Search results

Private actors have, over the past decade, entered the field of development operating in new forms of partnerships with established aid actors. Private actors now constitute a central means and objective of publicly funded development aid, causing a growth in actors operating in the name of development but without being compelled to follow established development discourses or principles. This article explores the formation of one such 'strategic partnership' in northern Ethiopia, between a small publicly funded Norwegian NGO and a multinational corporation. The research draws on several fieldworks in Ethiopia, stakeholder interviews, and project observations in 2018 and 2019, complemented with grey literature review. Using the concept of 'interface', the article explores the various encounters between actors with different rationales and mandates that prove hard to reconcile in practice; the seemingly altruistic development aid drawing on participatory approaches to target beneficiaries' needs is at odds with the corporate logic and accountabilities to shareholders and investors. The partnership and project formations are undermined by the practical encounter of these distinct logics, as the private actor gradually withdraws from joint project operations to maintain its corporate reputation. Any notion of participatory planning and local knowledge – here conceived of in terms of moral economy – are omitted from the project formation process, thus, not only undermining a central principle of aid programming, but also making the publicly funded aid project into a proxy for corporate interests. ; In the name of development? The moral economy of a private sector–NGO partnership in Ethiopia ; Au nom du développement? L'économie morale d'un partenariat secteur privé–ONG en Ethiopie ; publishedVersion

AbstractThe humanitarian–development nexus is increasingly being cast as the solution to humanitarian concerns, new and protracted crises, and to manage complex war-to-peace transitions. Despite widely endorsed amongst policymakers, this nexus presents some challenges to those implementing it. Humanitarian action and development assistance represent two distinct discursive and institutional segments of the international system that are hard to juxtapose. Humanitarianism's apolitical and imminent needs-based approaches building on established humanitarian principles are fundamentally different from the more long-term, political, rights-based approaches of development. As they rub shoulders, as intentionally instigated by the nexus, they affect and challenge each other. These challenges are more acute to the humanitarian domain given the constitutive status of the humanitarian principles, which, when challenged, may cause changes to the humanitarian space and a mission-cum-ethics creep. This article explores the formation and effects of the humanitarian–development nexus as rendered both at the top, amongst policymakers, and from the bottom. The latter explores the discursive transition from conflict to reconstruction in Northern Uganda. Humanitarian organisations' different response to the transition demonstrate more pragmatic approaches to the humanitarian principles and thus how the nexus itself is also formed bottom up and further exacerbates the mission creep.

The humanitarian–development nexus is increasingly being cast as the solution to humanitarian concerns, new and protracted crises, and to manage complex war-to-peace transitions. Despite widely endorsed amongst policymakers, this nexus presents some challenges to those implementing it. Humanitarian action and development assistance represent two distinct discursive and institutional segments of the international system that are hard to juxtapose. Humanitarianism's apolitical and imminent needs-based approaches building on established humanitarian principles are fundamentally different from the more long-term, political, rights-based approaches of development. As they rub shoulders, as intentionally instigated by the nexus, they affect and challenge each other. These challenges are more acute to the humanitarian domain given the constitutive status of the humanitarian principles, which, when challenged, may cause changes to the humanitarian space and a mission-cum-ethics creep. This article explores the formation and effects of the humanitarian–development nexus as rendered both at the top, amongst policymakers, and from the bottom. The latter explores the discursive transition from conflict to reconstruction in Northern Uganda. Humanitarian organisations' different response to the transition demonstrate more pragmatic approaches to the humanitarian principles and thus how the nexus itself is also formed bottom up and further exacerbates the mission creep.

The policy brief is a deliverable from the project "Protection of Civilians. From Principles to Practice", funded by the Norwegian Research Council. This project is associated with the collaborative Norwegian Centre for Humanitarian Studies (NCHS) – www.humanitarianstudies.no ; The instituted order of humanitarianism is both changing and challenged by shifting circumstances in the area in which humanitarian organisations operate. This article addresses the transition between humanitarian action and development aid in Northern Uganda, a transition that was driven by and large by the host government's ambition to reassert its humanitarian sovereignty in the area, enabled by its discursive recast of the situation from one of crisis to one of recovery and development. This recast happened in spite of the persistent humanitarian sufferings and needs in the post-conflict area. Yet, it drove humanitarian donors and organisations to reorient their work. While some withdrew, others moved into more development oriented aid, showing organisational malleability and that the humanitarian principles are losing their regulatory hold over humanitarian action. In response to the transition, some originations payed heed to the sanctity of the humanitarian principles fearing jeopardising the humanitarian space, while other took a pragmatic stance to continue assist the civilians regardless how the situation was being portrayed. Hence, this article, demonstrating the formation of a humanitarian—development nexus, speaks to the wider debates about the relationship between humanitarian principles and pragmatic approaches and the evolving humanitarian mission creep – all central to general debates about the nature and future of humanitarianism.

Ethnography and anthropology are intrinsically linked, but recently other disciplines have started to draw inspiration from anthropological methods. The ongoing ethnographic turn in International Relations has spurred debate on what ethnography is, what it means and entails in practice, and how to apply it in International Relations. Some assert that the ethnographic turn could not have taken place without adopting a selective and antiquated notion of ethnography; others counter that this argument draws on a caricatured version of ethnography. This article offers one anthropologist's reflections on these issues, drawing on ethnographic work within an international organisation and a state apparatus -- both of which are areas of study more common in International Relations than in anthropology. This is not an International Relations turn of anthropology, but the practical and methodological challenges it involves are relevant to the ethnographic turn of International Relations and the disjuncture between the ethnographic ideals and anthropological practice. Adapted from the source document.

Ethnography and anthropology are intrinsically linked, but recently other disciplines have started to draw inspiration from anthropological methods. The ongoing ethnographic turn in International Relations has spurred debate on what ethnography is, what it means and entails in practice, and how to apply it in International Relations. Some assert that the ethnographic turn could not have taken place without adopting a selective and antiquated notion of ethnography; others counter that this argument draws on a caricatured version of ethnography. This article offers one anthropologist's reflections on these issues, drawing on ethnographic work within an international organisation and a state apparatus – both of which are areas of study more common in International Relations than in anthropology. This is not an International Relations turn of anthropology, but the practical and methodological challenges it involves are relevant to the ethnographic turn of International Relations and the disjuncture between the ethnographic ideals and anthropological practice.