Doing grassroots: The organization of local communities in development cooperation

ABSTRACT

The recent decades have seen an increased demand for the particpition of local communities in developmental projects. This has lead to greater transnational support for and growth of ›grassroots‹ organizations. The aim of this research paper is to analyze how cooperation between local communities and global development organizations is practically made possible and to contribute toward an understanding of the underlying processes and practices that are applied in such cooperations. In order to do so, this study examines an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that is working with local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa. The information used in this paper was collected during an ethnographic field study in 31 community projects in Zambia, Uganda, Mozambique, Kenya and Ethiopia, including 18 key informant interviews and 77 focus group discussions. The study suggests that transnational social support leads to the establishment of grassroots organizations through a range of organizational practices. It also illustrates that local social support structures are dynamic and flexible, responding to a range of issues within their environment and from external conditions. In the development context, community-based organizations thus need to be understood as structures that are interactively created through complex social interactions between development organizations and local support networks.

Notes

1. Cf. especially UNICEF (2004) and more recently again by The World Bank (Rodriguez-García, Bonnel, Wilson, & N’Jie, 2013).

2. The findings presented in this paper are part of a doctoral research project (Author’s Name).

3. ›Done‹ in the sense of »doing things together« (Becker, 1986).

4. Please see Foucault (2000).

5. The name of the NGO and its support groups has been changed for a pseudonym.

6. Data reference system used in this paper: Observation Protocols including transcribed ethnographic interviews = P. Report Notes = R and the respective country (Zambia = Z, Ethiopia = E, Kenya = K, Mozambique = M and Uganda = U. Interviews = I, Focus Group Discussions = FGD and the initials of interview or discussion partner/s or group/s. All references include the page number from the original material.

7. For reasons of practicality the term community will be used when refereeing to people living in the project area, and the term community groups when referring to support collectives, although I am aware of the shortcoming of such a simplified conceptualization of community. On this matter please also see Macdonald (2011).

8. On dress, culture and social affiliation see Maynard (2004, p. 153). It also needs to be noted here that NGO staff is usually educated and paid for their work, in contrast to their mostly pastoralist community level counterparts, and especially national level staff is mainly based in the capitals, as opposed to the rural villages of the community members.

9. On the practical establishment of problem categories within a discourse see Groenemeyer (2010).

10. Cf. Etzemüller (2009); Bruch & Türk (2007).

11. The process of sociation, as opposed to communization, is used here to describe the process of turning from a communitarian for of social organization toward that of a functionally diversified society.

12. This metaphorical description can also take the form of a gardener-plant relation.

13. Cf. Mansuri & Rao (2004) for a conceptual differentiation between community-based and community-driven development projects.

14. Cf. Follér et al. (2013) for a more detailed discussion of responsibilities and the concept of »(de)responsibilisation« in development cooperation.