of Technology Sydney