Non-governmental organisations, innovation, and change in international development cooperation: the cases of Brazil and the Netherlands

• In Event: NGO Innovation in Support of Development

Abstract

In the 21st century, innovation has emerged as a key topic in international development cooperation and an agenda for western donors, United Nations (UN) agencies, private foundations, and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), framed by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1, 2, 3]. Yet, academic research on innovation in development cooperation is still scarce . Development NGOs, considered a well-established actor in the field, have remained in the side-lines of development cooperation innovation research, although the topic of innovation in development NGOs has gained ground in policy and grey literature. In the current context of transformation in the development cooperation sector [4, 5], studying the innovation narratives and agendas of different development actors can help identify and understand ongoing sectoral changes, as well as the current challenges and opportunities, for NGOs but also for other aid actors.

Using a civic innovation framework [6, 7,], this research contributes to the debate by analysing the innovation trajectories of two national platforms of development NGOs: Partos, based in the Netherlands, and Abong, based in Brazil. Development NGO platforms are networks with coordination and collaboration functions [9, p.116-120], working at the meso-level, engaging with the microlevel (NGOs, their members) and the macro-level (the broader context). Qualitative research methods, specifically interpretative methods (document analysis complemented by 13 semi-structured interviews, conducted between October 2021 and May 2022), were used to answer two research questions: first, ‘how do innovation discourses affect and are affected by changes in development cooperation?’ and second, ‘what do innovation practices tell us about the interlocution roles played by national NGO platforms?’.

Bearing in mind contextual, historical, and organisational differences between the two organisations and their relationships with each country’s civil society, results show that, for these two organisations, innovation is primarily a reaction to challenges, crises, and opportunities, not to development agendas like the SDGs. The analysis unveiled few similarities – namely the central role of collaboration and cocreation – and many differences – topics addressed, views on power and politics in innovation discourses, the role of Covid-19 as a catalyst for innovation – between the two innovation trajectories. These similarities and differences shed light on wider trends of change in development cooperation, organisational change trajectories, and the platforms’ potential roles as interlocutors of civic innovation, key to the innovation initiatives developed by both Partos and Abong. Differences in innovation trajectories also reflect distinct political positionings and different views on what development is and should be, even in actors with similar structures and scopes.

The contradictions of development and its hierarchies (donor/recipient, North/South) and those of NGOs working in development, who find themselves between civil society, technical assistance, and service provision, are evident throughout the analysis. Nonetheless, in both cases, the analysis shows that innovation motivations, discourses, and practices closely interact with issues of power and politics, often overlooked in innovation research. This research suggests that this political side of innovation can be useful to help civil society actors, policy makers, and researchers navigate change in sectors undergoing transformation, such as international development cooperation.

References

1 Silva, A.L. (2021) Innovation in development cooperation: emerging trajectories and implications for inclusive sustainable development in the 21st century. Innovation and Development 11, 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2020.1807100

2 Klingebiel, S., Gonsior, V., Klingebiel, S., Gonsior, V. (2020) Development policy from a systemic perspective: changes, trends and its future role within a broader framework for transnational co-operation. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 63. https://doi.org/10/ghssfw

3 Bloom, L., Faulkner, R. (2016) Innovation spaces: lessons from the United Nations. Third World Quarterly 37, 1371–1387. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1135730

4 Gore, C. (2013a) The New Development Cooperation Landscape: actors, approaches, architecture: Introduction. Journal of International Development 25(6): 769–786. https://doi.org/10/gfzxdv

5 Leach, M., MacGregor, H., Scoones, I., Wilkinson, A. (2021) Post-pandemic transformations: How and why COVID-19 requires us to rethink development. World Development 138, 105233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105233

6 Biekart, K., Harcourt, W., Knorringa, P. (2016) Introduction: Giving meaning to civic innovation, in: Biekart, K., Harcourt, W., Knorringa, P. (Eds) Exploring Civic Innovation for Social and Economic Transformation. Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY : Routledge, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676913

7 Fowler, A. (2016) Change actors and civic innovators: who triggers change? Systematising the role of interlocutors in civic innovation processes, in: Biekart, K., Harcourt, W., Knorringa, P. (Eds.), Exploring Civic Innovation for Social and Economic Transformation. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2016., pp. 41–66. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676913

8 Tembo, F., Chapman, J. (2014) In search of the game changers - Rethinking social accountability (ODI Working Papers), Mwananchi - Strengthening Citizen Engagement. ODI.

9 Fowler, A. (1997) Striking a balance: a guide to making non-governmental organizations effective, London: Earthscan.

Authors

• Ana Luísa Silva, CEsA, ISEG, University of Lisbon

• Kees Biekart, International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) / Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)

• Luis Mah, Iscte - University Institute of Lisbon